Angst und Schlaflosigkeit schwächen nachweislich das Immunsystem und machen uns anfälliger für Krankheiten. Neue Erkenntnisse zeigten, dass bei jungen Frauen das Auftreten von Schlaflosigkeit oder Angstsymptomen die Anzahl der natürlichen Killerzellen, der Abwehrmaschinerie unseres Körpers, verringern kann.
https://www.frontiersin.org/news/2025/12/10/anxiety-insomnia-natural-killer-cell-immune-function
2 Kommentare
I’ve linked to the press release in the post above. In this comment, for those interested, here’s the link to the peer reviewed journal article:
https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1698155/full
From the linked article:
**Anxiety and insomnia may lower natural killer cell count, potentially repressing immune function**
Anxiety and insomnia have been shown to weaken the immune system and make us more prone to disease. Now, researchers found that this may be because **experiencing symptoms of either can reduce the number of natural killer cells, our bodies’ machinery for defense**. Their findings showed that in young women who experience insomnia symptoms, the number of total NK cells was lower. If they experienced anxiety symptoms, the number of NK cells that circulate through the body was lower. These findings could inform the development of novel strategies to raise awareness about the physiological consequences of anxiety and insomnia and help in the prevention of immune-related disorders and cancers, the team said.
Natural killer (NK) cells are the bodyguards of our immune system. As a first line of defense, they destroy invading pathogens, foreign bodies, and infected cells in early stages, thereby preventing them from spreading. NK cells can circulate within the blood stream (circulatory) or reside in tissue and organs. Having too few NK cells can lead to immune system dysfunction and increase susceptibility to disease.
I wish it were standard policy to specify “This is only true for females because we tested males as well and didn’t see the same effect in the males” versus “We know this is true in females because we studied them but we don’t know for males because they weren’t included in the study, but presumably the effects are also true for them” in the title or at least in the first paragraph.
Those are two very different conclusions to leave the reader with. (In this case, it’s Scenario B – they only studied females.)
Because we keep ending up with articles with titles like “Women don’t enjoy having the flu”, as if men *do*. Grice’s Maxim of Relevance means that the reader assumes that if you’re going to mention the patients’ sex, you should do so because the conclusion is only relevant for that one sex, or you could have just phrased it “People”, and then clarified early on that you only studied women.
Or just include both men and women in the study to begin with? Now I’m wondering why they chose exclusively female participants.