Nature Immunology 2, 777 - 780 (2001)
© Nature America, Inc.
Caroline C. Whitacre
Department of Molecular Virology,
Immunology and Medical Genetics, The Ohio State University College of Medicine
and Public Health, Columbus, OH 43210-1239, USA. (Whitacre.3@osu.edu)
Autoimmune diseases are more prevalent in women than men. A new interest in understanding the biology of this difference as well as funding opportunities have focused attention on research priorities in sex differences.
The autoimmune diseases include more than 70 chronic disorders that affect approx. 5% of the US population, a population in which these diseases have been intensively tracked and studied. Well over 100 years ago, when the earliest descriptions of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and multiple sclerosis (MS) were recorded, it was noted that women are affected more often than men. A compilation of some of the more common autoimmune disorders with their sex distribution and incidence figures is shown (Fig. 1). The most striking sex differences are observed in Sjogren's syndrome, SLE, autoimmune thyroid disease (Hashimoto's thyroiditis and well as Graves' disease) and scleroderma, which represent a spectrum of diseases in which the patient population is >80% women (1). There is a middle tier of relatively common diseases that includes rheumatoid arthritis (RA), multiple sclerosis (MS) and myasthenia gravis, in which the sex distribution is 60–75% women. A final group, which includes sarcoid, the more common inflammatory bowel diseases and immune-mediated (type 1) diabetes (also known as insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus or IDDM), are characterized by a female:male ratio that is approaching 1:1. In addition to a difference in prevalence between women and men, it is also recognized that the two sexes exhibit differences in disease presentation.
Figure 1. The sex distribution of the major autoimmune diseases. The numbers above the bars refer to the total number of disease cases (X 1,000,000) in the USA1, (7).
The study of autoimmune diseases has intensified within the past two decades, paralleling the virtual explosion of information and research conducted on the immune system. With an increased understanding of innate immunity, adaptive immune recognition, lymphocyte activation and the principles of immune tolerance, the tools are in place for creative approaches to the treatment and prevention of autoimmune diseases.
In any discussion of differences between men and women, one invariably runs into the debate over use of the words "sex" and "gender". In the biomedical literature, and that dealing with autoimmune diseases is no exception, these two terms are used interchangeably. In fact, the term "gender" is probably used more often, to get away from the reproductive connotation associated with the word "sex". This is almost certainly incorrect. The origins of these terms date to the mid-20th century when scholars spoke of a person's "sex" as being those characteristics attributed to biology, such as sex chromosomes, hormone concentrations and the physiology of sex organs (2). This is in contrast to the term "gender", which refers more to a cultural and social framework that encompasses social interactions, social hierarchies and cultural practices, that is, how one is viewed. In a discussion of autoimmune diseases, a treatment of both sex differences and gender differences is warranted. Here, only "sex" differences will be discussed and will refer to biologically determined properties.
Increased focus on sex differences
Even though the female prevalence
in autoimmune diseases has been recognized for over 100 years, much attention
and research funding has only recently been focused on this area. What
were the key events that led to such increased interest in this topic?
A shift in philosophy and a series of events occurred that had an impact
on the study of sex differences as they relate to autoimmune disease.
First, the way in which autoimmune
diseases are viewed has subtly changed. In the past, each autoimmune disease
was considered individually and had separate medical specialties and funding
organizations (for example, the National Multiple Sclerosis Society (NMMS),
Arthritis Foundation and Lupus Foundation). Researchers working on one
autoimmune disease tended to focus on research questions pertaining only
to that disease and target organ (with some notable exceptions). Because
any single autoimmune disease is relatively rare, this approach resulted
in isolated pockets of research activity, with some diseases intensively
studied, whereas others were relatively neglected. During the 1990s it
was realized that similar immune mechanisms were operative in more than
one autoimmune disease. For example, activation of the CD4+ type 1 helper
T (TH1) cells was shown to be important in the pathogenesis of RA, MS and
IDDM, although the antigenic specificities of the cells in the various
diseases are quite different. The cells themselves, as well as their cytokine
profiles and the overall cytokine milieu of the target organ, were shown
to be important parameters in disease induction, with similarities between
disease states. At the genetic level, additional similarities have been
recognized. A genome-wide screen of RA sibling pairs identified several
genetic regions for RA that also contribute to the overall genetic risk
of SLE, inflammatory bowel disease, MS or ankylosing spondylitis (3).
Accompanying this shift in philosophy
was the formation of the American Autoimmune-Related Diseases Association
(AARDA), which promoted: "... bringing national focus to autoimmunity as
a major health issue, and promoting a collaborative effort among researchers
in order to find a cure for all autoimmune diseases". Learning from the
cancer field, this organization advocated combining individual efforts
to achieve a greater impact and visibility. In so doing, the number of
individuals advocating collectively for increased research on autoimmune
diseases approached 15–30 million.
Along with the change in philosophy
that united research on autoimmune diseases, a series of independent events
helped to further fuel the effort to expand research funding in the area
of sex and gender differences in autoimmune diseases. The US National Institutes
of Health (NIH) sponsored conferences devoted to autoimmune disease, specifically
gender and autoimmunity, which brought together active researchers in the
field. One particular conference was followed by an NIH Program Announcement
in 1996 on "Gender in the pathogenesis of autoimmunity: mechanism", which
was sponsored by six different NIH institutes under the leadership of the
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.
During 1996 and 1997, the NIH Office
of Research on Women's Health held a series of regional and national meetings
to review the NIH scientific agenda for research in the area of women's
health. More than 1500 scientists, clinicians, social scientists, public
policymakers, legislators and advocates came together to examine the achievements
to date and directions for research in women's health for the future. The
six-volume report from these meetings highlighted the importance of sex
differences in normal and abnormal immune function and proposed determining
the effects of sex steroid hormones on the immune response (4).
Another key initiative was the formation
of a Task Force on Gender, Multiple Sclerosis and Autoimmunity by the NMSS
in 1997. This task force brought together researchers and NIH program directors
from diverse fields; these individuals specialized not only in MS but also
in RA, SLE and scleroderma. The task force reviewed the sex-difference
literature (5), developed a research agenda for the field (6) and made
recommendations on funding initiatives that have led to NMSS expenditures
of more than $2.2 million for research on sex and gender differences.
In fiscal year 1998, the United States
House and Senate Appropriations Committee called for the Director of the
NIH to convene a coordinating body for the study of autoimmune diseases,
which would have the aim of synergizing research among the NIH institutes
in this area. The Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee, established
in 1998, brought together representatives from the 22 NIH institutes offices
and centers, the Food and Drug Administration, the Veterans Administration,
the Centers for Disease Control and private organizations sponsoring research
in the area of autoimmune diseases. The report of this committee (7) identified
six areas of particular research opportunity, one of which was "gender
and autoimmunity". In fiscal year 1999, Congress earmarked $30 million
in new appropriations to expand support of autoimmunity research, bringing
the NIH total for that year to $393 million. This money, particularly the
new dollars, supported seven new NIH initiatives and expanded the scope
of other ongoing activities. Prominent among the new programs were two
new initiatives led by the NIAID: the Autoimmunity Centers of Excellence
and the Immune Tolerance Network, a clinical research program that represents
a consortium of institutions in the US and abroad for the purpose of the
clinical evaluation of promising new tolerance therapies.
In November 1999, the Institute of
Medicine formed a blue-ribbon panel named the Committee on Understanding
the Biology of Sex and Gender Differences, which evaluated the current
understanding of sex differences and its implications for disease and biology.
This group worked for 1 year to determine the knowledge base, evaluate
barriers to the conduct of research, and develop strategies to overcome
those barriers. Their report was recently released and contains 14 recommendations
for research priorities as well as addressing barriers to progress (8).
Prominent among those recommendations were "... to monitor sex differences
and similarities in all human disease".
Sex differences and autoimmunity:
the background
Basic immune responses differ between
females and males, with most of the evidence gathered from work done in
rodents. After immunization, female mice produce more antibody and show
more vigorous T cell activation than male mice (9, 10). Similar approaches
in humans, in which responses to vaccination were tested, have yielded
mixed results, with either no differences shown or an increased antibody
response in females (11, 12). It is notable that women have higher absolute
numbers of CD4+ lymphocytes relative to men (13), which likely contributes
to their increased responses. Direct comparisons of cytokine production
under conditions of immunization have shown higher production of TH1 cytokines
in females (14). Cytokine secretion is generally enhanced in vitro in the
presence of estrogen—observed most prominently with interferon-g
(IFN-g), interleukin
1 (IL-1) and IL-10—and decreased in the presence of androgens (IFN-g,
IL-4 and IL-5) (15-17).
The increased prevalence of autoimmune
disease in women, the sexual dimorphism of the immune response and the
modulatory effects of sex steroids on immune function in vitro have
focused attention on the role of these hormones—mainly estrogen, progesterone
and testosterone—as primary mediators of the sex differences. Perhaps the
most striking evidence comes from pregnancy, in which estrogen and progesterone
increase greatly during the third trimester. In both MS and RA, disease
activity decreases throughout pregnancy, but most profoundly during the
third trimester, when estrogen and progesterone concentrations are highest
(18, 19). This is often followed by a flare of disease activity during
the post-partum period, when estrogen and progesterone concentrations fall.
These observations are in contrast to SLE, which appears to either worsen
or remain unchanged during pregnancy (20-22).
This fluctuation of disease activity
during and after pregnancy has been explained by a hormonal environment
during pregnancy that favors a TH2 response. In MS and RA, this environment
may suppress the ongoing TH1 responses to central nervous system and joint
antigens, whereas in SLE, a TH2 environment would enhance antibody production
and possibly exacerbate disease progression. Interestingly, men with RA
have significantly lowered testosterone concentrations (23). An alternative
hypothesis to explain changes in disease during and after pregnancy has
examined the genetic relationship between mother and offspring. Maternal
cells remain present in the offspring and vice versa: offspring
lymphoid cells have been identified in the maternal circulation years after
birth, a situation referred to as microchimerism (24). In situations of
RA improvement during pregnancy, the children were more often disparate
from their mothers at the HLA major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class
II loci, which suggested that immunological recognition of the paternal
MHC class II caused modulation of the maternal autoimmune response (25).
Many of the findings in humans with
autoimmune disease have been borne out in animal models. For example, animals
with collagen-induced arthritis and experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis
(EAE) have decreased signs of disease during pregnancy with exacerbations
of clinical disease activity post-partum (26). Duplication of the
hormonal environment of pregnancy with estriol pellets also suppresses
EAE (27). Manipulation of the hormonal environment by castration of mice
and rats shifts the pattern of disease in IDDM, RA and EAE (26). For example,
castration of male NOD (nonobese diabetic) mice increases the frequency
of IDDM, whereas oophorectomy of females decreases the incidence of disease.
Injection of mice with the male hormone testosterone also suppresses EAE
(28).
The modulatory effects of estrogen
seem to be quite different between normal immune responses measured in
vitro and autoimmune responses observed in vivo, with enhancement of
the former and apparent suppression of autoimmunity. This dilemma was partly
resolved with the realization that estrogen shows biphasic dose effects:
lower doses facilitate immune responses and higher doses, as occur in pregnancy,
suppress such responses (16).
Sex steroids may act directly on
the immune system, modulating aspects of antigen presentation, lymphocyte
activation, cytokine gene expression and/or homing of immune cells. The
identification of estrogen and androgen receptors on immune cells provided
a means for direct communication. Sex steroids also have indirect effects
that must be considered. Sex hormones modulate the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
(HPA) axis and, thus, modulate the stress response, as oorphorectomy results
in decreased corticosterone concentrations, whereas orchidectomy enhances
the corticosterone response (29). Females of many species, including humans,
have higher corticosterone-cortisol concentrations than males do (29, 30);
in addition, glucocorticoids suppress the production of sex hormones and
the action of these hormones in tissues. The sharp spike of corticotropin-releasing
hormone (CRH) and cortisol at parturition undoubtedly participates in the
decline of estrogen postpartum. The discovery of an estrogen-response element
in the promoter region of the gene encoding CRH indicated that these two
hormone systems are inter-regulated. Therefore, the interactions between
the sex hormones, HPA axis and immune system is complex: all these factors
must be considered when studying the sex differences in autoimmunity (Fig.
2).
Figure 2. A model for the multifactorial
nature of autoimmune disease. Sex hormones represent an important modulatory
factor in the immune and autoimmune response. Sex hormones include the
gonadal sex steroids as well as other hormones that indicate differences
between men and women.
Genetics plays a key role in defining
autoimmune disease susceptibility and determining the expression of sex
hormones and neuroendocrine factors. In an individual with a susceptible
genotype, exposure to environmental factors (such as sunlight, diet, allergens,
infectious agents or environmental toxins) can act to initiate an autoimmune
process. Critical modulating factors that can make the difference between
disease expression or not include sex hormones, which can act reciprocally
with hormones of the HPA axis or sympathetic nervous system. All these
factors together affect the immune response to self and foreign antigens
through modulation of cytokine production and effector cell function. The
nature of the antigen and the character of the immune response—that is,
TH1 or TH2—dictate the outcome of the immune response.
Research priorities
To understand sex differences in
autoimmunity, it is first necessary to thoroughly understand sex differences
in the basic immune response. Although some work has been done in this
area, much more research is needed to understand the extent of the differences,
from the earliest stages of antigen exposure to the final effector stages
of immunity, in response to exogenous and self-antigens. Thus, differences
between the stimulation of male and female innate immune responses by pathogens
must also be studied. Within the adaptive immune system, processes such
as lymphoid and myeloid cell development, antigen processing and presentation,
cytokine production, natural killer cell function, tolerance induction
and the regulatory influences on these processes need further clarification
in males versus females.
High among research priorities in
the area of sex differences is determination of the mechanisms by which
the primary sex hormones (estrogens including estriol, progesterone and
testosterone) affect immune function. It is also important to extend mechanistic
studies to other sexually dimorphic hormones, such as prolactin, growth
hormone and insulin-like growth factor. Data on the effects of the sexually
dimorphic hormones and hormone fluctuations on various phases of the immune
response will be insightful.
Another area of high research priority
is understanding the effects of naturally fluctuating hormone concentrations
on the immune and autoimmune responses. The dramatic changes in disease
activity during and after pregnancy that are documented for RA and MS provides
an opportunity to follow disease-relevant immune responses over a relatively
short time-frame. It is essential to determine the events that cause the
post-partum flares of disease activity. Other opportunities for studying
the effects of hormones on immune and autoimmune responses are during the
menstrual cycle, oral contraceptive use and estrogen replacement therapy.
It will be important to focus on the interplay of hormone systems, that
is, sex steroids and stress steroids (CRH and cortisol), because both profoundly
change during pregnancy and parturition and can affect the immune response.
The contribution of genetics to sex
differences in autoimmune disease is currently unexplored. Genetic effects
certainly operate at the level of the MHC in determining susceptibility
to autoimmune disease, but the role of sex hormones in regulating these
genes is not known. Now that the human genome sequence is known, specific
hormone response elements can be localized and new hypotheses generated
about the contribution of steroid hormones to genetic regulation. A new
area in need of further research is the interaction between genetic and
environmental factors.
Human studies of autoimmune disease,
which will be crucial to the success of the priorities outlined above,
will rely on data-sharing between centers. The incidence of many autoimmune
diseases is low, so that any one center may not have a sufficient number
of individuals meeting the criteria for entry into studies. In addition,
it is hoped that the increased attention garnered by the sex difference
area will promote inclusion of additional arms in clinical trials; for
example, trials previously restricted to women may now include a male arm
for comparison.
Never has there been greater interest
and funding opportunities in the area of sex differences in autoimmune
disease than now. At present, there is an NIH request for applications
on "Sex-based differences in the immune response", which is jointly funded
by three NIH institutes, the Office of Research on Women's Health and the
NMSS (29). This initiative calls for research that is broadly inclusive
of all autoimmune diseases. Such funding initiatives, together with separate
thrusts by specialized groups (in RA, SLE, IDDM and MS), provide an opportunity
for significant research advances in the area of sex differences in autoimmunity.
References
1. Beeson, P. B. Am. J. Med. 96,
457-462 (1994). | PubMed
| ISI
|
2. Fishman, J. R., Wick, J. G. &
Koenig, B. A. Agenda for Research on Women's Health for the 21st Century:
NIH Publication 99-4385. Vol.2, 15-19 (NIH, Bethesda, MD, 1999).
3. Jawaheer, D. et al. Am. J. Hum.
Genet. 68, 927-936 (2001). | Article
| PubMed
| ISI
|
4. Collier, E., Diamond, B., Weinblatt,
A. C., Whitacre, C. & Mitchell, K. C. Agenda for Research on Women's
Health for the 21st Century: NIH Publication 99-4386. Vol. 2, 93-100. (NIH,
Bethesda, MD,1999).
5. Whitacre, C. C. et al. Sex Differences
in Autoimmune Disease: Focus on Multiple Sclerosis. Science (1999). http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/983519.shl.
| PubMed
|
6. Whitacre, C. C., Reingold, S.
C. & O'Looney, P. A. & Task Force on Gender, Multiple Sclerosis
and Autoimmunity Science 283, 1277-1278 (1999). | Article
| PubMed
| ISI
|
7. National Institutes of Health
Report of the Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee. (2000) http://www.niaid.nih.gov/publications/autoimmune.htm.
8. Wizemann, T. M. & and Pardue,
M.-L. Exploring the Biological Contributions to Human Health: Does sex
matter? (Board on Health Sciences Policy, Institute of Medicine, 2001).
9. Eidinger, D. & Garrett, T.
J. Exp. Med. 136, 1098-1116 (1972). | PubMed
| ISI
|
10. Weinstein, Y., Ran, S. &
Segal, S. J. Immunol. 132, 656-661 (1984). | PubMed
| ISI
|
11. Michaels, R. & Rogers, K.
Pediatrics 47, 120-123 (1971). | PubMed
| ISI
|
12. Vranckx, R., Muylle, L., Cole,
J., Moldenhaser, R. & Peetermans, M. Vox Sang. 50, 220-222 (1986).
| PubMed
| ISI
|
13. Amadori, A. et al. Nature Med.
1, 1279-1283 (1995). | PubMed
| ISI
|
14. Huygen, K. & Palfliet, K.
Cell. Immunol. 85, 75-81 (1984). | PubMed
| ISI
|
15. Wynn, D., Rodriguez, M., O'Fallon,
W. M. & Kurland, L. T. Neurology 40, 780-786 (1990). | PubMed
| ISI
|
16. Gilmore, W., Weiner, L. &
Correale, J. J. Immunol. 158, 446-451 (1997). | PubMed
| ISI
|
17. Araneo, B., Dowell, T., Diegel,
M. & Daynes, R. Blood 78, 688-699 (1991). | PubMed
| ISI
|
18. Nelson, J. & Ostensen, M.
Rheum. Dis. Clin. N. Am. 23, 195-212 (1997). | ISI
|
19. Confavreux, C., Hutchinson,
M., Hours, M. M., Cortinovis-Tourniaire, P. & Moreau T. N. Engl. J.
Med. 339, 285-291 (1998). | PubMed
| ISI
|
20. Silver, R. & Branch, D.
Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 6, 565-600 (1992).
21. Lockshin, M. Arthritis Rheum.
32, 665-670 (1989). | PubMed
| ISI
|
22. Petri, M. Rheum. Dis. Clin.
N. Am. 20, 87-118 (1994). | ISI
|
23. Spector, T. D. et al. Clin Rheumatol.
8, 37-41 (1989). | PubMed
| ISI
|
24. Nelson, J. L. Lupus 8, 370-374
(1999). | PubMed
| ISI
|
25. Nelson, J. L. et al. N. Engl.
J. Med. 329, 466-471 (1993). | PubMed
| ISI
|
26. Jansson, L. & Holmdahl,
R. Inflamm. Res. 47, 290-301 (1998). | Article
| PubMed
| ISI
|
27. Kim, S, Liva, S. M., Dalal,
M. A., Verity, M. A. & Voskuhl, R.R. Neurology 52, 1230-1238 (1999).
| PubMed
| ISI
|
28. Dalal, M., Kim, S. & Voskuhl,
R. R. J. Immunol. 159, 3-6 (1997). | PubMed
| ISI
|
29. Wilder, R. Annu. Rev. Immunol.
13, 307-338 (1995). | PubMed
| ISI
|
30. Griffin, A. C. & Whitacre,
C. C. J. Neuroimmunol. 35, 53-64 (1991). | PubMed
| ISI
|
© 2001 Nature Publishing Group