Fever Increases Numbers of Immune Cells

Fever can play a variety of roles, such as inhibiting pathogen replication. It also apparently increases the population of killer T cells of the immune system. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

I've always thought that when I get a fever, it's my body trying to make things uncomfortable for the invading pathogen. And that's often true—higher temperatures can inhibit the bad guys' ability to replicate. But my fever may actually be a one-two-punch. In addition to slowing down the invader, the heat helps the immune system recruit more troops for a counter-attack. That finding appears in the Journal of Leukocyte Biology. [Thomas A. Mace et al., "Differentiation of CD8+ T cells into effector cells is enhanced by physiological range hyperthermia"]

Researchers warmed up one group of mice to body temperatures of about 103 degrees Fahrenheit. They left another group at normal core temperature—about the same as ours. Then they injected both groups of mice with an antigen, a substance that attracts the attention of the immune system.

Blood samples taken three days later revealed that the feverish mice had nearly twice as many killer T cells: the kind of immune cells that can hunt down infected cells or tumor cells, and slaughter them.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So when you're sick and you get the chills, the authors say, your body may be trying to tell you to hop under some blankets. Lie down, warm up and send a message. The heat is on.

—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe