Interferons as mediators in ME/CFS

Why does exertion, mental or physical, provoke a delayed symptom aggravation?

If exercise leads to an interferon response that leads to PEM, why do all the other things that cause an interferon response not cause PEM? Presumably exercise doesn't even lead to a particularly pronounced interferon response in comparison to say, infections. It seems that some PWME even feel better during some infections. There has to be something much more specific going on, related to exertion.
 
Last edited:
This popped up in social media today. Don’t know if it’s relevant? I don’t have access.

It might actually have an interesting application, though for the opposite reasons than what it is used for here. It seems that the main justification of injecting mRNA of just interferon-stimulated 10 genes is because the actual interferon response induces a suite of anti-viral genes and a suite of genes that serve to downregulate the interferon response. The latter is basically an in-built self regulatory mechanism to try to tamp things down lest the interferon response gets out of control and causes tissue damage. So what they're doing is directly inducing 10 interferon-stimulated genes with strong anti-viral properties, but not any of the counteracting genes, leading to a more robust response.

(I can't access the paper either, but I'd be curious to read about any detected side effects. It's possible they could have bypassed the negative effects of too much interferon as well, since that mostly seems to be caused by interferon calling in other immune cells that cause the tissue damage.)

It would be interesting if the opposite strategy could work in ME/CFS--an mRNA injection of ISG15, USP18, and other negative regulators of the interferon response. Ideally, if ME/CFS was caused by a failure to re-instate certain "brakes" on constant basal interferon production, and the specific missing "brakes" could be identified, it might be a viable strategy to just deliver those via mRNA rather than go the route of lifelong JAK inhibitor treatment leaving someone immunocompromised.
 
Why does exertion, mental or physical, provoke a delayed symptom aggravation?

If exercise leads to an interferon response that leads to PEM, why do all the other things that cause an interferon response not cause PEM? Presumably exercise doesn't even lead to a particularly pronounced interferon response in comparison to say, infections. It seems that some PWME even feel better during some infections. There has to be something much more specific going on, related to exertion.

It seems to make more sense to evoke some sort of problem in the brain, where interferon could be playing a part, but not the main role.
I'm not sure I understand the question--do you mean why all the other things that cause an interferon response don't cause PEM in healthy people? Or why viruses don't trigger PEM in pwME?

For the latter, viruses do trigger immune responses with symptoms overlapping, but not identical to, PEM. A large part of the difference would be driven by the suite of pathogen-specific immune responses mediated by TLR signaling and adaptive pathogen recognition which would cause new symptoms not seen in PEM (or in response to exercise in healthy people). Many of those immune responses actually counteract interferon to an extent (prostaglandins and IL-1B come to mind), and as I've said elsewhere, many viruses have the ability to counteract the host interferon response during early infection. There would also be differences in location specificity of where the primary interferon response is triggered.

Plus I think it wouldn't be a one-to-one comparison to interferon response in healthy people. Interferon is a self-sensitizer--if there was a baseline difference in interferon levels, that would directly translate to a different magnitude of response to an exercise trigger.

I don't discount the potential role of the brain--I think it's absolutely possible for this phenomenon to occur in multiple tissues, with brain-specific interferon signaling driving a large portion of ME/CFS symptoms. But I do think there is reason to look in the muscle as well, since it presents an easy explanation for PEM triggered by muscle use, it would fit with existing muscle findings (inconsistent though they are), and it's certainly way more accessible than brain tissue.
 
If exercise leads to an interferon response and an interferon response resembles PEM, why do healthy people not report PEM from exercise?
Does this help?:
Plus I think it wouldn't be a one-to-one comparison to interferon response in healthy people. Interferon is a self-sensitizer--if there was a baseline difference in interferon levels, that would directly translate to a different magnitude of response to an exercise trigger.
To add on--let's suppose that the issue in ME/CFS is insufficiently regulated basal interferon signaling in the muscle and brain. That would mean an outsized response to triggers specifically in the muscle and brain (and potentially a sliiightly increased sensitivity in other tissues if there is any low-level leakage into the blood stream), since pre-existing interferon exposure both:
1) increases the concentration and sensitivity of cytosolic DNA sensors that trigger an interferon response to mtDNA in exercise and
2) serves to amplify the positive feedback loop used by interferon.

It would be the difference between setting off a single fire alarm (healthy) vs. a fire alarm that is already linked up with every other fire alarm in the building (ME/CFS).
 
Does this help?:

To add on--let's suppose that the issue in ME/CFS is insufficiently regulated basal interferon signaling in the muscle and brain. That would mean an outsized response to triggers specifically in the muscle and brain (and potentially a sliiightly increased sensitivity in other tissues if there is any low-level leakage into the blood stream), since pre-existing interferon exposure both:
1) increases the concentration and sensitivity of cytosolic DNA sensors that trigger an interferon response to mtDNA in exercise and
2) serves to amplify the positive feedback loop used by interferon.

It would be the difference between setting off a single fire alarm (healthy) vs. a fire alarm that is already linked up with every other fire alarm in the building (ME/CFS).
Could it instead be that it’s the neruons that are sensitised to interferon so they react more than they would normally do interferon within «healthy» ranges? Or that the T cells react that way?

Do we even need abnormal interferon if that’s the case? Maybe abnormal interferon is just something that makes it even worse, but it’s not stricrly required to achieve ME/CFS.
 
I came across this paper earlier in the week when looking for the anaphylaxis paper from Northwestern and it stuck in my head because of the mention of Lupus, but it has Interferons too, and a thread here already


Thanks for the other links @jnmaciuch I have new tabs and bookmarks and lots of reading/listening!
 
Also may or may not be relevant, but I happened across this paper on neurological features in mouse models of lupus that mentioned several synaptic adhesion genes (NLGN1 and 2 specifically mentioned, which came up in the Zhang et al. paper) being interferon stimulated genes in neurons.


Honestly not sure how it relates but something interesting to note nonetheless.

Interesting, in that study neuroligins and neurexins appear to be down in various CNS cells which express batteries of inteferon stimulated genes. That would suggest an inhibition of stable connections between synapses. That would match the direction of the loss of function NLGN I believe seen in Zhang et al, maybe also fits with lower ARFGEF2 from decode. I haven't worked out whether the decode CA10 hit - which supposedly directly modulates neuroligin and neurexin interaction at synapses - would increase or decrease this connection.

cited paper: We observe an almost uniform decrease in components of the type 1 interferon-regulated Neuroligin (Nlgn) – Neurexin (Nrxn) synapse adhesion module across hindbrain astrocytes, hippocampal oligodendrocytes, and most major neuronal clusters, except for the Excitatory Neuron 1 cluster in the hindbrain, and the DG cluster in the hippocampus
 
Could it instead be that it’s the neruons that are sensitised to interferon so they react more than they would normally do interferon within «healthy» ranges? Or that the T cells react that way?

Do we even need abnormal interferon if that’s the case? Maybe abnormal interferon is just something that makes it even worse, but it’s not stricrly required to achieve ME/CFS.
I think a lot of things could theoretically be possible--but my goal here isn't so much to think of all the possible things that could be going wrong. It's more to find a specific mechanism that both explains the symptoms of ME/CFS (at least partially) and explains how it could possibly break in a way that maintains a long-term disease state. That's most likely to lead to a worthwhile testable hypothesis.

That's also why I'm interested in looking at the muscle first--it's easiest and fastest to find out if I'm wrong and need to go back to the drawing board.
 
Would it have to also be in the muscle or could it be solely in the brain? DecodeME points strongly to the brain right? I guess that's harder to test?
I think overall there is debatable positive evidence for origination in either direction. For muscle, the type I interferon story fits very well with the Newton team’s AMPK findings in cultured myoblasts, some of Rob Wust’s findings, even the recent muscle culture preprint from Sheeza Mughal. Plus the fact that we already know the type I interferon response to exercise in healthy people is initiated by mtDNA release in muscle cells specifically. It is also compatible with the lack of observable tissue damage in muscle.

It may well be the brain only—I’m happy to jump to the brain if I disprove myself looking at the muscle. I just think it would be a shame to potentially miss something important in a tissue that’s way easier to access in the first place. Plus it would be way easier to get funding, interest, and good collaborators for an extensive neurological study if we already have a positive indicator that the signal is real and detectable.

And, for what it’s worth, my digging has led me to find an unexpected amount of overlap in terms of the specific regulators of the interferon response in both the brain and muscle tissue. Specific binding proteins for some of the transcription pathways, calcium-dependent signaling, specific E3 ligases, etc. If it is something in the brain related to type I interferon, I’d be surprised if it’s not also reflected in the muscle.
 
And, for what it’s worth, my digging has led me to find an unexpected amount of overlap in terms of the specific regulators of the interferon response in both the brain and muscle tissue. Specific binding proteins for some of the transcription pathways, calcium-dependent signaling, specific E3 ligases, etc. If it is something in the brain related to type I interferon, I’d be surprised if it’s not also reflected in the muscle.
Sounds very interesting!
 
Would it have to also be in the muscle or could it be solely in the brain? DecodeME points strongly to the brain right? I guess that's harder to test?

As @jnmaciuch says, this is a critical question worth trying to settle. Testing muscle isn't easy either because of sample variability and other practical problems but it may be worth pursuing.

I am less impressed by the data so far than jnmaciuch. We have about 50 years of negative findings both in dedicated muscle units and clinical practice and a few positive findings that are a bit hard to interpret. I am not sure what cultured myoblasts can tell us about an acquired regulatory disturbance in muscle if these are newborn cells dividing under artefactual conditions. A genetic difference could have shown up but then there is still a question of what switches disease on.

Nevertheless, I like the idea that the same sort of homeostatic (normally) signal circuits may be operating in some central control compartment and in peripheral target organs like muscle. The immune system can operate like a central control compartment, despite being distributed across many centres, because cells recirculate between these. The brain, via autonomic and neuroendocrine pathways, can operate as a central control. I have difficulty in seeing how muscles could be responsible on their own. (And of course muscle failure isn't the real problem for PWMECFS. Someone with burnt out muscles from myositis or progressive dystrophy may be able to hold down a job and lead a fairly normal life maybe with a motorised chair.)

The argument is something like this: We do have examples of muscles getting stuck in feedback loops but (a) these are local and (b) the loop tends not just to be in the muscle. Examples are overuse tendinitis or enthesopathy, as in tennis elbow, or things like Writer's Cramp Syndrome, which is primarily a neural loop. If ME/CFS involved signal loops in muscle flipping from homeostasis to an 'off-centre' stable disease mode, precipitated by an immune response perhaps, then it is hard to see why this should occur in all muscles, and even harder to see why it should wax and wane in some people over months and years, in all muscles together.

I am thinking that maybe we have to consider all sorts of under-recognised ways that CNS might control signal loops in muscles and other tissues. That might include autonomic signals to brown fat and leptin secretion, MAIT cells trafficking to meninges or subfornical organs, and so on.
 
Apparently interferon signaling gets a high relevance ranking from the best performing #AI reasoning engine I have been working on and there may be more connections with CH25H. @TamaraRC please let me know if CH25H is relevant with your reverse cholesterol transport hypothesis.

From a tweet :
Screenshot 2025-08-15 at 10.46.08.png

According to AI, IFNs+CH25H :

IFNs rewire lipid metabolism (e.g., CH25H→25‑HC, SREBP restraint) and can increase nitro-oxidative stress, compounding PRDX6/PEBP1-driven phospholipid peroxidation. That aligns with low circulating phospholipids and oxidized/lyso-PL accumulation.

The hypothesis now, after incorporating IFNs to the bigger picture :

  • ME/CFS is a genetically primed failure to extinguish an interferon-coupled integrated stress response after a trigger (infection or non-viral/toxic). Mitochondrial and ER damage release danger nucleic acids and misfolded proteins that activate RLR/cGAS–STING and type I/III interferons. Defects in vesicle trafficking and ER‑phagy prevent proper localization and shutdown of these pathways and of IFN receptor signaling. The result is a chronic, low‑grade IFN tone that sustains the ISR (driving elevated FGF21), shifts lipid metabolism toward phospholipid peroxidation and depletion, and propagates immune, microvascular, and neuro-autonomic dysfunction.
Why this fits the genetics (priority-coded)

  • GWAS (highest priority)
    • RABGAP1L, ARFGEF2: Endosome–Golgi–plasma membrane trafficking and receptor recycling. Control STING/TLR movement and IFNAR endocytosis/recycling; impaired trafficking → prolonged or mislocalized IFN signaling and poor resolution.
    • CCPG1: ER‑phagy receptor clearing stressed ER membranes that harbor STING/TLR complexes; inefficiency → sustained IFN and UPR activity.
    • FBXL4: Mitochondrial DNA/biogenesis maintenance; distress releases mtDNA/RNA that drive cGAS–STING/RLR and upregulates mitokines like FGF21.
    • SUDS3: SIN3/HDAC corepressor component shaping global stress/immune transcription, including ISGs; variants bias cells toward persistent “conservation” programs.
    • BTN2A2: Butyrophilin co‑regulator of T and γδ T cells, tuning IFN‑γ and co‑stimulation set‑points.
    • OLFM4: Neutrophil/gut crypt factor linking mucosal innate immunity and type III IFN (IFN‑λ) at barrier sites.
    • CA10: Brain-enriched synaptic modulator; explains central/autonomic phenotypes in the setting of systemic IFN/ISR and vascular change.
  • Tier 1 (high-confidence colocalized; highlights by pathway)
    • IFN sensors/regulators: ZNFX1 (dsRNA sensing/mtRNA handling), TRIM38 (E3 ligase gating TLR/cGAS–STING amplitude/termination), RC3H1/Roquin (post‑transcriptional braking of immune mRNAs), ZBTB37/ZNF322/HMGN4 (chromatin states of ISGs).
    • Trafficking/clearance: KLHL20 (Cullin3 E3; autophagy programs), CSE1L (nuclear/secretory transport), B4GALT5 (glycosphingolipid rafts affecting TLR/IFN signaling domains), STAU1 (stress granules that scaffold RLR signaling), DDX27/ABT1 (ribosome biogenesis coupling to antiviral translation control), DDX27 also impacts nucleolar stress.
    • Mitochondrial/ISR: DARS2 (mt-aaRS; mitochondrial translation stress → ISR/FGF21), ZNFX1 as above.
    • Lipid redox and eicosanoids: PRDX6 (peroxidase/iPLA2; repairs yet consumes phospholipids), PEBP1/RKIP (enables 15‑LOX–PE peroxidation; also modulates NF‑κB/MAPK), HFE (iron redox), PTGIS (prostacyclin synthase; endothelial tone), SERPINC1 (antithrombin; thromboinflammation).
    • Immune co-stimulation/barrier: TNFSF4/OX40L, BTN3A3, VSIG10; SLC9C2 (endosomal/epithelial pH influencing TLR compartments).
    • Additional: GPR52 (CNS cAMP; autonomic modulation), PEBP1 and PEBP1–15‑LOX ferroptotic signaling interface with lipid peroxidation.
  • Tier 2 (nearest-gene where Tier 1 was absent): FBXL4, OLFM4, CCPG1 (also GWAS hits) reinforce the mitochondrial, mucosal, and ER‑phagy axes.


So, what is the way out of this according to AI ? Some text I annotated in red for a reason, discussed below :

Short version: prioritize “resetting” interferon on/off kinetics and clearing the activated signaling membranes, then support membranes/mitochondria and microvasculature. Below are pragmatic levers (prescription and supplement), mapped to the hypothesis. This is research-oriented information, not medical advice; many items are off‑label and require clinician oversight.

  1. Dial down type I/III interferon signaling (the tap)
  • Anifrolumab (anti‑IFNAR1; approved for SLE): directly blocks type I IFN signaling. Most compelling when an IFN gene‑signature is demonstrably high. Infection risk; needs vaccination planning and monitoring.
  • JAK inhibitors (baricitinib, ruxolitinib, tofacitinib): blunt IFN‑STAT signaling downstream of IFNAR. Useful in interferonopathies; risks include infection, thrombosis, lipids—needs careful selection/monitoring.
  • Dimethyl fumarate or diroximel fumarate: NRF2 activators that also covalently inhibit STING palmitoylation, reducing type I IFN output; may help redox balance. Watch for lymphopenia, GI effects, flushing.
  • Amlexanox (TBK1/IKKε inhibitor): reduces IRF3/7‑dependent IFN production; limited clinical experience systemically but oral formulations exist; off‑label with monitoring.
  • Hydroxychloroquine: raises endosomal pH to damp TLR7/9→IFN. Trade‑off: it also impairs autophagic flux (counter to the ER‑phagy goal). If used, pair with strategies that restore lysosome function; monitor retina/QT.
  1. Improve clearance of activated receptors/adaptors (ER‑phagy/lysosome/trafficking)
  • ER stress “chemical chaperones”: TUDCA/UDCA (supplement/Rx) and 4‑phenylbutyrate (Rx) reduce PERK/UPR load and can shorten ISR duration.
  • Autophagy/lysosome enhancers: spermidine, trehalose, urolithin A, low‑dose metformin. Rapamycin can be potent but is immunosuppressive; consider only in trials/specialist care.
  • TFEB pathway support: agents that favor lysosomal biogenesis (trehalose; intermittent fasting protocols if tolerated) to help degrade STING/TLR‑rich membranes.
  • Experimental but promising: nitro‑oleic acid (CXA‑10; Nrf2/anti‑STING) in trials; not widely available yet.
  1. Reduce upstream DAMPs (mtDNA/mtRNA) by stabilizing mitochondria
  • Mitochondria‑targeted antioxidants and membrane stabilizers: elamipretide (where accessible), MitoQ, CoQ10 (often paired with NADH), alpha‑lipoic acid.
  • Mitochondrial biogenesis/translation support: riboflavin, thiamine, L‑carnitine/acetyl‑L‑carnitine, magnesium; NAD+ support (niacinamide or NR) to aid mitophagy/repair.
  • ISR modulators: low‑dose trazodone has PERK‑modulating activity in preclinical work; clinical use would be off‑label and symptom‑driven (sleep), with the ISR angle exploratory.
  1. Limit phospholipid peroxidation and repair membranes
  • Anti‑ferroptotic nutrient triad: selenium (GPX4 cofactor), vitamin E (mixed tocopherols/tocotrienols) with vitamin C to recycle it; add NAC ± glycine (GlyNAC) to raise glutathione.
  • 12/15‑LOX axis restraint: baicalein (natural 12/15‑LOX inhibitor) may reduce PEBP1–15‑LOX phospholipid peroxidation; watch for drug–herb and bleeding interactions.
  • Phospholipid/plasmalogen repletion: high‑purity phosphatidylcholine, ethanolamine plasmalogens, choline donors (CDP‑choline, alpha‑GPC). Balance omega‑3 intake with antioxidants; consider specialized pro‑resolving mediators (SPMs) rather than very high PUFA doses if peroxidation is prominent.
  • Iron handling: check for iron overload in HFE carriers; manage medically if present. Lactoferrin can chelate iron and has antiviral and mucosal benefits.
  1. Stabilize endothelium/microclots and improve oxygen delivery
  • Antithrombo‑inflammatory support: sulodexide (where available) or carefully selected low‑dose aspirin can reduce platelet/endothelial activation; require clinician input given bleeding risk. LMWH/heparin are stronger levers but strictly physician‑managed.
  • Prostacyclin axis: in select cases with clear endothelial dysfunction, specialist‑guided prostacyclin analogs (e.g., iloprost) may help; research context preferred.
  • Nitric oxide support: L‑citrulline or L‑arginine to improve endothelial NO and microvascular flow; monitor blood pressure and headaches.
  1. Mucosal/innate “set‑point” hygiene (to lower upstream IFN triggers)
  • Barrier support and gentle TLR damping: lactoferrin, zinc carnosine, butyrate or tributyrin, targeted probiotics/prebiotics based on stool profile. Treat overt dysbiosis/SIBO medically if present.
How to choose and sequence (practical playbook)

  • Start with safer “resolution support” foundation: TUDCA or 4‑PBA + one autophagy enhancer (spermidine/trehalose/urolithin A) + mitochondrial support (CoQ10±NADH, magnesium, riboflavin) + anti‑peroxidation nutrients (selenium, vitamin E+C, NAC) + membrane repletion (phosphatidylcholine/plasmalogens). Add lactoferrin if mucosal/innate triggers are suspected.
  • If an interferon gene signature is high or flares track with ISGs, consider targeted IFN pathway modulators with a clinician: first DMF (if appropriate), then JAK inhibition or anifrolumab in specialized care. Amlexanox is an alternative production‑side lever.
  • Use biomarkers to guide and verify: whole‑blood ISG panel, FGF21, lipid peroxidation adducts (4‑HNE/MDA), plasma lipidomics (PC/PE vs lyso‑PL/oxidized‑PL), lymphocyte counts (for DMF/JAKs), endothelial/microclot markers. Aim for normalization of ISG kinetics post‑exertion.
  • Timing matters: dose “production‑side” inhibitors (e.g., DMF/amlexanox) and autophagy enhancers ahead of predictable flares or exertion when possible; keep JAK/IFN‑blocking strategies under medical supervision.



Finally, the email I sent to a group of researchers in 2015. Red annotations above can be found as interventions in my email shown below. If this hypothesis and/or its elements holds, I would say I was pretty close to what I used back then which led to my recovery. Please note : This NOT a suggestion for supplementation, only attached for research purposes. Talk to your doctor before any intervention.


email_clean.jpeg
 
Last edited:
And, for what it’s worth, my digging has led me to find an unexpected amount of overlap in terms of the specific regulators of the interferon response in both the brain and muscle tissue. Specific binding proteins for some of the transcription pathways, calcium-dependent signaling, specific E3 ligases, etc. If it is something in the brain related to type I interferon, I’d be surprised if it’s not also reflected in the muscle.
Could it be that the thing that causes PEM is in the brain, but that some of the mechanisms also are present in the muscles so they act up in their own way as well?

So stopping the issues in the muscles might not stop PEM, but stopping the issues in the brain might stop everything?
 
I have no knowledge of interferon whatsoever ;), but it reminded me of Dutch researcher Marjan Versnel. She's new to the field and she's been studying Sjörgen and also IFN-I and she will be studying it in ME as well.

I will send her this thread. Maybe she's interested in joining the discussion.

Here are some bits when interferon is discussed.

“Primary Sjögren’s disease (pSjD) is a systemic autoimmune disease with sicca symptoms as a hallmark and with 70% of patients having debilitating fatigue. Subgroups of ME/CFS also present with autoantibodies against nuclear and membrane structures, have similar sicca symptoms as observed in pSjD and fulfill diagnostic criteria for pSjD (40, 41). Previously, we have shown that activation of the type I interferon (IFN-I) pathway in monocytes of pSjD was associated with higher clinical disease activity scores (42). Subsequently, we linked this IFN-I activity to trained immunity by demonstrating that IFN-I functions as a potent trainer for monocytes (18, 43). In an in vitro model in THP-1 cells, training with IFN-I induced elevated production of IL-6, TNFα and CCL2 and increased glucose consumption upon LPS restimulation (18). These data suggest that IFN-I induces a trained immunity phenotype in pSjD and possibly other disease conditions.”

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1483764/full

"Furthermore, patients with Sjögren’s syndrome experience severe fatigue. In these patients, we conducted research and found what is called a fatigue signature: a whole set of proteins that are present in fatigued patients and not in healthy controls.

We call something like this a fatigue signature. In a group of these patients, we also found an interferon signature. Interferon is a substance produced when you have a viral infection, and in these patients, it is continuously active."
"In addition to the fatigue signature, we also have this interferon signature, and there are many more signatures that we are going to investigate."


About the project: https://projecten.zonmw.nl/en/proje...tification-tool-future-personalized-treatment
 
Last edited:
Chris Ponting shared this list of potential on Bluesky earlier. its an NIHR list of potential MECFS and LC treatments.


In the list of discontinued treatments it means an agent called interferon alpha 2a is mentioned.

Has there been a trial of ifn alpha? If it is responsible for ME symptoms as speculated here then surely giving it to patients would make them feel much worse.
 
I am not sure what cultured myoblasts can tell us about an acquired regulatory disturbance in muscle if these are newborn cells dividing under artefactual conditions. A genetic difference could have shown up but then there is still a question of what switches disease on.
I think that’s precisely why I’m interested in those findings—an acquired signal that persists in culture is pretty much either epigenetic or a self-perpetuating autocrine/paracrine loop, both of which align perfectly with a mechanism of constitutive interferon signaling. Plus, sorting for myoblasts and culturing accounts for most sampling issues with muscle.
If ME/CFS involved signal loops in muscle flipping from homeostasis to an 'off-centre' stable disease mode, precipitated by an immune response perhaps, then it is hard to see why this should occur in all muscles, and even harder to see why it should wax and wane in some people over months and years, in all muscles together.
That’s a great point—the one path forward I could see was if muscle and brain tissue are more dependent on some external factor to fully switch over to constitutive interferon signaling after resolution of infection.

The few studies exploring that switch that I’ve found are all in immune cells unfortunately—but it seems that calcium comes up over and over again as being relevant both for interferon signaling and regulation of mtDNA release (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1359610119300383?via=ihub), so theoretically it makes sense that the two tissues where the most calcium flux occurs might end up being the primary sites of an unresolved response to circulating interferon levels during infection.
 
Back
Top Bottom