4.6 Article

Catecholamine neurones in rats modulate sleep, breathing, central chemoreception and breathing variability

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHYSIOLOGY-LONDON
Volume 570, Issue 2, Pages 385-396

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1113/jphysiol.2005.099325

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [HL 28066, R37 HL028066, R01 HL028066] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Brainstem catecholamine (CA) neurones have wide projections and an arousal-state-dependent activity pattern. They are thought to modulate the processing of sensory information and also participate in the control of breathing. Mice with lethal genetic defects that include CA neurones have abnormal respiratory control at birth. Also the A6 region (locus coeruleus), which contains CA neurones sensitive to CO(2)in vitro, is one of many putative central chemoreceptor sites. We studied the role of CA neurones in the control of breathing during sleep and wakefulness by specifically lesioning them with antidopamine beta-hydroxylase-saporin (DBH-SAP) injected via the 4th ventricle. After 3 weeks there was a 73-84% loss of A5, A6 and A7 tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) immunoreactive (ir) neurones along with 56-60% loss of C1 and C2 phenyl ethanolamine-N-methyltransferase (PNMT)-ir neurones. Over the 3 weeks, breathing frequency decreased significantly during air and 3 or 7% CO2 breathing in both wakefulness and non-REM (NREM) sleep. The rats spent significantly less time awake and more time in NREM sleep. REM sleep time was unaffected. The ventilatory response to 7% CO2 was reduced significantly in wakefulness at 7, 14 and 21 days (-28%) and in NREM sleep at 14 and 21 days (-26%). Breathing variability increased in REM sleep but not in wakefulness or NREM sleep. We conclude that CA neurones (1) promote wakefulness, (2) participate in central respiratory chemoreception, (3) stimulate breathing frequency, and (4) minimize breathing variability in REM sleep.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available