4.6 Review

Distinct effects of acute and chronic sleep loss on DNA damage in rats

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pnpbp.2009.02.014

关键词

Chronic sleep deprivation; Corticosterone; DNA damage; Rats; Rebound; Single cell gel (comet) assay

资金

  1. Associacao Fundo de Incentivo a Psicofarmacologia (AFIP)
  2. FAPESP [06/58274-5, 2007/01228-4, 07/566206]
  3. CEPID [98/14303-3]
  4. CNPq
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [98/14303-3] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this investigation was to evaluate genetic damage induced in male rats by experimental sleep loss for short-term (24 and 96 h) and long-term (21 days) intervals, as well as their respective recovery periods in peripheral blood, brain, liver and heart tissue by the single cell gel (comet) assay. Rats were paradoxically deprived of sleep (PSD) by the platform technique for 24 or 96 h, or chronically sleep-restricted (SR) for 21 days. We also sought to verify the time course of their recovery after 24 h of rebound sleep. The results showed DNA damage in blood cells of rats submitted to PSD for 96 h. Brain tissue showed extensive genotoxic damage in PSD rats (both 24 and 96 h), though the effect was more pronounced in the 96 h group. Rats allowed to recover from the PSD-96 h and SR-21 days treatments showed DNA damage as compared to negative controls. Liver and heart did not display any genotoxicity activity. Corticosterone concentrations were increased after PSD (24 and 96 h) relative to control rats, whereas these levels were unaffected in the SR group. Collectively, these findings reveal that sleep loss was able to induce genetic damage in blood and brain cells, especially following acute exposure. Since DNA damage is an important step in events leading to genomic instability, this study represents a relevant contribution to the understanding of the potential health risks associated with sleep deprivation. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据