4.6 Article

Genetic and Anatomical Basis of the Barrier Separating Wakefulness and Anesthetic-Induced Unresponsiveness

期刊

PLOS GENETICS
卷 9, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1003605

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R01 GM088156, R01 NS072431]
  2. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  3. University of Pennsylvania's Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics
  4. Whitehall foundation
  5. Harold Amos Medical Faculty Development Program from the R.W. Johnson Foundation
  6. University of Pennsylvania Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A robust, bistable switch regulates the fluctuations between wakefulness and natural sleep as well as those between wakefulness and anesthetic-induced unresponsiveness. We previously provided experimental evidence for the existence of a behavioral barrier to transitions between these states of arousal, which we call neural inertia. Here we show that neural inertia is controlled by processes that contribute to sleep homeostasis and requires four genes involved in electrical excitability: Sh, sss, na and unc79. Although loss of function mutations in these genes can increase or decrease sensitivity to anesthesia induction, surprisingly, they all collapse neural inertia. These effects are genetically selective: neural inertia is not perturbed by loss-of-function mutations in all genes required for the sleep/wake cycle. These effects are also anatomically selective: sss acts in different neurons to influence arousal-promoting and arousal-suppressing processes underlying neural inertia. Supporting the idea that anesthesia and sleep share some, but not all, genetic and anatomical arousal-regulating pathways, we demonstrate that increasing homeostatic sleep drive widens the neural inertial barrier. We propose that processes selectively contributing to sleep homeostasis and neural inertia may be impaired in pathophysiological conditions such as coma and persistent vegetative states.

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