4.7 Article

Sleep disturbances in Ube3a maternal-deficient mice modeling Angelman syndrome

期刊

NEUROBIOLOGY OF DISEASE
卷 20, 期 2, 页码 471-478

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.nbd.2005.04.003

关键词

Angelman syndrome; sleep; EEG power spectra; Ube3a m-/p+ mice

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Angelman syndrome (AS) is a severe neurodevelopmental disorder with electroencephalographic (EEG) abnormalities and sleep disturbances. It results from lack of the functional maternal allele of UBE3A, which encodes a ubiquitin-protein ligase. Different mechanisms of UBE3A inactivation correlate with clinical phenotypes of varying severity; the majority of cases of AS are due to a de novo maternal deletion of the 15q11-q13 region. Methods: Ube3a maternal-deficient mice (Ube3a m-/p+) were generated in a C57BI/6J background. This study compares cortical EEG and architecture of the sleep-waking cycle in adult Uhe3a m-/p+ mice compared with those of age-matched WT (m+/p+) mice, under baseline conditions or after 4-h sleep deprivation (SD). Results: Ube3a m-/p+ mice exhibited: reduced slow-wave sleep (SWS) amount with increase waking (W) at the dark/light transitions; increased SWS and W episode numbers; and deterioration of paradoxical sleep (PS) over 24 h [amount: -44%; episode duration: -46%; episode number: -40%; theta peak frequency (TPF) acceleration: 7.6 Hz vs. 7.0 Hz in WT mice]. Characteristic paroxysmal EEG discharges are observed during W and SWS associated with synchronous muscle bursting activity during hypoactive W. During the recovery period following SD, Ube3a m-/p+ mice exhibited no rebound either in slow-wave activity (+89% in WT) or in delta-power spectra but a slight rebound in PS amount (+20%). Conclusions: These data validate the mouse model produced by null mutation of the maternal Ube3a gene and provide useful results to investigate and better understand the molecular basis of sleep disturbances in AS patients. (c) 2005 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

4.7
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