4.5 Article

Basal ganglia control of sleep-wake behavior and cortical activation

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 31, 期 3, 页码 499-507

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.07062.x

关键词

globus pallidus; ibotenic acid; sleep-wake cycle; striatum; ultradian oscillation

资金

  1. China Scholarship Council [2007106568]
  2. [NS 051609]
  3. [NS 062727]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The basal ganglia (BG) are involved in numerous neurobiological processes that operate on the basis of wakefulness, including motor function, learning, emotion and addictive behaviors. We hypothesized that the BG might play an important role in the regulation of wakefulness. To test this prediction, we made cell body-specific lesions in the striatum and globus pallidus (GP) using ibotenic acid. We found that rats with striatal (caudoputamen) lesions exhibited a 14.95% reduction in wakefulness and robust fragmentation of sleep-wake behavior, i.e. an increased number of state transitions and loss of ultra-long wake bouts (> 120 min). These lesions also resulted in a reduction in the diurnal variation of sleep-wakefulness. On the other hand, lesions of the accumbens core resulted in a 26.72% increase in wakefulness and a reduction in non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep bout duration. In addition, rats with accumbens core lesions exhibited excessive digging and scratching. GP lesions also produced a robust increase in wakefulness (45.52%), and frequent sleep-wake transitions and a concomitant decrease in NREM sleep bout duration. Lesions of the subthalamic nucleus or the substantia nigra reticular nucleus produced only minor changes in the amount of sleep-wakefulness and did not alter sleep architecture. Finally, power spectral analysis revealed that lesions of the striatum, accumbens and GP slowed down the cortical electroencephalogram. Collectively, our results suggest that the BG, via a cortico-striato-pallidal loop, are important neural circuitry regulating sleep-wake behaviors and cortical activation.

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

4.5
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