Sleep deprivation causes memory deficits by negatively impacting neuronal connectivity in hippocampal area CA1

  1. Robbert Havekes  Is a corresponding author
  2. Alan J Park
  3. Jennifer C Tudor
  4. Vincent G Luczak
  5. Rolf T Hansen
  6. Sarah L Ferri
  7. Vibeke M Bruinenberg
  8. Shane G Poplawski
  9. Jonathan P Day
  10. Sara J Aton
  11. Kasia Radwańska
  12. Peter Meerlo
  13. Miles D Houslay
  14. George S Baillie
  15. Ted Abel  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Pennsylvania, United States
  2. Columbia University, United States
  3. University of Groningen, Netherlands
  4. University of Glasgow, United Kingdom
  5. University of Michigan, United States
  6. Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Poland
  7. King's College London, United Kingdom

Abstract

Brief periods of sleep loss have long-lasting consequences such as impaired memory consolidation. Structural changes in synaptic connectivity have been proposed as a substrate of memory storage. Here, we examine the impact of brief periods of sleep deprivation on dendritic structure. In mice, we find that five hours of sleep deprivation decreases dendritic spine numbers selectively in hippocampal area CA1 and increased activity of the filamentous actin severing protein cofilin. Recovery sleep normalizes these structural alterations. Suppression of cofilin function prevents spine loss, deficits in hippocampal synaptic plasticity, and impairments in long-term memory caused by sleep deprivation. The elevated cofilin activity is caused by cAMP-degrading phosphodiesterase-4A5 (PDE4A5), which hampers cAMP-PKA-LIMK signaling. Attenuating PDE4A5 function prevents changes in cAMP-PKA-LIMK-cofilin signaling and cognitive deficits associated with sleep deprivation. Our work demonstrates the necessity of an intact cAMP-PDE4-PKA-LIMK-cofilin activation-signaling pathway for sleep deprivation-induced memory disruption and reduction in hippocampal spine density.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Robbert Havekes

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    r.havekes@rug.nl
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Alan J Park

    Department of Psychiatry, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Jennifer C Tudor

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3826-3012
  4. Vincent G Luczak

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Rolf T Hansen

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Sarah L Ferri

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Vibeke M Bruinenberg

    Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Shane G Poplawski

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Jonathan P Day

    Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Sara J Aton

    LSA Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Kasia Radwańska

    Laboratory of Molecular Basis of Behavior, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Warsaw, Poland
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Peter Meerlo

    Groningen Institute for Evolutionary Life Sciences, University of Groningen, Groningen, Netherlands
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Miles D Houslay

    Institute of Pharmaceutical Science, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. George S Baillie

    Institute of Cardiovascular and Medical Science, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  15. Ted Abel

    Department of Biology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, United States
    For correspondence
    abele@sas.upenn.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-2423-4592

Funding

National Institutes of Health (1RO1MH086415)

  • Ted Abel

National Institutes of Health (RO1, AG017628)

  • Ted Abel

Netherlands organization for Scientific Research (postdoctoral fellowship 825.07.029)

  • Robbert Havekes

University of Pennsylvania (UPENN rsearch foundation grant)

  • Robbert Havekes
  • Ted Abel

National Institutes of Health (postdoctoral fellowship, 5K12GM081529)

  • Jennifer C Tudor

National Institutes of Health (postdoctoral fellowship, T32 NS077413)

  • Sarah L Ferri

European Commission (FP7-PEOPLE-2009-RG-Alco_CaMK)

  • Kasia Radwańska

NCN grant Harmonia 2013/08/m/NZ3/00861 (Research grant)

  • Kasia Radwańska

Medical Research Council (Grant MR/J007412/1)

  • George S Baillie

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Joseph S Takahashi, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC protocols 804240, 804407, 802784) of the University of Pennsylvania and Head Necki Institute of Experimental Biology, Warsaw.

Version history

  1. Received: December 1, 2015
  2. Accepted: July 29, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: August 23, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: August 24, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record updated: August 26, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Havekes et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 20,794
    views
  • 2,166
    downloads
  • 183
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Robbert Havekes
  2. Alan J Park
  3. Jennifer C Tudor
  4. Vincent G Luczak
  5. Rolf T Hansen
  6. Sarah L Ferri
  7. Vibeke M Bruinenberg
  8. Shane G Poplawski
  9. Jonathan P Day
  10. Sara J Aton
  11. Kasia Radwańska
  12. Peter Meerlo
  13. Miles D Houslay
  14. George S Baillie
  15. Ted Abel
(2016)
Sleep deprivation causes memory deficits by negatively impacting neuronal connectivity in hippocampal area CA1
eLife 5:e13424.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13424

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.13424

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Anja T Zai, Anna E Stepien ... Richard HR Hahnloser
    Research Article

    Songbirds’ vocal mastery is impressive, but to what extent is it a result of practice? Can they, based on experienced mismatch with a known target, plan the necessary changes to recover the target in a practice-free manner without intermittently singing? In adult zebra finches, we drive the pitch of a song syllable away from its stable (baseline) variant acquired from a tutor, then we withdraw reinforcement and subsequently deprive them of singing experience by muting or deafening. In this deprived state, birds do not recover their baseline song. However, they revert their songs toward the target by about 1 standard deviation of their recent practice, provided the sensory feedback during the latter signaled a pitch mismatch with the target. Thus, targeted vocal plasticity does not require immediate sensory experience, showing that zebra finches are capable of goal-directed vocal planning.

    1. Neuroscience
    Amanda Chu, Nicholas T Gordon ... Michael A McDannald
    Research Article Updated

    Pavlovian fear conditioning has been extensively used to study the behavioral and neural basis of defensive systems. In a typical procedure, a cue is paired with foot shock, and subsequent cue presentation elicits freezing, a behavior theoretically linked to predator detection. Studies have since shown a fear conditioned cue can elicit locomotion, a behavior that – in addition to jumping, and rearing – is theoretically linked to imminent or occurring predation. A criticism of studies observing fear conditioned cue-elicited locomotion is that responding is non-associative. We gave rats Pavlovian fear discrimination over a baseline of reward seeking. TTL-triggered cameras captured 5 behavior frames/s around cue presentation. Experiment 1 examined the emergence of danger-specific behaviors over fear acquisition. Experiment 2 examined the expression of danger-specific behaviors in fear extinction. In total, we scored 112,000 frames for nine discrete behavior categories. Temporal ethograms show that during acquisition, a fear conditioned cue suppresses reward seeking and elicits freezing, but also elicits locomotion, jumping, and rearing – all of which are maximal when foot shock is imminent. During extinction, a fear conditioned cue most prominently suppresses reward seeking, and elicits locomotion that is timed to shock delivery. The independent expression of these behaviors in both experiments reveals a fear conditioned cue to orchestrate a temporally organized suite of behaviors.