Abstract

Sleep is an essential and phylogenetically conserved behavioral state, but it remains unclear to what extent genes identified in invertebrates also regulate vertebrate sleep. RFamide-related neuropeptides have been shown to promote invertebrate sleep, and here we report that the vertebrate hypothalamic RFamide neuropeptide VF (NPVF) regulates sleep in the zebrafish, a diurnal vertebrate. We found that NPVF signaling and npvf-expressing neurons are both necessary and sufficient to promote sleep, that mature peptides derived from the NPVF preproprotein promote sleep in a synergistic manner, and that stimulation of npvf-expressing neurons induces neuronal activity levels consistent with normal sleep. These results identify NPVF signaling and npvf-expressing neurons as a novel vertebrate sleep-promoting system and suggest that RFamide neuropeptides participate in an ancient and central aspect of sleep control.

Data availability

The following previously published data sets were used

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Daniel A Lee

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7411-2740
  2. Andrey Andreev

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Thai V Truong

    Translational Imaging Center, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Audrey Chen

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Andrew J Hill

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Grigorios Oikonomou

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Uyen Pham

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Young K Hong

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Steven Tran

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Laura Glass

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Viveca Sapin

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Jae Engle

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Scott E Fraser

    Department of Bioengineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  14. David A Prober

    Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, United States
    For correspondence
    dprober@caltech.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-7371-4675

Funding

National Institutes of Health (F32NS084769)

  • Daniel A Lee

National Institutes of Health (NS070911)

  • David A Prober

National Institutes of Health (DA031367)

  • David A Prober

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (25392)

  • Daniel A Lee

Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation

  • Scott E Fraser

Edward Mallinckrodt, JR Foundation

  • David A Prober

Rita Allen Foundation

  • David A Prober

Brain and Behavior Research Foundation

  • David A Prober

National Institutes of Health (K99NS097683)

  • Daniel A Lee

National Institutes of Health (F32NS082010)

  • Grigorios Oikonomou

National Institutes of Health (MH107238)

  • Scott E Fraser

National Institutes of Health (NS060996)

  • David A Prober

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

Reviewing Editor

  1. Yang Dan, University of California, Berkeley, 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 experiments were performed using standard protocols (Westerfield, 1993) in accordance with the California Institute of Technology and University of Southern California Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee guidelines.

Version history

  1. Received: February 3, 2017
  2. Accepted: November 3, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 6, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: November 28, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2017, Lee 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

  • 4,160
    views
  • 559
    downloads
  • 50
    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. Daniel A Lee
  2. Andrey Andreev
  3. Thai V Truong
  4. Audrey Chen
  5. Andrew J Hill
  6. Grigorios Oikonomou
  7. Uyen Pham
  8. Young K Hong
  9. Steven Tran
  10. Laura Glass
  11. Viveca Sapin
  12. Jae Engle
  13. Scott E Fraser
  14. David A Prober
(2017)
Genetic and neuronal regulation of sleep by neuropeptide VF
eLife 6:e25727.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25727

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.25727

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Taicheng Huang, Jia Liu
    Research Article

    The fact that objects without proper support will fall to the ground is not only a natural phenomenon, but also common sense in mind. Previous studies suggest that humans may infer objects’ stability through a world model that performs mental simulations with a priori knowledge of gravity acting upon the objects. Here we measured participants’ sensitivity to gravity to investigate how the world model works. We found that the world model on gravity was not a faithful replica of the physical laws, but instead encoded gravity’s vertical direction as a Gaussian distribution. The world model with this stochastic feature fit nicely with participants’ subjective sense of objects’ stability and explained the illusion that taller objects are perceived as more likely to fall. Furthermore, a computational model with reinforcement learning revealed that the stochastic characteristic likely originated from experience-dependent comparisons between predictions formed by internal simulations and the realities observed in the external world, which illustrated the ecological advantage of stochastic representation in balancing accuracy and speed for efficient stability inference. The stochastic world model on gravity provides an example of how a priori knowledge of the physical world is implemented in mind that helps humans operate flexibly in open-ended environments.

    1. Neuroscience
    Geoffroy Delamare, Yosif Zaki ... Claudia Clopath
    Short Report

    Representational drift refers to the dynamic nature of neural representations in the brain despite the behavior being seemingly stable. Although drift has been observed in many different brain regions, the mechanisms underlying it are not known. Since intrinsic neural excitability is suggested to play a key role in regulating memory allocation, fluctuations of excitability could bias the reactivation of previously stored memory ensembles and therefore act as a motor for drift. Here, we propose a rate-based plastic recurrent neural network with slow fluctuations of intrinsic excitability. We first show that subsequent reactivations of a neural ensemble can lead to drift of this ensemble. The model predicts that drift is induced by co-activation of previously active neurons along with neurons with high excitability which leads to remodeling of the recurrent weights. Consistent with previous experimental works, the drifting ensemble is informative about its temporal history. Crucially, we show that the gradual nature of the drift is necessary for decoding temporal information from the activity of the ensemble. Finally, we show that the memory is preserved and can be decoded by an output neuron having plastic synapses with the main region.