Sleep: To rebound or not to rebound

Sexual arousal in flies counteracts the effects of sleep deprivation.
  1. Bethany A Stahl
  2. Alex C Keene  Is a corresponding author
  1. Florida Atlantic University, United States

How do we know we are tired and that it is time to sleep, and why can we go without sleep when we are excited? Usually, after a sleepless night, we make up for it the following day by taking a nap (if possible) or by going to bed earlier – a process referred to as rebound sleep. According to a long-standing model, this need to catch up on our sleep is modulated by two distinct mechanisms: the sleep homeostat, which controls how much we sleep, and the circadian clock, which dictates when we sleep (Borbély, 1982). While this model lays the foundation for understanding how sleep is regulated, it neglects a variety of other social, emotional and environmental factors that impact on sleep.

Sleep is highly conserved throughout the animal kingdom at both the genetic and the functional level. Some species are also known to skip sleep in favor of migration, mating or other social interactions. Flies, for example, can forgo sleep when they are exposed to mechanical stimulation or social interactions, which makes them a popular model for studying the regulation of sleep (Gilestro et al., 2009). Now, in eLife, Giorgio Gilestro of Imperial College and co-workers – Esteban Beckwith as first author, Quentin Geissmann and Alice French – report new insights into how sexual arousal in flies affects their need for sleep (Beckwith et al., 2017).

To examine how 'social sleep deprivation' affects rebound sleep, Beckwith et al. exposed the flies to different social scenarios. First, they placed a male fly into an arena that already contained a male resident. The presence of another male caused the resident to lose sleep, but he caught up via rebound sleep once the male intruder had been removed (Figure 1). The resident also lost sleep when a receptive female fly was introduced, but he did not catch up via rebound sleep once the female was removed. This suggests that the sexual arousal induced by the female fly was sufficient to override any need for the male to catch up after a sleepless night.

The effect of social interactions on rebound sleep in flies.

Top panel: A male fly that has been deprived of sleep (red eye) by a male intruder (white eye) catches up on sleep the following day (rebound sleep). Bottom panel: Conversely, a male fly that has been deprived of sleep by pairing with a receptive female suppresses its need for sleep the following day, probably due to still being in a sexually aroused state (bottom panel).

What allows sexual arousal to overcome rebound sleep? Fly courtship is a multisensory experience that involves visual, tactile, acoustic and pheromonal cues. Beckwith et al. found that exposing male flies to female pheromones, or transferring them into tubes that previously contained a female fly, was sufficient to suppress rebound sleep.

To get to the bottom of why sexually aroused males did not catch up on lost sleep, Beckwith et al. looked deeper into the fly brain. Previous research has shown that male flies sense certain pheromones through neurons (and their receptor proteins) on their forelegs – this is why male flies repeatedly tap female flies with their legs during courtship. Beckwith et al. discovered that when males lacked the pheromone receptor pickpocket 23 on these leg neurons, they did not notice the pheromones and rebound sleep occurred.

Moreover, the results showed that a specific cluster of neurons, called P1 neurons, are critical for courtship-suppressed sleep. When these neurons were stimulated, rebound sleep was inhibited. Taken together, these findings suggest that pickpocket 23 neurons detect pheromones and then activate P1 neurons which, in turn, suppress sleep and prevent rebound sleep.

To better understand the mechanisms underlying the sexual arousal vs. sleep trade-off, we need to identify how pheromone circuits interface with sleep centers in the brain to modulate behavior. Two other recent papers shed light on this issue. In males, P1 neurons are activated by contact with females, and Chen et al. have shown that these neurons are connected with a set of wake-promoting neurons (Chen et al., 2017). In a separate study, Machado et al. discovered another pair of wake-promoting neurons that directly modulate courtship circuits (Machado et al., 2017).

Despite this progress, two central questions persist: how is the need for sleep sensed, and is sleep loss centrally integrated within the brain? So far, researchers have discovered many different neuronal circuits for sleep homeostasis within the fly brain, which could be directly or indirectly affected by sexual arousal and result in suppressed rebound sleep (Liu et al., 2016; Pimentel et al., 2016; Seidner et al., 2015). Identifying the neural circuits that regulate sleep and courtship will serve as a framework for determining the molecular sensors that know when we need to sleep.

Together, these findings highlight the integrated nature of sleep, and the way it is affected by the internal clock, the need for sleep and external factors, such as arousal. However, there is much that we do not know: for example, how do other external influences, such as stress, excitement or caffeine consumption, affect sleep loss and rebound sleep? Answering these questions will shed light on the basic functions of sleep.

References

    1. Borbély AA
    (1982)
    A two process model of sleep regulation
    Human Neurobiology 1:195–204.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Bethany A Stahl

    Bethany A Stahl is in the Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, United States

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
  2. Alex C Keene

    Alex C Keene is in the Department of Biological Sciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, United States

    For correspondence
    keenea@fau.edu
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6118-5537

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: October 6, 2017 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2017, Stahl et al.

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

Metrics

  • 1,431
    Page views
  • 116
    Downloads
  • 1
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

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. Bethany A Stahl
  2. Alex C Keene
(2017)
Sleep: To rebound or not to rebound
eLife 6:e31646.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.31646
  1. Further reading

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Genetics and Genomics
    Raquel Dias, Doug Evans ... Ali Torkamani
    Research Article

    Genotype imputation is a foundational tool for population genetics. Standard statistical imputation approaches rely on the co-location of large whole-genome sequencing-based reference panels, powerful computing environments, and potentially sensitive genetic study data. This results in computational resource and privacy-risk barriers to access to cutting-edge imputation techniques. Moreover, the accuracy of current statistical approaches is known to degrade in regions of low and complex linkage disequilibrium. Artificial neural network-based imputation approaches may overcome these limitations by encoding complex genotype relationships in easily portable inference models. Here we demonstrate an autoencoder-based approach for genotype imputation, using a large, commonly used reference panel, and spanning the entirety of human chromosome 22. Our autoencoder-based genotype imputation strategy achieved superior imputation accuracy across the allele-frequency spectrum and across genomes of diverse ancestry, while delivering at least 4-fold faster inference run time relative to standard imputation tools.

    1. Cancer Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Pan Cheng, Xin Zhao ... Teresa Davoli
    Research Article

    How cells control gene expression is a fundamental question. The relative contribution of protein-level and RNA-level regulation to this process remains unclear. Here, we perform a proteogenomic analysis of tumors and untransformed cells containing somatic copy number alterations (SCNAs). By revealing how cells regulate RNA and protein abundances of genes with SCNAs, we provide insights into the rules of gene regulation. Protein complex genes have a strong protein-level regulation while non-complex genes have a strong RNA-level regulation. Notable exceptions are plasma membrane protein complex genes, which show a weak protein-level regulation and a stronger RNA-level regulation. Strikingly, we find a strong negative association between the degree of RNA-level and protein-level regulation across genes and cellular pathways. Moreover, genes participating in the same pathway show a similar degree of RNA- and protein-level regulation. Pathways including translation, splicing, RNA processing, and mitochondrial function show a stronger protein-level regulation while cell adhesion and migration pathways show a stronger RNA-level regulation. These results suggest that the evolution of gene regulation is shaped by functional constraints and that many cellular pathways tend to evolve one predominant mechanism of gene regulation at the protein level or at the RNA level.