Noradrenergic infraslow rhythm during sleep is the critical link between heart-rate dynamics and memory consolidation

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This study examined whether infraslow fluctuations in noradrenaline and in heart rate are coupled and how they are affected by sleep transitions. The authors used the fluorescent NA biosensor GRAB-NE2m in the medial prefrontal cortex of mice to record extracellular NA while also recording EEG and EMG during sleep-wake episodes. They also analyzed previously published human data to reproduce relationships they found between sigma power and RR intervals in mice.

Strengths:

This is an impressive study with significant strengths, as it involves a rich set of data that includes not only observations of associations between heart rate and noradrenergic dynamics but also optogenetic manipulation of the locus coeruleus. Human data is presented to show parallels in the association between sigma power during sleep and phasic heart-rate bursts.

Weaknesses:

(1) Language could be clearer and more precise. As detailed below, in both the introduction and the discussion, the way the hypotheses and study objectives are described could use some revision to be more precise and accurate.

1A) In the introduction on p. 4: The overarching question is framed as "could the peripheral autonomous systems be a read-out of the central LC-NE system and thus be a biomarker of memory consolidation and LC dysfunction?" This gives the impression that the LC function would be the main influence on peripheral autonomous systems. There are, of course, many influences on peripheral autonomous systems, so it would be advisable for the authors to be more specific here about what signal(s) in particular would be predicted to be sensitive markers of LC function.

1B) In the discussion on p. 12: "In this study, we leveraged real-time measurements of mPFC NE levels and HR measurements from EMG recordings in mice to investigate the causal link between the two variables with high temporal resolution in freely moving sleeping mice, with similar inspection in humans." To test the causal link between mPFC NA levels and HR measures, the study would manipulate NA levels just in the mPFC and not elsewhere in the brain. However, in this study, the manipulation occurred in the LC, and so there would be broad cortical changes in NA levels. Thus, it could be that LC activity causes HR changes via a non-PFC pathway.

(2) Comparisons with the control condition need further development.

2A) While the authors did include a key YFP control condition, in the main text no direct statistical comparison between the closed-loop optogenetic stimulation (ChR2) condition and the YFP control condition was reported. (It was reported in Supplementary Figure 2c-d.) Instead, in the main text, the authors only reported that the effects of stimulation were significant in the closed-loop condition and not in the control. However, that is not the same as demonstrating that the two conditions significantly differed from each other, and it is the direct test that is important for the conclusions, so it seems important to include this result in the main presentation.

2B) In addition, the authors should address the issue that the pre-stimulation NE was consistently significantly lower in the YFP condition than in the ChR2 condition (see Supplementary Figure 2c), which is a potential confound.

2C) Direct comparison of the strengths of correlations shown in Figure 2h vs. Supplementary Figure 2f should be included. Currently, we see relatively weak correlations in both ChR2 and YFP conditions, and it is not clear if the relationships differ in the control. It seems they are still present in the control condition but weaker, which would contradict the apparently broad claim on p. 7 that "No such effects were present in the control condition" (it is not entirely clear whether this claim refers to all effects discussed in the figure or just a subset - this language should be clarified).

2D) Did the YFP controls vs. ChR2 animals show any differences in the number of NA states that triggered stimulation in the closed-loop system? With ChR2 animals, stimulation changes NA, which could change future triggering. In YFP animals, nothing changes NA (other than natural fluctuations), so the dynamics of stimulation timing could diverge between groups in a way that complicates interpretation. Specifically, if ChR2 stimulation raises NA and prevents future threshold crossings, ChR2 animals may end up receiving fewer subsequent stimulations than YFP animals (or a different temporal clustering). If the number or pattern of stimulation differed in two groups, it would be important to have a yoked control where matched animals get the same stimulation pattern but not triggered by their own NA.

(3) Some more discussion/explanation of the rationale for the closed-loop approach and how it influences how we should interpret the results could be useful. For instance, currently, it is not clear whether LC stimulation needs to be timed after an NA dip to yield the effects seen.

(4) The section on heart rate decelerations is hard to follow. In particular, I was not sure how to interpret Figure 3f-j. For Figure 3f, what does the middle line represent? The laser onset or the max RR value after laser onset? What is the baseline that is used to correct the values to obtain amplitudes? If it is the whole period before the maximal RR value or the laser onset, wouldn't baseline values differ significantly across conditions and so potentially account for differences seen between conditions in the reported HR decelerations? Larger HR decelerations may be seen in conditions with higher HR simply as a regression to the mean phenomenon.

(5) The findings regarding LC suppression could be further clarified.

5A) Page 8: "observed a response in NE decline" - please be more precise. Did NE decline more or less?

5B) It would be helpful to also show the correlation between NE and RR in the control (YFP) condition and whether there were any differences between YFP and Arch conditions (Figure 4e).

5C) This sentence took me multiple readings to understand - it would be helpful to rewrite to make it clearer: "indicating that, while HR generally did not respond strongly to LC suppression, the variability in RR responses was dependent on NE changes to the suppression (Figure 4e)."

5D) The two colors in Figure 4 are similar and hard to distinguish.

5E) The correlations shown in Figure 4j seem to be driven by just two of the cases. Are the effects significant when outliers are removed?

5D) Page 10: Were there any differences in memory performance between the Arch and YFP conditions?

5E) Page 10: "We found a correlation between RR responses to LC suppression and sigma power, suggesting that a stronger HR reduction response is linked to higher spindle power." It should be noted in the text that the correlation was not specific to sigma (it was also seen for theta and beta, Figure 4i).

(6) It is not clear which of the sigma power and RR interval findings do/do not exactly line up between the mice and humans. It could be helpful to have a table comparing them. For instance, was the finding in humans that pre-HRB sigma power was positively associated with slowing in heart rate after the HRB also seen in mice? Was there evidence in mice (as seen in the human sample) that sleep-dependent memory improvement was associated with pre-HRB sigma power?

(7) Page 18: It is not clear if the sex of mice was balanced across controls and optogenetics groups.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

The major part of this study reproduces previously published findings in both mice and humans and provides incremental analyses on these findings. In essence, the work reaffirms the presence of coordinated infraslow fluctuations in sigma power and heart rate during NREM sleep. It further confirms previous findings that coordination depends on noradrenaline-releasing neurons in the locus coeruleus. Also supporting previously published work in mice and humans, the authors describe a link between the strength of these infraslow fluctuations and memory consolidation in mice and humans.

Strengths:

The authors successfully replicate key previously reported phenomena across both mice and humans. Confirmatory studies and demonstrations of reproducibility are essential for progress in neuroscience. To maximize their value, such studies should clearly acknowledge their confirmatory nature and carefully situate what, in their view, are novel results, going beyond existing literature.

Weaknesses:

The authors' interpretation of their data needs to be revised. Many of their claims regarding the mechanistic basis of their findings and the predictive value of their correlative datasets are not supported by the available evidence.

In the present manuscript, several citations of literature on the work they reproduce lack precision or completeness, which reduces transparency and obscures how the reported findings relate to previously established results.

Author response:

Response to reviewer 1:

We thank reviewer 1 for their thoughtful, detailed, and constructive evaluation of our manuscript. We appreciate their recognition of the strengths of the study, particularly the integration of noradrenergic recordings, optogenetic manipulation, and cross-species analyses. We are especially grateful for the reviewer’s careful attention to clarity, experimental interpretation, and control comparisons. The comments have helped us sharpen the framing of our hypotheses, clarify causal claims, improve statistical reporting, and better explain our closed-loop approach and heart rate analyses. We have addressed each point in detail below and believe that the revisions substantially strengthen the manuscript.

Response reviewer 2:

We thank reviewer 2 for their thoughtful comment regarding citation, positioning relative to prior work, and caution in mechanistic interpretation. We have made efforts to cite relevant foundational and related work throughout the manuscript, but we will of course further clarify the relationship between our findings and prior studies in the revision.

Although prior work has demonstrated infraslow coupling between sigma activity and heart rate and established a role for the locus coeruleus (LC) in coordinating these oscillations, cardiac measures have typically been presented as secondary observations rather than as primary experimental targets. While we of course recognize all the prior efforts conducted, a central goal of the present study was to perform a targeted and highly systematic characterization of norepinephrine-mediated heart-rate dynamics during sleep, integrating infraslow relationships, sleep-wake transitions, and a range of physiological manipulations of LC activity. A major priority of ours was to link infraslow heart-rate fluctuations to the well-known very-low-frequency (VLF) component of heart rate variability (HRV). Within the clinical HRV field, VLF has remained comparatively under-characterized and mechanistically unresolved. Our findings provide a biologically grounded explanation for this component, which we believe may be informative for the broader HRV community.

Second, a core aim of this work is to provide a translational tool: to determine whether cardiac dynamics alone can reflect the infraslow, memory-consolidating potential of sleep and thus serve as a non-invasive biomarker. Because direct LC recordings are not feasible in humans, HRV, including its VLF component, may offer a clinically accessible proxy of sleep’s memory-restorative capacity. By directly manipulating LC activity and demonstrating corresponding changes in heart-rate dynamics, we strengthen the mechanistic and translational rationale of this biomarker approach. Our findings suggest that heart-rate measures alone may provide an estimate of the infraslow memory-consolidating potential of sleep.
In revision, we will ensure that the foundational findings underlying this manuscript are highlighted, while communicating our new findings more clearly.