STUDY OBJECTIVES: Assessment of sleep and its substages in mice currently requires implantation of chronic electrodes for measurement of electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG). This is not ideal for high-throughput screening. To address this deficiency, we present a novel method based on digital video analysis. This methodology extends previous approaches that estimate sleep and wakefulness without EEG/EMG in order to now discriminate rapid eye movement (REM) from non-REM (NREM) sleep. DESIGN: Studies were conducted in 8 male C57BL/6J mice. EEG/EMG were recorded for 24 hours and manually scored in 10-second epochs. Mouse behavior was continuously recorded by digital video at 10 frames/second. Six variables were extracted from the video for each 10-second epoch (i.e., intraepoch mean of velocity, aspect ratio, and area of the mouse and intraepoch standard deviation of the same variables) and used as inputs for our model. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We focus on estimating features of REM (i.e., time spent in REM, number of bouts, and median bout length) as well as time spent in NREM and WAKE. We also consider the model's epoch-by-epoch scoring performance relative to several alternative approaches. Our model provides good estimates of these features across the day both when averaged across mice and in individual mice, but the epoch-by-epoch agreement is not as good. CONCLUSIONS: There are subtle changes in the area and shape (i.e., aspect ratio) of the mouse as it transitions from NREM to REM, likely due to the atonia of REM, thus allowing our methodology to discriminate these two states. Although REM is relatively rare, our methodology can detect it and assess the amount of REM sleep.
STUDY OBJECTIVES: Assessment of sleep and its substages in mice currently requires implantation of chronic electrodes for measurement of electroencephalogram (EEG) and electromyogram (EMG). This is not ideal for high-throughput screening. To address this deficiency, we present a novel method based on digital video analysis. This methodology extends previous approaches that estimate sleep and wakefulness without EEG/EMG in order to now discriminate rapid eye movement (REM) from non-REM (NREM) sleep. DESIGN: Studies were conducted in 8 male C57BL/6J mice. EEG/EMG were recorded for 24 hours and manually scored in 10-second epochs. Mouse behavior was continuously recorded by digital video at 10 frames/second. Six variables were extracted from the video for each 10-second epoch (i.e., intraepoch mean of velocity, aspect ratio, and area of the mouse and intraepoch standard deviation of the same variables) and used as inputs for our model. MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS: We focus on estimating features of REM (i.e., time spent in REM, number of bouts, and median bout length) as well as time spent in NREM and WAKE. We also consider the model's epoch-by-epoch scoring performance relative to several alternative approaches. Our model provides good estimates of these features across the day both when averaged across mice and in individual mice, but the epoch-by-epoch agreement is not as good. CONCLUSIONS: There are subtle changes in the area and shape (i.e., aspect ratio) of the mouse as it transitions from NREM to REM, likely due to the atonia of REM, thus allowing our methodology to discriminate these two states. Although REM is relatively rare, our methodology can detect it and assess the amount of REM sleep.
Authors: Lee Friedman; Abby Haines; Ken Klann; Laura Gallaugher; Lawrence Salibra; Fang Han; Kingman P Strohl Journal: J Appl Physiol (1985) Date: 2004-11
Authors: Aaron E Flores; Judith E Flores; Hrishikesh Deshpande; Jorge A Picazo; Xinmin Simon Xie; Paul Franken; H Craig Heller; Dennis A Grahn; Bruce F O'Hara Journal: IEEE Trans Biomed Eng Date: 2007-02 Impact factor: 4.538
Authors: Blakeley B McShane; Raymond J Galante; Shane T Jensen; Nirinjini Naidoo; Allan I Pack; Abraham Wyner Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2010-09-15 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Allan I Pack; Raymond J Galante; Greg Maislin; Jacqueline Cater; Dimitris Metaxas; Shan Lu; Lin Zhang; Randy Von Smith; Timothy Kay; Jie Lian; Karen Svenson; Luanne L Peters Journal: Physiol Genomics Date: 2006-09-19 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Jason Rihel; David A Prober; Anthony Arvanites; Kelvin Lam; Steven Zimmerman; Sumin Jang; Stephen J Haggarty; David Kokel; Lee L Rubin; Randall T Peterson; Alexander F Schier Journal: Science Date: 2010-01-15 Impact factor: 47.728
Authors: Miroslaw Mackiewicz; John E Zimmerman; Keith R Shockley; Gary A Churchill; Allan I Pack Journal: Trends Mol Med Date: 2009-01-21 Impact factor: 11.951
Authors: Niels C Rattenborg; Horacio O de la Iglesia; Bart Kempenaers; John A Lesku; Peter Meerlo; Madeleine F Scriba Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci Date: 2017-11-19 Impact factor: 6.237
Authors: H Kloefkorn; L M Aiani; A Lakhani; S Nagesh; A Moss; W Goolsby; J M Rehg; N P Pedersen; S Hochman Journal: J Neurosci Methods Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 2.390
Authors: Géraldine M Mang; Jérôme Nicod; Yann Emmenegger; Kevin D Donohue; Bruce F O'Hara; Paul Franken Journal: Sleep Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 5.849
Authors: Aaro V Salminen; Alessandro Silvani; Richard P Allen; Stefan Clemens; Diego Garcia-Borreguero; Imad Ghorayeb; Sergi Ferré; Yuqing Li; William Ondo; Daniel L Picchietti; David Rye; Jerome M Siegel; John W Winkelman; Mauro Manconi Journal: Mov Disord Date: 2020-12-31 Impact factor: 10.338