Brianne A Kent1, Stephen M Strittmatter2, Haakon B Nygaard1. 1. Division of Neurology and Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Cellular Neuroscience, Neurodegeneration and Repair Program, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbances have long been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and there is a growing interest in how these disturbances might impact AD pathophysiology. Despite this growing interest, surprisingly little is known about how sleep architecture and the broader neuronal network are affected in widely used transgenic mouse models of AD. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed sleep and electroencephalography (EEG) power in three transgenic mouse models of AD, using identical and commercially available hardware and analytical software. The goal was to assess the suitability of these mouse lines to model sleep and the broader neuronal network dysfunction measured by EEG in AD. METHODS: Tg2576, APP/PS1, and 3xTgAD transgenic AD mice were studied using in vivo EEG recordings for sleep/wake time and power spectral analysis. RESULTS: Both the APP/PS1 model at 8- 10 months and the Tg2576 model at 12 months of age exhibited stage-dependent decreases in theta and delta power, and shifts in the power spectra toward higher frequencies. Stage-dependent power spectral analyses showed no changes in the 3xTgAD model at 18 months of age. The percentage of time spent awake, in non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM), or in rapid-eye-movement sleep (REM) was not different between genotypes in any of the transgenic lines. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with data from several other transgenic AD models as well as certain studies in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Further studies will be needed to better understand the correlation between EEG spectra and AD pathophysiology, both in AD models and the human condition.
BACKGROUND:Sleep disturbances have long been associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD), and there is a growing interest in how these disturbances might impact AD pathophysiology. Despite this growing interest, surprisingly little is known about how sleep architecture and the broader neuronal network are affected in widely used transgenicmouse models of AD. OBJECTIVE: We analyzed sleep and electroencephalography (EEG) power in three transgenicmouse models of AD, using identical and commercially available hardware and analytical software. The goal was to assess the suitability of these mouse lines to model sleep and the broader neuronal network dysfunction measured by EEG in AD. METHODS: Tg2576, APP/PS1, and 3xTgAD transgenicADmice were studied using in vivo EEG recordings for sleep/wake time and power spectral analysis. RESULTS: Both the APP/PS1 model at 8- 10 months and the Tg2576 model at 12 months of age exhibited stage-dependent decreases in theta and delta power, and shifts in the power spectra toward higher frequencies. Stage-dependent power spectral analyses showed no changes in the 3xTgAD model at 18 months of age. The percentage of time spent awake, in non-rapid eye movement sleep (NREM), or in rapid-eye-movement sleep (REM) was not different between genotypes in any of the transgenic lines. CONCLUSION: Our findings are consistent with data from several other transgenicAD models as well as certain studies in patients with mild cognitive impairment. Further studies will be needed to better understand the correlation between EEG spectra and AD pathophysiology, both in AD models and the human condition.
Authors: Salvador Huitrón-Reséndiz; Manuel Sánchez-Alavez; Roger Gallegos; Greta Berg; Elena Crawford; Jeannie L Giacchino; Dora Games; Steven J Henriksen; José R Criado Journal: Brain Res Date: 2002-02-22 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Belinda J Liddell; Robert H Paul; Martijn Arns; Norman Gordon; Matthew Kukla; Donald Rowe; Nick Cooper; Jonson Moyle; Leanne M Williams Journal: J Integr Neurosci Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 2.117
Authors: Sarah D Benthem; Ivan Skelin; Shawn C Moseley; Alina C Stimmell; Jessica R Dixon; Andreza S Melilli; Leonardo Molina; Bruce L McNaughton; Aaron A Wilber Journal: Curr Biol Date: 2020-05-28 Impact factor: 10.834
Authors: M J Duncan; L E Guerriero; K Kohler; L E Beechem; B D Gillis; F Salisbury; C Wessel; J Wang; S Sunderam; A D Bachstetter; B F O'Hara; M P Murphy Journal: Neuroscience Date: 2021-11-29 Impact factor: 3.590
Authors: Dominik Schmidt; Gwendolyn English; Thomas C Gent; Mehmet Fatih Yanik; Wolfger von der Behrens Journal: Front Neuroinform Date: 2022-09-12 Impact factor: 3.739
Authors: Rebecca C Ahrens-Nicklas; Luis Tecedor; Arron F Hall; Owen Kane; Richard J Chung; Elena Lysenko; Eric D Marsh; Colleen S Stein; Beverly L Davidson Journal: Mol Ther Date: 2022-04-05 Impact factor: 12.910
Authors: Yee Fun Lee; Dmitry Gerashchenko; Igor Timofeev; Brian J Bacskai; Ksenia V Kastanenka Journal: Front Neurosci Date: 2020-06-30 Impact factor: 4.677
Authors: C M Holton; N Hanley; E Shanks; P Oxley; A McCarthy; B J Eastwood; T K Murray; A Nickerson; K A Wafford Journal: Alzheimers Res Ther Date: 2020-07-15 Impact factor: 6.982