OX2R-selective orexin agonism is sufficient to ameliorate cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation without inducing drug-seeking behavior in mouse model of narcolepsy.

Acquired loss of hypothalamic orexin (hypocretin)-producing neurons causes the chronic sleep disorder narcolepsy-cataplexy. Orexin replacement therapy using orexin receptor agonists is expected as a mechanistic treatment for narcolepsy. Orexins act on two receptor subtypes, OX1R and OX2R, the latter being more strongly implicated in sleep/wake regulation. However, it has been unclear whether the activation of only OX2R, or both OX1R and OX2R, is required to replace the endogenous orexin functions in the brain. In the present study, we examined whether the selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to rescue the phenotype of cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation in orexin knockout mice. Intracerebroventricular [Ala11, D-Leu15]-orexin-B, a peptidic OX2R-selective agonist, selectively activated OX2R-expressing histaminergic neurons in vivo, whereas intracerebroventricular orexin-A, an OX1R/OX2R non-selective agonist, additionally activated OX1R-positive noradrenergic neurons in vivo. Administration of [Ala11, D-Leu15]-orexin-B extended wake time, reduced state transition frequency between wake and NREM sleep, and reduced the number of cataplexy-like episodes, to the same degree as compared with orexin-A. Furthermore, intracerebroventricular orexin-A but not [Ala11, D-Leu15]-orexin-B induced drug-seeking behaviors in a dose-dependent manner in wild-type mice, suggesting that OX2R-selective agonism has a lower propensity for reinforcing/drug-seeking effects. Collectively, these findings provide a proof-of-concept for safer mechanistic treatment of narcolepsy-cataplexy through OX2R-selective agonism.

Introduction

Narcolepsy type-1 (also known as narcolepsy-cataplexy) can be interpreted through two distinct pathophysiological phenomena, rapid eye movement (REM) sleep-related and non-rapid eye movement (NREM) sleep-related symptoms. The abnormal gating of REM sleep-related neurophysiological mechanisms, such as REM atonia, contributes to cataplexy (sudden bilateral skeletal muscle weakening triggered by a strong emotion) and sleep paralysis. On the other hand, the abnormal regulation of NREM sleep onset results in sleep/wake fragmentation characterized by frequent transitions between wakefulness and NREM sleep [1, 2]. Clinically, the latter is manifested as excessive daytime sleepiness often with “sleep attacks,” and frequent nocturnal awakening. Narcolepsy-cataplexy is currently treated with symptomatic pharmacotherapy using psychostimulants (e.g., modafinil and methylphenidate), sedatives (e.g., sodium oxybate), antidepressants (e.g. venlafaxine and clomipramine), and histarminergics (e.g., pitolisant), and thus there is no fundamental mechanistic treatment available [3, 4]. The use of these medications is often limited by adverse effects such as headache, nausea, palpitations, anxiety, irritability and insomnia. Therefore, novel medications for narcolepsy are highly desired.

Patients with type-1 narcolepsy exhibit autoimmune loss of orexin (hypocretin) neurons in the lateral hypothalamus (LH) [5, 6]. Orexin levels in patients’ cerebrospinal fluid are low and often undetectable [6, 7]. Narcoleptic symptoms in orexin neuron-ablated mice can be ameliorated by intracerebroventricular (ICV) administration of orexin peptides [8]. These findings suggest that the pharmacological activation of orexin receptors is of potential value for treating human narcolepsy. Orexin peptides, orexin-A (OXA) and orexin-B, act on two types of G protein-coupled receptors, the orexin receptors type-1 (OX1R) and type-2 (OX2R) [9]. Importantly, OX2R-mediated pathway is crucial for stability of wakefulness, whereas OX1R has only marginal roles on sleep/wake regulation when OX2R signaling is intact [10, 11]. Mice lacking OX1R show essentially normal sleep/wake phenotype whereas mice lacking both OK1R and OX2R show severe sleep/wake fragmentation and direct wake-to-REM transitions with cataplexy-like episodes [12, 13]. On the other hand, OX1R has other complex physiological roles such as emotional and motivational regulation. OX1R has also been implicated in the dopaminergic reward pathway, addictive behaviors, and fear memory [14-18].

We previously reported that a nonpeptidic OX2R-selective agonist, YNT-185, promotes wakefulness and ameliorates cataplexy-like episodes in mouse models of narcolepsy such as orexin knockout and orexin neuron-ablated mice [19]. However, YNT-185 did not sufficiently suppress the active-phase fragmentation of wakefulness (another symptom of narcolepsy) in the narcoleptic model mice. Interestingly, a previous report indicates that the sleep/wake fragmentation in orexin receptor dual knockout mice is rescued by restoration of OX1R in the locus coeruleus (LC) [20]. Thus, it is possible that not only OX2R but also OX1R may play a crucial role in preventing sleep/wake fragmentation. It remains to be determined whether the selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to prevent narcoleptic symptoms including cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation, or additional activation of OX1R is also required in order fully to ameliorate these symptoms.

In the present study, to examine and verify the fundamental strategy for treating narcoleptic symptoms including cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation, we compared the therapeutic efficacies of peptidic OX2R-selective and OX1R/OX2R non-selective agonists side-by-side in narcoleptic orexin knockout mice. We demonstrated that ICV injection of [Ala11, D-Leu15]-orexin-B (AL-OXB), a selective and potent OX2R agonist [21], suppresses fragmentation of wakefulness as well as cataplexy-like episodes without in-vivo OX1R activation in orexin knockout (OXKO) mice. In addition, we showed that AL-OXB does not induce addiction-like drug-seeking behaviors as compared to OXA, a non-selective OX1R/OX2R agonist. Our data suggest that the selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to ameliorate major narcoleptic symptoms. Furthermore, OX2R agonism may be superior to OX1R/OX2R dual agonism in terms of safety, because of the apparently lower risk of psychological/addictive side effects.

Material and methods

Animals

All the animal experiments were approved by the Animal Experiment and Use Committee of the University of Tsukuba (Protocol Number: 21–313). All surgery was performed under isoflurane anesthesia, and all efforts were made to minimize suffering. We used 8–16 week-old male Hcrt mice with a C57BL/6J genetic background (abbreviated as OXKO) for all sleep recording experiments (a total of 50 mice) [22]. We also used 7-week-old male wild-type C57BL/6J mice for the conditioned place preference test (a total of 48 mice). All mice were kept on a 12-h light/dark cycle (lights on at 9:00 A.M.) at an ambient temperature of 23.5 ± 2.0°C under specific pathogen-free conditions.

Reagent

[Ala11, D-Leu15]-human orexin-B (AL-OXB, >98% pure) [21] and human orexin-A (OXA, >99% pure) (Peptide Institute Inc., Osaka, Japan) were dissolved in saline. In Ca2+ mobilization assay, these peptides were dissolved in 0.1% BSA (Sigma-Aldrich) / phosphate buffered saline (PBS) as 100-μM stock solutions. The administered peptide amounts are indicated in terms of net peptide content.

Intracellular Ca2+ mobilization assay

Ca2+ mobilization assay was conducted as described previously [19]. Chinese hamster ovary-K1 (CHO-K1) cells stably expressing human OX1R or OX2R were seeded in a 96-well plate (10,000 cells per well) and incubated with Dulbecco’s modified Eagle’s medium (WAKO) containing 5% fetal bovine serum (Corning), 1% penicillin/streptomycin (WAKO), 1×NEAA (Gibco, 11140050), 1mM G418 (WAKO) and 0.8μM Puromycin (Sigma-Aldrich) at 37°C for 48 h. Then, cells were loaded with 5 μM fluorescent calcium indicator Fura 2-AM (Cayman Chemical) in HBSS (GIBCO) including 20 mM HEPES (Sigma-Aldrich), 2.5 mM Probenecid (Sigma-Aldrich), 0.04% CremophorEL (Fluka), and 0.1% BSA at 37°C for 1 h. Cells were washed and 75 μL of HBSS buffer was added. Then, cells were treated with 25 μL of AL-OXB or OXA in the Functional Drug Screening System 7000 (Hamamatsu Photonics). Increase in the intracellular Ca2+ concentration was measured from the ratio of fluorescence emission at 510 nm by excitation at 340 or 380 nm. EC50 values were calculated from dose-response curves by using GraphPad Prism 7.

Implantation of EEG/EMG electrode and ICV guide cannula

Male narcolepsy model mice (8 weeks) were implanted with an EEG/EMG electrode containing two stainless steel screws and two flexible wires as described previously [19], under anesthesia using isoflurane (4% for induction, 2% for maintenance). Two stainless steel screws (1.0 mm diameter) were used for EEG electrodes, one of which was placed epidurally over the right frontal cortex (5.03 mm anterior and 1.27 mm lateral to lambda) and the other over the right parietal cortex (1.27 mm lateral to lambda) under stereotaxic control. Two flexible wires were implanted into both trapezius muscles (left/right) for EMG recording. For ICV administration, mice were simultaneously implanted with a guide cannula into left lateral ventricle (0.3 mm posterior and 0.9 mm lateral to bregma, 2.2 mm depth from skull surface) as described [8, 19]. The whole assembly was then attached to the skull with dental cement. After recovery from anesthesia, the mice were housed individually, let to recover for at least 1 week and then connected to a tether hung from a counterbalanced arm (Instech Laboratories) that allowed the free movement for habituation to the recording conditions for another 1 week.

ICV administration

ICV administration with EEG/EMG recordings was conducted as previously described [8, 19]. Single ICV administration for EEG/EMG recordings was performed under anesthesia using isoflurane (4% for induction, 2% for maintenance) at zeitgeber time (ZT) 11–12. The mice were administered through a guide cannula connected to an oil-filled microsyringe (Hamilton) by using an automated syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus). Vehicle and peptide solutions were injected into the left lateral ventricle in 3 μL over 6 min (flow rate: 0.5 μL/min) and the EEG/EMG signals were measured as mentioned below. Mice with single ICV administrations with EEG/EMG recording were given at intervals of at least 3 days to adopt a randomized cross-over design. Continuous ICV administration for EEG/EMG recording was performed without anesthesia from ZT12-24. The mice were maintained in administration for 12 h through a guide cannula connected to an oil-filled microsyringe (Hamilton) by using an automated syringe pump (Harvard Apparatus), which remained in place through the dark phase. Vehicle and peptide solutions were injected into the left lateral ventricle in 18 μL in 12 h (flow rate: 0.025 μL/min) while measuring EEG/EMG. Bolus ICV administration for conditioned place preference test was performed without anesthesia during light phase (ZT4-7). 2 days before the injection, mice were briefly anesthetized with isoflurane (4% for induction), and then a hole was made in the skull at 2.0 mm lateral and 2.0 mm posterior to bregma, 2.0 mm depth from skull surface. The coordinates were optimized for 7-week-old young adult mice; we had confirmed that blue ink was administered correctly to the lateral ventricle. On the day of the conditioning session in conditioned place preference, vehicle or peptide solutions was injected into the left lateral ventricle through the hole using the 2.0 mm double needle (Natsume Seisakusho Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) attached to a 25 μl microsyringe (Hamilton) in 4 μl in a few seconds.

EEG/EMG analysis

EEG/EMG data were visualized and semiautomatically analyzed by MATLAB-based software as previously described [19]. The vigilance state in each 20-s epoch was classified as wakefulness, NREM sleep or REM sleep. Wakefulness was scored based on the presence of fast EEG activity, high amplitude and variable EMG activity. NREM sleep was staged based on high amplitude, delta (1–4 Hz) frequency EEG wave and low EMG tones. REM sleep was characterized by theta (6–9 Hz)-dominant EEG oscillations and EMG atonia. Epochs containing two different vigilance states within 20-s epoch were given the score of the predominant state. EEG signals were subjected to a fast Fourier transform analysis from 1- to 30-Hz with a 1-Hz bin by using MATLAB-based custom software. Total time spent in wakefulness, NREM and REM sleep were derived by summing the total number of 20-s epochs in each stage. Mean episode durations were determined by dividing the total time spent in each stage by the number of episodes of that state. In the present study, a relatively long epoch length (20 s) for mice was used for sleep staging. When different sleep/wake states are co-present within an epoch, the epoch is scored to the predominant state—the state that occupy the longest period of time in the epoch. Scoring with 20-s epochs results in larger absolute values of mean sleep-stage episode durations (Figs 2F, 4D; S1B Fig) and smaller absolute numbers of stage transitions (Fig 3). However, we previously verified that the use of 20-s epoch length is still valid for mutually comparing the sleep/wake characteristics among the mice subjected to various pharmacologic or genetic perturbations, yielding conclusions identical to those obtained with shorter epoch lengths such as 4 s [23, 24]. In the present study, we confirmed this point by rescoring in 4-s epochs the EEG/EMG recordings for Fig 2E and 2F. As shown in S1E and S1F Fig, analyses with 20-s and 4-s epochs yielded the same conclusions. Cataplexy-like state was identified based on the criteria as described [25]: (i) an abrupt episode of nuchal atonia lasting at least 10 s; (ii) theta activity dominates the EEG during the episode; (iii) at least 40 s of wakefulness precedes the episode. For evaluation of cataplexy-like state, OXKO mice were given about 3 g of milk chocolates (Hershey) just after ICV administration to trigger cataplexy as described [26]. In contrast, mice were not given milk chocolates in the evaluation of wake fragmentation.

Fig 2

ICV AL-OXB prevents both cataplexy-like episodes and fragmentation of wakefulness in OXKO mice.

(A) Experimental schedule (left) and surgery design (right). (B) Representative hypnograms showing the effect of ICV OXA or AL-OXB on cataplexy-like episodes in OXKO mice. R, REM state; NR, non-REM state; W, wake state. Red arrows: cataplexy-like states. (C) The number of cataplexy-like states during 3h (left) and latency to first cataplexy-like state (right) after ICV administration. Data represent the means ± SEM from 6 mice. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test. (D) Experimental schedule for evaluation of wakefulness fragmentation. (E) Representative hypnograms showing the effect of ICV OXA or AL-OXB on wakefulness fragmentation in OXKO mice. (F) Hourly plots of wake time (left) and wake episode duration (right) during 3 h after ICV administration. Data represent the means ± SEM from 6 mice. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 for OXA vs. vehicle; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ####p < 0.0001 for AL-OXB vs. vehicle; two-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.

Fig 4

Effect of continuous ICV administration of OXA and AL-OXB during dark phase on sleep-wake cycle in OXKO mice.

(A) Experimental schedule of ICV infusion and EEG/EMG recording. (B) Total wake time duration during 12-h ICV administration. Data represent the means ± SEM from 3 mice. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test. (C and D) Hourly plots of wake time (C) and wake episode duration (D) before, during and after continuous ICV administration. Data represent the means ± SEM from 3 mice. Statistical analysis: two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.

Fig 3

ICV AL-OXB prevents sleep/wake fragmentation in OXKO mice.

The number of transitions between sleep/wake stages over 3 h after ICV administration of vehicle (left), 3 nmol OXA (middle), and 3 nmol AL-OXB (right) at ZT11-12. Data represent the means ± SEM from 6 mice. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 for OXA vs. vehicle; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ####p < 0.0001 for AL-OXB vs. vehicle; one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.

Immunohistochemistry

OXKO mice were injected saline or peptide solutions (3 nmol) at ZT11.5 by the same protocol as the single ICV administration with guide cannula for EEG/EMG analysis. At 1.5 h after ICV administration, mice were anesthetized with pentobarbital sodium (50 mg/kg, IP) and transcardially perfused with PBS containing 10% sucrose followed by 4% paraformaldehyde (PFA) dissolved in PBS. Brains were quickly removed and post-fixed with 4% PFA at 4°C overnight and immersed in 30% sucrose dissolved in PBS for 2 days. Brains were frozen in OCT Compound (Sakura Finetek, Torrance, CA) at -80°C. The frozen 80-μm coronal sections were serially cut with a cryostat (Leica, Germany). Brain sections were washed with PBS and incubated with 1% Triton in PBS at room temperature for 3 h. Then, the sections were blocked with 10% Blocking One (Nacalai Tesque) in PBS with 0.3% Triton X-100 (blocking solution) at room temperature for 1 h. The sections were incubated at 4°C overnight with rabbit anti-c-fos antibody (1:2000; Millipore, RRID: AB_2631318), mouse anti-tyrosine hydroxylase (TH) antibody (1:1000; Millipore, RRID: AB_2201528), guinea-pig anti-c-fos antibody (1:1000; Synaptic Systems, RRID: AB_2619946) and rabbit anti-histidine decarboxylase (HDC) antibody (1:1000; ORIGENE, RRID: AB_1002154) in PBS containing 10% Blocking One and 0.3% Triton X-100. After washing in PBS 3 times, sections were reacted with secondary antibodies to Alexa FluorTM488 (for c-fos: donkey anti-rabbit IgG 1:1000, Invitrogen, RRID: AB_2535792; goat anti-guinea pig IgG antibody 1:1000, Invitrogen, RRID: AB_2534117) and Alexa FluorTM594 (for TH: donkey anti-mouse IgG 1:1000, Invitrogen, RRID: AB_141633; for HDC: donkey anti-rabbit IgG 1: 1000, Invitrogen, RRID: AB_141637) at 4°C overnight. The sections were counter-stained with Neuro Trace fluorescent Nissl stain (1:500, Invitrogen, N-21479), and were washed 3 times in PBS, mounted, air dried and covered. All images were taken on a Zeiss LSM800 confocal microscope (Zeiss, Germany) with a 20X (NA = 0.8) objective lens using the Zen software (Zeiss). Brain regions were defined according to Franklin and Paxinos’s atlas of the mouse brain [27]. A single optical Z section (18-μm thick) per slice near the top surface was photographed and used for quantitative analysis. The cells were counted manually by three investigators blinded to the assignment of the treatment group. Cell counts from all slices containing the LC or tuberomammillary nucleus (TMN) were accumulated in each brain. The percentages of c-fos positive neurons among all noradrenergic or histaminergic neurons counted in each brain were then calculated. For each treatment group, 4–5 mice were used.

Conditioned place preference test

Conditioned place preference (CPP) test was conducted as described [28]. The test was conducted using a shuttle box (15 cm wide × 30 cm long × 15 cm high; Natsume Seisakusyo Co. Ltd.) that was made of acrylic resin board and divided into two equal-sized compartments with different flooring and walls separated by removable board. One compartment was white with a textured floor, and the other was black with a smooth floor to create equally preferable compartments. The place conditioning schedule consisted of three phases (pre-conditioning test, conditioning, and post-conditioning test). During the pre-conditioning test, the partition separating the two compartments was raised to 7 cm above the floor, a neutral platform was inserted along the seam separating the compartments, and mice were placed on the platform and allowed to freely explore the full extent of the shuttle box for 900 s. The time spent in each compartment was then recorded automatically with an infrared beam sensor (KN-80; Natsume Seisakusyo Co. Ltd.). Conditioning sessions (3 days for orexins, 3 days for saline) were conducted once daily for 6 days. Immediately after ICV injection of saline, mice were released into the compartment in which they had spent the most time in the pre-conditioning test for 1 h. Next day, these mice were injected orexins and were placed in the other compartment for 1 h. On the day after the final conditioning session, the post-conditioning test was performed by the same method as the pre-conditioning test. CPP score was calculated by post-conditioning test score minus pre-conditioning score in the drug-conditioning side.

Statistics

Statistical analysis was performed using Graph Pad Prism 7.0 (Graph Pad Software). All data were expressed as mean ± SEM. Normality of data distribution was confirmed with Shapiro-Wilk test. Statistical significance was determined by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test, or two-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s test. Probability (P) values less than 0.05 (P < 0.05) were considered statistically significant.

Results

AL-OXB selectively and potently activates OX2R in vitro and in vivo

AL-OXB, which is a modified orexin-B, was developed as a peptide with much higher selectivity for OX2R [21, 29]. To confirm the selectivity and efficacy of AL-OXB for OX2R, we first conducted intracellular Ca2+ transient assays on CHO cells stably expressing human OX1R or OX2R. OXA dose-dependently induced intracellular Ca2+ mobilization with comparable EC50 values for OX2R and OX1R: the EC50 values were 0.50 nM for OX1R and 0.20 nM for OX2R, respectively (Fig 1A). Under the same condition, AL-OXB selectively induced intracellular Ca2+ mobilization in cells expressing OX2R in a dose-dependent manner: the EC50 values were 58 nM for OX1R (Emax value = 99.54%) and 0.055 nM for OX2R (Emax value = 92.83%), respectively (Fig 1A). These results indicate that AL-OXB is a selective OX2R agonist with approximately 1000-fold selectivity for OX2R over OX1R.

Fig 1

[Ala11, D-Leu15]-orexin-B (AL-OXB) selectively activates OX2R in vitro and in vivo.

(A) Dose-response curves of intracellular Ca2+ transients induced by OXA and AL-OXB in CHO/OX1R cells (left) and CHO/OX2R cells (right). Data represent the mean ± SEM from two independent assays. (B) Representative images of c-fos immunoreactivity (green) after ICV administration of OXA or AL-OXB in tyrosine hydroxylase-positive (red) noradrenalin neurons of the LC and histidine decarboxylase-positive (red) histamine neurons of the TMN. 4V: 4th ventricle. Regions marked by white rectangles are magnified in small panels. Scale bars: small panels, 25 μm; large panels, 100 μm. (C) Quantification of c-fos-positive cells in LC-noradrenergic neurons (left) and TMN-histaminergic neurons (right). Data represent the means ± SEM from 4–5 mice. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.

We next examined whether AL-OXB selectively activates brain OX2R in narcoleptic prepro-orexin knockout (Hcrt, abbreviated as OXKO) mice in vivo [22]. Sleep and wakefulness are controlled by complex neural circuits [30], but here we focused on the activation of noradrenergic neurons in the LC and histaminergic neurons in the TMN as direct downstream targets of orexin neurons, considering that LC-noradrenergic neurons and TMN-histaminergic neurons exclusively express OX1R and OX2R, respectively [31]. We used c-fos immunoreactivity as a marker for neuronal activation. ICV injection of OXA significantly increased the proportion of c-fos-positive cells in TH-positive LC-noradrenergic neurons as well as in HDC-positive TMN-histaminergic neurons (Fig 1B and 1C) of OXKO mice. In contrast, AL-OXB significantly increased the proportion of c-fos-positive cells in HDC-positive TMN-histaminergic neurons, but not in TH-positive LC-noradrenergic neurons (Fig 1B and 1C). These data indicate that AL-OXB selectively promotes neuronal activity through OX2R in vivo. We thus confirmed that AL-OXB and OXA are selective OX2R agonist and non-selective OX1R/OX2R agonist in vivo, respectively.

Selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to ameliorate narcoleptic symptoms in OXKO mice

Orexin-deficient narcoleptic humans and animals suffer from two major symptoms, cataplexy and sleepiness, in the active phase. In narcoleptic OXKO mice, these symptoms correspond to cataplexy-like states (see Methods) and sleep/wake fragmentation during the dark phase. We examined whether selective activation of OX2R by AL-OXB is sufficient to ameliorate cataplexy-like states in OXKO mice after single ICV administration within 1 h before the onset of the dark phase (ZT 11–12) (Fig 2A). Chocolate was given to OXKO mice in order to induce more frequent cataplexy-like states [26]. ICV administered OXA (3 nmol) significantly decreased the number of cataplexy-like states during 3 h after the injection and increased the latency to the first cataplexy-like state. Under the same condition, ICV administered AL-OXB at 3 nmol also significantly decreased the number of cataplexy-like states and increased the latency to the first cataplexy-like state, but not at 1 nmol (Fig 2B and 2C) (we did not test OXA at 1 nmol). The amount of chocolate consumed after ICV administration did not differ significantly (vehicle: 2.0 ± 0.2 g; 3 nmol OXA: 2.3 ± 0.7 g; 3 nmol AL-OXB: 3.2 ± 0.8 g; 1 nmol AL-OXB: 2.5 ± 0.6 g).

We then examined whether selective activation of OX2R by AL-OXB is sufficient to ameliorate the fragmentation of wakefulness (defined here as the frequent transition between wakefulness and NREM sleep) during the dark phase in OXKO mice [19, 22] (Fig 2D). OXA (3 nmol) and AL-OXB (3 nmol) increased the total wake time and wake episode duration for 3 h after ICV administration (Fig 2E, 2F; S1 Fig). Vehicle injection also tended to increase the total wake time due to artifacts from ICV administration procedures. Accordingly, total NREM sleep time was similarly decreased by the injection of OXA or AL-OXB (S1C Fig). REM sleep was also suppressed, but did not reach statistical significance because there are few, if any, REM sleep episodes in the first few hours of injection (S1D Fig). Further, the number of transitions between wake and NREM was similarly reduced after the administration of OXA or AL-OXB (Fig 3). Taken together, our results suggest that a single ICV administration of AL-OXB, as well as OXA, ameliorates both cataplexy and fragmentation of wakefulness in OXKO mice. In other words, the selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to ameliorate both narcoleptic symptoms; a concomitant OX1R activation is not necessary for the therapeutic effects.

We next examined whether a long-term activation of OX2R can continue to suppress narcoleptic symptoms without acute desensitization. A 12-h continuous ICV administration of AL-OXB was given to OXKO mice during the dark phase. EEG/EMG signals were recorded on the day before, during the administration, and on the subsequent day (Fig 4A). OXA and AL-OXB both increased the total wake time and wake episode duration for 12 h during the continuous ICV administration in the dark phase (Fig 4B–4D, S2 Fig). Thus, OXA and AL-OXB maintained the efficacy over 12 h. Total wake time and wake episode duration in the subsequent dark phase after the administration showed a tendency to decrease compared with baseline (although not statistically significant), possibly reflecting a compensatory sleep rebound. There was no appreciable change in the NREM EEG delta power during the same period. We did not assess cataplexy-like states in this experiment, because the stress of continuous ICV infusion strongly suppressed the occurrence of cataplexy [32].

Concomitant OX1R activation induces conditioned place preference in mice

Orexins play a role in the reward system [28, 33, 34]. We, therefore, examined whether AL-OXB-induced selective activation of OX2R induces addiction-related reinforcing effects in the conditioned place preference test conducted at ZT4-7 (Fig 5A). We chose to perform the conditioned place preference test during the light phase (resting phase for mice), since the endogenous orexin tones are lower in the light phase and therefore mice are more responsive to exogenous orexin. This allowed a more sensitive detection of the possible reinforcing effects of ICV orexin. ICV administration of OXA (3 and 10 nmol) significantly produced conditioned place preference in wild-type mice (Fig 5B), whereas AL-OXB (1–10 nmol) did not (Fig 5C). Mice never slept during the 15-min pre-test or post-test periods under any of the drug conditions. These results suggest that the administration of an OX2R-selective agonist in sufficient doses to ameliorate cataplexy and fragmentation of wakefulness does not produce addiction-related behavior.

Fig 5

OXA but not AL-OXB induces conditioned place preference.

(A) Experimental schedule of CPP test. (B and C) Effects of different doses of OXA (B) and AL-OXB (C) on CPP score. Same CPP data for vehicle injections are displayed twice in (B) and (C). Data represent the means ± SEM from 5 mice for 1 and 10 nmol OXA, 6 mice for 1 and 10 nmol AL-OXB, 9 mice for 3 nmol OXA or AL-OXB and 8 mice for vehicle. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.

Discussion

The vast majority (>90%) of type-1 narcoleptic patients are deficient in endogenous orexin peptides [35], which are non-selective OX1R/OX2R agonists. Therefore, in order to replace the orexin functions in the brain, it may require the activation of both OX1R and OX2R. However, it has been shown that OX2R is the main player in the orexin-mediated sleep/wake regulation. Indeed, OX2R-deficient mice, but not OX1R-deficient mice, exhibit cataplexy-like episodes and sleep/wake fragmentation, albeit more mildly than OX1R/OX2R double-deficient mice [11, 12]. These reports indicate that OX2R plays a pivotal role, whereas OX1R only a supplementary role, in sleep regulation. The aim of this study was to examine whether selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to rescue cataplexy and wake fragmentation in the mouse model of narcolepsy, providing a proof-of-concept for the mechanism-based treatment of narcolepsy with selective OX2R agonists. We demonstrated that AL-OXB, a selective OX2R agonist, can fully ameliorate two major narcoleptic symptoms, cataplexy and fragmentation of wakefulness, in OXKO mice. We further showed that AL-OXB does not induce conditioned place preference, an addiction-related behavior.

OXA-induced increase of wakefulness and decrease of NREM sleep are attenuated not only in OX2R-deficient mice but also in OX1R-deficient mice [10]. Furthermore, restoration of OX1R expression in LC-noradrenergic neurons ameliorates fragmentation of wakefulness in OX1R/OX2R-deficient mice [20]. These reports suggest that OX1R is also involved in the transition and consolidation of wakefulness. However, selective activation of OX2R induced by AL-OXB fully ameliorated fragmentation of wakefulness in narcoleptic mice in the present study. Importantly, the therapeutically effective dose of AL-OXB induced c-fos selectively in OX2R-expressing TMN-histaminergic neurons but not in OX1R-expressing LC-noradrenergic neurons. This suggests that sleep/wake fragmentations in Type-1 narcoleptic patients may be adequately ameliorated by selective OX2R activation. In the absence of OX2R signaling, activation of OX1R may compensate for the lack of orexinergic signaling in OX1R/OX2R double-deficient mice, attenuating the wake fragmentation [20]. However, the activation of OX1R may be non-essential when OX2R signaling is provided.

Although AL-OXB was 3.6-times more potent than OXA on OX2R in Ca2+ transient assays in vitro (Fig 1A), both peptides were approximately equipotent in vivo (Figs 2 and 4). A possible reason for this discrepancy might be a higher stability of OXA in vivo; OXA peptide might be more protected from proteolysis due to the N-terminal pyroglutamate residue and the two intrachain disulfide bonds. We previously reported that the small-molecule selective OX2R agonist YNT-185 effectively suppressed cataplexy-like episodes in OXKO mice, but the compound did not appreciably ameliorate the wake fragmentation [19]. In contrast, here we demonstrated that AL-OXB can ameliorate both narcoleptic symptoms in OXKO mice. The difference in the potency of these agonists may account for the discrepancy: the in vitro EC50 value of AL-OXB for OX2R is approximately 200-fold lower than that of YNT-185. Although more research will be required, it is likely that higher agonist potency may be required for ameliorating wake fragmentation than suppressing cataplexy. Indeed, a previous study with inducible genetic ablations of orexin neurons in mice indicated that, whereas the ablation of 80% of orexin neurons results in wake fragmentation, a 95% ablation is required to induce cataplectic phenotype [36]. Pharmacologic partial blockade of OX1R/OX2R in mice and humans can readily induce wake fragmentation and somnolence, while it is rather difficult to induce cataplexy by orexin receptor antagonism [32]. These findings are consistent with the idea that the level of orexin tone required to prevent wake fragmentation is higher than that required to inhibit cataplexy.

Orexin also activates the reward system [13, 37]. Orexin neurons in the LH project to the dopaminergic reward system in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) [38], and promote the dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens and the prefrontal cortex [28, 33, 39], potentially inducing addiction-like behaviors and reinforcing effects. Orexin-mediated neural signaling also contributes to the development of addiction to drugs of abuse such as cocaine, morphine and nicotine [40-42]. Anatomically, both OX1R and OX2R are present in VTA, with dopaminergic neurons predominantly expressing OX1R [18]. Moreover, addiction-like behaviors induced by drugs of abuse or OXA itself (non-selective OX1R/OX2R agonist) [33, 34] are inhibited by OX1R-selective antagonist SB334867 [43-45], suggesting that OX1R-mediated signaling may play an important role in addiction-like behaviors. On the other hand, it has also been reported that morphine-induced rewarding effects are attenuated by OX2R antagonists [43, 44, 46]. Therefore, it was essential to examine whether selective activation of OX2R can induce addiction-like behaviors. In the present study, OXA significantly induced conditioned place preference in mice, whereas AL-OXB did not. This suggests that the activation of OX1R is required for the induction of addiction-like behaviors. Thus, selective OX2R activation may provide sufficient therapeutic effects for narcoleptic symptoms in mice, without promoting addiction-like behaviors or reinforcing effects.

Limitations in the present study include the use of the peptidic agonists, which necessitated central administration by ICV injections. Here we prioritized the importance of a side-by-side comparison of high-potency/efficacy agonists with different receptor subtype selectivity over the practical applicability of peripherally administrable orexin agonists. To our knowledge, there is no non-peptidic, high-affinity OX1R or OX1R/OX2R agonists available yet. In addition, further studies are necessary to mechanistically dissect the roles of OX1R- versus OX2R-mediated neuronal circuits in the regulation of sleep/wake and addictive behaviors. Also, in this study we used OXKO mice as a model of narcolepsy. In contrast, human narcolepsy type-1 is caused by autoimmune destruction of orexin neurons, which contain additional neurotransmitters such as glutamate, dynorphin and neuronal activity-regulated pentraxin (Narp) [47-50]. Thus, orexin neuron-ablated mouse models [36, 51] may more closely mimic the pathology of human narcolepsy type-1. However, to our knowledge, there is no report positively documenting a sleep/wake-related role for these non-orexin transmitters colocalized in orexin neurons; all sleep/wake abnormalities of orexin neuron-ablated mice have thus far been attributed to the deficiency of orexin peptides. Finally, the number of mice in the chronic ICV infusion experiments (Fig 4) are very small (n = 3); as such, data should be interpreted with caution and considered mainly descriptive rather than quantitative.

In conclusion, we reported here that OX2R-selective agonism is sufficient to ameliorate both cataplexy (related to REM sleep gating) and fragmentation of wakefulness (NREM gating) in narcoleptic mice without inducing addiction-related behaviors. These findings support the notion that selective OX2R agonists may be an effective and safe therapeutic strategy for the mechanism-based treatment of narcolepsy.

Effect of ICV administration of OXA and AL-OXB on the fragmentation of wakefulness in OXKO mice (related to Fig 2 of the main text).

(A-D) Hourly plots of wake time (A), wake episode duration (B), NREM sleep time (C) and REM sleep time (D) during dark phase after ICV administration. (E and F) First 3 hours of the same EEG/EMG data analyzed in 4-s epochs; wake time (E) and wake episode duration (F). Data represent the means ± SEM from 6 mice. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ****p < 0.0001 for OXA vs. vehicle; #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01, ####p < 0.0001 for AL-OXB vs. vehicle; two-way repeated-measures ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s multiple comparisons test.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Effect of continuous ICV administration of OXA and AL-OXB during dark phase on sleep-wake cycle in OXKO mice (related to Fig 4 of the main text).

(A) Experimental schedule of ICV infusion and EEG/EMG recording. (B and C) Hourly plots of NREM sleep time (B) and REM sleep time (C) before, during and after continuous ICV administration. Data represent the means ± SEM from 3 mice. Statistical analysis: two-way repeated-measures ANOVA.

(PDF)

Click here for additional data file.

Raw data for Figs 1–5 and S1 and S2 Figs.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

4 Apr 2022

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Silvani, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. We note that the grant information you provided in the ‘Funding Information’ and ‘Financial Disclosure’ sections do not match.

When you resubmit, please ensure that you provide the correct grant numbers for the awards you received for your study in the ‘Funding Information’ section.

3. Thank you for stating the following in your Competing Interests section:

[NO authors have competing interests].

Please complete your Competing Interests on the online submission form to state any Competing Interests. If you have no competing interests, please state "The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.", as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now

This information should be included in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. PLOS requires an ORCID iD for the corresponding author in Editorial Manager on papers submitted after December 6th, 2016. Please ensure that you have an ORCID iD and that it is validated in Editorial Manager. To do this, go to ‘Update my Information’ (in the upper left-hand corner of the main menu), and click on the Fetch/Validate link next to the ORCID field. This will take you to the ORCID site and allow you to create a new iD or authenticate a pre-existing iD in Editorial Manager. Please see the following video for instructions on linking an ORCID iD to your Editorial Manager account: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xcclfuvtxQ

Additional Editor Comments:

For clarity and ease of consultation, please report in the manuscript the administered concentrations of AL-OXB and OXA in terms of net peptide. Please indicate the purity and % net peptide content for each peptide.

Please clarify whether the data fulfilled the requirements for parametric statistical analysis with ANOVA.

Please note that a working URL address to all data underlying the findings or inclusion of the data as supplementary material will be needed before the eventual acceptance of the manuscript for publication.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This is a very nicely done paper describing the possible roles of the two orexin receptors in reversing the symptoms of narcolepsy. The combination of in vitro and in vivo studies is a great strength of the study, as is the conditioned place preference tests. The paper shows the way to a possible treatment of human narcolepsy.

A limitation of the study is the use of orexin KO mice. Although these mice, developed by some of these investigators, led rather directly to the cause of human narcolepsy, the consensus in the field is that human narcolepsy is due to the loss of orexin neurons, not just the orexin peptide. Orexin neurons contain glutamate, dynorphin and Narp. These transmitters are present in the KO mice, but not in human narcoleptics, so the KO mouse results may not exactly align with the pathology of human narcolepsy. The use of the orexin neuron deletion mice developed by Yamanaka might more closely parallel the human condition and comparison of the results of these two models might shed light on the role of the other transmitters in orexin neurons.

In the introduction, I would suggest moving or deleting "and dreaming." Human cataplexy is generally not accompanied by dreaming unless it progresses into a long REM sleep episode. You may want to position these words after "hallucinations." Histaminergics is misspelled.

A very minor point is that the support and animal study questions ask by PLOS One are not properly addressed in their forms, although all the information is in the manuscript.

Reviewer #2: The authors examined whether orexin 2 receptor selective agonist (AL-OXB) could effectively reduce cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation in orexin knockout mice and got affirmative results. In addition, using wild type mice, the authors showed that ICV administration of OXA but not AL-OXB induced conditioned preference indicating less addiction-inducing effect in the latter. The theme of the study is worth examining and overall conclusion seems convincing. However, there are several points to be clarified.

1) Please report the amount of chocolate consumed in the cataplexy experiment (Fig. 2) because orexin is known to induce food seeking. Was there any possibility that possible change in appetite affected the wake/sleep structure?

2) Please specify when of the day pre- and post-test was performed in CPP testing. According to Fig. 5A, it appeared to be during the daytime around ZT3. If it is correct, then mice should be in the resting period and sometimes fall into asleep. Such behavior may distort the preference score. To exclude such possibility, information should be provided about mobility such as the crossing times between the components and/or distance traveled during the observation period.

3) In related to the point #2, why the authors selected to test and inject drugs during the resting period whereas the drugs were injected just before the active (night) period in the sleep study? To examine possible side effect (addiction-inducing effect in this case) of a drug, we should use the same dosing schedule in the main effect (sleep study in this case). Don’t you agree?

Reviewer #3: The manuscript aims at demonstrating that the selective activation of the orexin receptor 2 is sufficient to ameliorate cataplexy and sleep fragmentation in orexin-deficient (ORX-KO) mice without inducing drug seeking behavior as tested using the place preference test.

The originality of this study is to directly compare OXA and AL-OXB in vivo. The authors show that only TMN neurons are activated by AL-OXB (expressing only ORX receptor 2) while OXA activates both, neurons of the TMN and the LC (expressing only ORX receptor 1) as a validation of the selectivity of the compounds for the orexin receptor 2.

Although the study has limits, it is of interest for the design of future therapeutics.

The manuscript is well written.

Comments

• Please add the total number of mice used in the study and for each experiments in the method section.

• Chronic icv injections were performed in only 3 mice. No statistical test can be robust with such small number of individuals. Data should be reported with caution and be mainly descriptive (rather than quantitative). Please mention/discuss it in a “technical limitation” section.

• Figure 1 shows the dose response curves of intracellular CA2+ induced by OXA and L-OXB in vitro. L-OXB is approximately one log more efficient than OXA,. However, drugs are used at the same concentration in vivo. Could the authors comment on it? Please discuss it.

• Figure S1 show an increase in NREM sleep after OXA treatment compared to vehicle at ZT5-7, that is not seen with L-OXB. It might be an additional positive point for L-OXB versus ORXA, but it is not discussed. Could the authors comment on it?

Reviewer #4: This important paper evaluates the efficacy of orexin A (OXA) and AL-orexin B (AL-OXB) in several in vitro and in vivo assays and concludes that Ox2R activation by AL-OXB is sufficient to prevent cataplexy-like episodes and fragmentation of wakefulness in OXKO mice. The work is well-thought out, carefully executed and, with one exception, the results are properly interpreted. That exception is particularly evident on page 17 when the authors conclude the first paragraph with the statement “In other words, the selective activation of OX2R is sufficient to ameliorate both narcoleptic symptoms.” I understand that the authors would like to make this conclusion but, based on the data presented in Figs. 2C, 2D and Fig. 4, the same statement could be made for OX1R since OXA is at least as effective as AL-OXB in all the sleep/wake bioassays shown. The data presented does not exclude this possibility because an Ox1R-selective compound has not been evaluated. As such, I find that statement as well as the title of the paper to be misleading.

The EEG/EMG recordings are scored in 20-sec epochs which is unusually long for rodent studies in which 10-sec epochs are the norm and many labs even score in 4-sec epochs. Although the choice of epoch duration is somewhat arbitrary, longer epochs provide less resolution of the fine structure of sleep architecture. In fact, it is certainly conceivable that all 3 states could occur in a 20-sec epoch. Consider, for example, the sequence NREM-REM-Wake. Consequently, the authors should describe their rationale for such long epochs.

Related to this issue are the determinations of “mean episode duration” as shown in Figs. 2F, 4D and Fig. S1. In fact, Fig. 3 is entirely leveraged on episode duration measurements as the number of state transitions reported in this figure would certainly be larger if 10-sec epochs were used. Because of the fact that rodent sleep is fragmented throughout the 24-h period rather than consolidated as occurs in (most) humans, many sleep researchers establish rules to determine a bout (or episode) of NREM or REM sleep, such as that 3 consecutive epochs of NREM sleep or 2 consecutive epochs of REM sleep must occur before a bout (or episode) is consider to be NREM or REM sleep. The authors do not stipulate any such criteria, which may be due to their use of the long epochs.

Neither OXA and AL-OXB at 1 nmol induce CPP but there’s no data to show whether OXA at 1 nmol could prevent cataplexy-like episodes and fragmentation of wakefulness in OXKO mice. Has OXA been evaluated at that dose or not?

What effect does continuous ICV infusion as shown in Fig. 4 have on cataplexy, if any? It would be interesting to know what effect, if any, continuous ICV infusion of OXA and AL-OXB have on body temperature.

Supp. Fig. 2 suggests that there is a trend toward a rebound in NREM sleep on both the day and subsequent night after cessation of ICV infusion. Although these trends may not be significant on an hourly basis, are they significant over 6-h or 12-h periods? What about NREM delta power?

On page 17, the authors conclude the next paragraph with the statement “despite the stress.” What stress do the authors refer to? This is the first use of the word “stress” in the paper.

On page 20, the authors state “it is likely that higher agonist potency may be required for ameliorating wake fragmentation than suppressing cataplexy.” This is an interesting point that should be developed further.

Figure 4: why are the error bars so large during the infusion? Figure 4D suggests that AL-OXB is weaker than OXA.

Specific comments

--------------------------

p. 10: “administrated” should be “administered”.

P. 17, last sentence would be better English if the authors changed it to read “These results suggest that the administration of an OX2R-selective agonist in sufficient doses to ameliorate cataplexy and fragmentation of wakefulness does not produce addiction-related behavior.”

p. 21, first line: eliminate “the” after “in”.

The authors are not appropriately listed in Ref 25.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Jerome Siegel

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

18 May 2022

Our detailed point-by-point responses to specific comments from editor and reviewers are listed in the separate "Response to Reviewers" file.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers_final_MY2.docx

Click here for additional data file.

5 Jun 2022

7 Jul 2022

Our point-by-point responses to Reviewers' comments are fully described in the "Response to Reviewers" file.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jul 2022

OX2R-selective orexin agonism is sufficient to ameliorate cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation without inducing drug-seeking behavior in mouse model of narcolepsy

PONE-D-22-06089R2

Dear Dr. Yanagisawa,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Alessandro Silvani, M.D., Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #4: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #4: No

**********

14 Jul 2022

PONE-D-22-06089R2

OX2R-selective orexin agonism is sufficient to ameliorate cataplexy and sleep/wake fragmentation without inducing drug-seeking behavior in mouse model of narcolepsy

Dear Dr. Yanagisawa:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Alessandro Silvani

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE