Limits...
Sleep in Populations of Drosophila Melanogaster (1,2,3).

Liu C, Haynes PR, Donelson NC, Aharon S, Griffith LC - eNeuro (2015)

Bottom Line: Social interactions between pairs of flies have been shown to affect locomotor activity patterns, but effects on locomotion and sleep patterns have not been assessed for larger populations.Surprisingly, we find that same-sex populations of flies synchronize their sleep/wake activity, resulting in a population sleep pattern, which is similar but not identical to that of isolated individuals.These data support the idea that it is possible to investigate neural mechanisms underlying the effects of population behaviors on sleep by directly looking at a large number of animals in laboratory conditions.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology, National Center for Behavioral Genomics and Volen Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University , Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110.

ABSTRACT
The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a diurnal insect active during the day with consolidated sleep at night. Social interactions between pairs of flies have been shown to affect locomotor activity patterns, but effects on locomotion and sleep patterns have not been assessed for larger populations. Here, we use a commercially available locomotor activity monitor (LAM25H) system to record and analyze sleep behavior. Surprisingly, we find that same-sex populations of flies synchronize their sleep/wake activity, resulting in a population sleep pattern, which is similar but not identical to that of isolated individuals. Like individual flies, groups of flies show circadian and homeostatic regulation of sleep, as well as sexual dimorphism in sleep pattern and sensitivity to starvation and a known sleep-disrupting mutation (amnesiac). Populations of flies, however, exhibit distinct sleep characteristics from individuals. Differences in sleep appear to be due to olfaction-dependent social interactions and change with population size and sex ratio. These data support the idea that it is possible to investigate neural mechanisms underlying the effects of population behaviors on sleep by directly looking at a large number of animals in laboratory conditions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Populations exhibit homeostatic rebound sleep after mechanical sleep deprivation. A, Sleep profiles of individual female flies (n = 48 and n = 43 for non-SD and SD, respectively) were recorded using DAM2. B, Sleep profiles of groups of 50 female flies (n = 16 groups for both non-SD and SD) were captured using LAM25H. Red bar indicates the sleep deprivation period in both experiments. In B, the absence of data points for the SD groups during the SD period is because of the need to remove the population vials from the monitor during shaking (see Materials and Methods). C, Quantification of recovery day sleep. Day time sleep increased significantly on the recovery day after 12 h of sleep deprivation by mechanical shaking. Sleep changes were normalized to the baseline day. Δ Total sleep: total sleep changes. ZT, Zeitgeber time; SD, sleep deprivation. ***p < 0.0001; n.s., no significant difference.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4596024&req=5

Figure 3: Populations exhibit homeostatic rebound sleep after mechanical sleep deprivation. A, Sleep profiles of individual female flies (n = 48 and n = 43 for non-SD and SD, respectively) were recorded using DAM2. B, Sleep profiles of groups of 50 female flies (n = 16 groups for both non-SD and SD) were captured using LAM25H. Red bar indicates the sleep deprivation period in both experiments. In B, the absence of data points for the SD groups during the SD period is because of the need to remove the population vials from the monitor during shaking (see Materials and Methods). C, Quantification of recovery day sleep. Day time sleep increased significantly on the recovery day after 12 h of sleep deprivation by mechanical shaking. Sleep changes were normalized to the baseline day. Δ Total sleep: total sleep changes. ZT, Zeitgeber time; SD, sleep deprivation. ***p < 0.0001; n.s., no significant difference.

Mentions: t Test and nonparametric


Sleep in Populations of Drosophila Melanogaster (1,2,3).

Liu C, Haynes PR, Donelson NC, Aharon S, Griffith LC - eNeuro (2015)

Populations exhibit homeostatic rebound sleep after mechanical sleep deprivation. A, Sleep profiles of individual female flies (n = 48 and n = 43 for non-SD and SD, respectively) were recorded using DAM2. B, Sleep profiles of groups of 50 female flies (n = 16 groups for both non-SD and SD) were captured using LAM25H. Red bar indicates the sleep deprivation period in both experiments. In B, the absence of data points for the SD groups during the SD period is because of the need to remove the population vials from the monitor during shaking (see Materials and Methods). C, Quantification of recovery day sleep. Day time sleep increased significantly on the recovery day after 12 h of sleep deprivation by mechanical shaking. Sleep changes were normalized to the baseline day. Δ Total sleep: total sleep changes. ZT, Zeitgeber time; SD, sleep deprivation. ***p < 0.0001; n.s., no significant difference.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4596024&req=5

Figure 3: Populations exhibit homeostatic rebound sleep after mechanical sleep deprivation. A, Sleep profiles of individual female flies (n = 48 and n = 43 for non-SD and SD, respectively) were recorded using DAM2. B, Sleep profiles of groups of 50 female flies (n = 16 groups for both non-SD and SD) were captured using LAM25H. Red bar indicates the sleep deprivation period in both experiments. In B, the absence of data points for the SD groups during the SD period is because of the need to remove the population vials from the monitor during shaking (see Materials and Methods). C, Quantification of recovery day sleep. Day time sleep increased significantly on the recovery day after 12 h of sleep deprivation by mechanical shaking. Sleep changes were normalized to the baseline day. Δ Total sleep: total sleep changes. ZT, Zeitgeber time; SD, sleep deprivation. ***p < 0.0001; n.s., no significant difference.
Mentions: t Test and nonparametric

Bottom Line: Social interactions between pairs of flies have been shown to affect locomotor activity patterns, but effects on locomotion and sleep patterns have not been assessed for larger populations.Surprisingly, we find that same-sex populations of flies synchronize their sleep/wake activity, resulting in a population sleep pattern, which is similar but not identical to that of isolated individuals.These data support the idea that it is possible to investigate neural mechanisms underlying the effects of population behaviors on sleep by directly looking at a large number of animals in laboratory conditions.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Biology, National Center for Behavioral Genomics and Volen Center for Complex Systems, Brandeis University , Waltham, Massachusetts 02454-9110.

ABSTRACT
The fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster is a diurnal insect active during the day with consolidated sleep at night. Social interactions between pairs of flies have been shown to affect locomotor activity patterns, but effects on locomotion and sleep patterns have not been assessed for larger populations. Here, we use a commercially available locomotor activity monitor (LAM25H) system to record and analyze sleep behavior. Surprisingly, we find that same-sex populations of flies synchronize their sleep/wake activity, resulting in a population sleep pattern, which is similar but not identical to that of isolated individuals. Like individual flies, groups of flies show circadian and homeostatic regulation of sleep, as well as sexual dimorphism in sleep pattern and sensitivity to starvation and a known sleep-disrupting mutation (amnesiac). Populations of flies, however, exhibit distinct sleep characteristics from individuals. Differences in sleep appear to be due to olfaction-dependent social interactions and change with population size and sex ratio. These data support the idea that it is possible to investigate neural mechanisms underlying the effects of population behaviors on sleep by directly looking at a large number of animals in laboratory conditions.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus