* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Using Drosophila to Understand the Genetics of Circadian Rhythms
Survey
Document related concepts
Vectors in gene therapy wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of neurodegenerative diseases wikipedia , lookup
Epigenetics of human development wikipedia , lookup
Genome (book) wikipedia , lookup
Gene therapy of the human retina wikipedia , lookup
Therapeutic gene modulation wikipedia , lookup
Artificial gene synthesis wikipedia , lookup
Designer baby wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression profiling wikipedia , lookup
Site-specific recombinase technology wikipedia , lookup
Microevolution wikipedia , lookup
Nutriepigenomics wikipedia , lookup
Gene expression programming wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
REVIEW Why a Fly? Using Drosophila to Understand the Genetics of Circadian Rhythms and Sleep Joan C. Hendricks, VMD, PhD1; Amita Sehgal, PhD1,2 1Center for Sleep and Respiratory Neurobiology, 2Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA Abstract: Among simple model systems, Drosophila has specific advantages for neurobehavioral investigations. It has been particularly useful for understanding the molecular basis of circadian rhythms. In addition, the genetics of fruit-fly sleep are beginning to develop. This review summarizes the current state of understanding of circadian rhythms and sleep in the fruit fly for the readers of Sleep. We note where information is available in mammals, for comparison with findings in fruit flies, to provide an evolutionary perspective, and we focus on recent findings and new ques- tions. We propose that sleep-specific neural activity may alter cellular function and thus accomplish the restorative function or functions of sleep. In conclusion, we sound some cautionary notes about some of the complexities of working with this “simple” organism. Citation: Hendricks JC; Sehgal A. Why a fly? Using Drosophila to understand the genetics of circadian rhythms and sleep. SLEEP 2004;27(2):334-42. INTRODUCTION gene silencing by expressing RNAi to interfere with specific gene products are also being used with increasing success in adult flies.6-8 This is helpful because using mutants to analyze adult phenotypes has a number of logical limits, despite their proven utility. In using a mutant adult to study behavior, one must avoid making the unwarranted assumption that any interesting phenotype is due to the absence of the gene product at the time of the assay, without regard to developmental roles for the gene product. This disadvantage also applies to many transgenic systems if the gene is expressed or misexpressed throughout development. Further, genes whose products are needed for normal development may have a different role in adulthood that cannot be discerned if development is prevented or grossly altered by a mutation or transgene that alters lifelong gene expression. Thus, these new tools should be particularly helpful for dissecting the genetics of sleep, as for other studies of adult behavior. The fact that the human, mouse, and fly genomes are publicly available and that reagents for the laboratory models are steadily being developed should allow us to leverage discoveries made in Drosophila into application in mammals. It took more than 20 years to find the 2d core clock gene, timeless, after the discovery of period. Subsequent progress, however, was rapid. Since we now stand on the shoulders of both molecular circadian biology and the genomics revolution, the sleep field may well be able to make relatively rapid progress. As our understanding of molecular biology advances, one question that begins to seem within our grasp is discovering how changes in the CNS activity that accompany sleep lead to changes in cellular function. We hypothesize that such changes must underlie the restorative function or functions of sleep. We will conclude this review with some caveats. Some elementary principles are easy to overlook in the excitement of identifying interesting phenotypes in genetically modified animals. Flies are relatively easy to work with, but rigorous testing and critical evaluation of the information is vital to solid findings and valid interpretations. The effects of nongenetic influences and complex genetic interactions on adult behavior can profoundly alter phenotype. The ready availability of mutants, transgenics, and other reagents does not remove the burden on the investigator to verify that any phenotype of interest is actually due to the change in the specific gene of interest. Fortunately, the field has a tradition of rapid reproducibility that allows verification and refinement of published data. IN WRITING THIS REVIEW, THE AUTHORS ASKED OURSELVES, “WHAT CAN WE PROVIDE TO THE READERS OF SLEEP THAT IS NOT ALREADY AVAILABLE IN THE MUCHREVIEWED AREA OF USING DROSOPHILA TO STUDY CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS AND SLEEP?” First, most reviews focus largely on the molecular basis of circadian rhythms (see for example1,2)), so that a review tailored for an audience interested in sleep may be appropriate. Second, despite the frequency of reviews, new information is emerging at such a rapid rate that it is worthwhile to highlight the current state of knowledge and the tantalizing questions to which answers now seem within our grasp. We will take the time at the end of this review to provide caveats about the limits and complexities of working with Drosophila. It is also worth mentioning its advantages at the outset. Any simple model has the advantages of it simplicity per se: a quantitatively smaller central nervous system (CNS) and genome ought to make it relatively easy to unravel interactions than in any mammalian model. Further, simple models tend to be both small and rapidly reproducing, providing large numbers of animals and inexpensive maintenance and, thus, both statistical power and ready duplication of results. In the last decade of the 20th century, organisms as distant from humans as yeast, worms, and flies were extensively used to work out the basics of cell function. When viewed in the company of worms and yeast, Drosophila has the additional advantage of its complex behavior. Flies have the ability to learn, court, run, fly, and sleep, and they have advanced and well-studied sensory systems. A further benefit is the accrual of technical advances from a century-long focus on fruit flies as a model for genetics. Not only was the Drosophila melanogaster genome the first of a laboratory animal to be sequenced,3 but the open culture of the world of fly research has been instrumental in providing the best-annotated genome, providing quality control and bolstering confidence that predicted genes have a basis in reality. Further, the ability to manipulate the genome is increasingly sophisticated. In addition to mutants, spatially and temporally inducible transgenic systems have recently been reported.4,5 Genetic methods for Disclosure Statement No significant financial interest/other relationship to disclose. DROSOPHILA AS A MODEL FOR CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS Submitted for publication December 2003 Accepted for publication January 2004 Address correspondence to: Joan C. Hendricks, Center for Sleep, 991 Maloney Building, 3600 Spruce St, Philadelphia, PA 19104, Ph: (215) 615-3156; Fax: (215) 662-7749; E-mail: [email protected] SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 While fruit-fly research has contributed tremendously to virtually all aspects of biology, its importance to the circadian field is particularly noteworthy. Firstly, as opposed to the traditional use of Drosophila to 334 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal study development, circadian biology exploited this organism to determine the molecular underpinnings of behavior. Secondly, because mammalian homologs of the first Drosophila clock gene, period, were not found for many years, a substantial body of Drosophila work accumulated before any of this could be applied to mammals. As a result, Drosophila circadian research managed to stay ahead of, and influence, the work done in mammals for many years. At this point, even while rapid progress is being made in the mammalian circadian arena, Drosophila biologists continue to make important strides in our understanding of circadian rhythms. As elaborated below, every aspect of the Drosophila circadian system shares mechanistic features and molecules with its mammalian counterpart. In addition to the PER-TIM loop, there is a second loop that involves the other cycling component of the clock, namely Clk. In flies and mammals, CLK and BMAL1 activate transcription by binding to a specific promoter element called an E box.2 Among the genes activated thus by CLK/BMAL1 are 2, vrille (vri) and Pdp1, that, in turn, regulate Clk expression.18,19 The expression of Clk is activated by PDP1 and repressed by VRI. PER-TIM are positive regulators of Clk expression, most likely because they inhibit the activation of the CLK repressor, VRI (this indicates that VRI dominates over PDP1 in the control of Clk expression).19 Cyclic expression of Clk is maintained by this loop. In mammals, as in flies, only 1 component of the transcriptional heterodimer cycles, but in this case it is BMAL1.20 BMAL1, like Drosophila CLK, functions in a second feedback loop in which it negatively regulates its own expression by activating the expression of its repressor, rev-erb α.21 mPER2 positively regulates BMAL1 expression, again probably by inhibiting the activation of its repressor. In both flies and mammals, it appears that the second loop, composed of the transcriptional activator, is not essential for overt rhythms. This is not to say that the proteins in this loop are not required, merely that their cycling may not be critical. Thus, a knockout of rev-erbα, which eliminates cycling of BMAL1 mRNA (the protein cycles with very low amplitude even in wild-type mice) and increases levels of the protein, produces only subtle behavioral phenotypes.21 The stability, and perhaps the precision, of the period are affected, indicating that this loop may be a fine-tuning mechanism that serves to maintain stability and accuracy. Likewise in flies, overexpression of Clk, such that its cycling is blunted, does not result in a decrement of rhythms, although similar manipulations of per and tim result in deficits in the free-running rhythm.22,23 It appears that Clk determines amplitude, but not periodicity or phase, of the rhythm.24 This would be consistent with the lack of a significant dosage effect. Clock Mechanisms and Molecules are Conserved From Flies to Mammals Fruit-fly research identified the first clock genes, showed how they cycle and function in a feedback loop, addressed the regulation and the importance of transcriptional and posttranscriptional control, demonstrated the effects of specific kinases on clock proteins, and identified secondary loops that interact with the primary loops.1,2 The well-known loop in which the cycling period (PER) and tim (TIM) proteins negatively regulate the synthesis of their own transcription by inhibiting the activity of transcriptional activators, Clock (CLK) and BMAL1, now has to be supplemented with many other additional components (Figure 1). PER is phosphorylated by casein kinase 1ε, product of the double-time (dbt) gene, and by casein kinase 2, the alpha and beta components of which are encoded by the Timekeeper and Andante genes respectively.912 These phosphorylation events affect the stability and the timing of nuclear localization of PER. Likewise, in mammals, stability and nuclear expression of mPER1 and mPER2 are affected by casein kinase 1ε and perhaps casein kinase 1δ.13 Drosophila TIM is phosphorylated by glycogen synthase kinase (GSK)3β, which also serves to regulate the timed nuclear expression of PER-TIM.14 Although the exact mechanism that controls the timing of nuclear expression is not known, it involves active nuclear export in both systems. Interestingly, the targets of the nuclear export machinery are TIM in Drosophila and PER in mammals.15,16 Of the components noted here, the one whose role in mammals was debatable was TIM. As a result, there was no concerted effort to identify a role for GSK3β. However, a recent study indicates that mTIM may, in fact, function as a clock component.17 Redundant Pathways Entrain the Clock to Light The visual photoreceptors are not essential for entrainment of circadian rhythms. This was first noted in flies many years ago when eyeless flies were tested for behavioral rhythms.25 These results were confirmed when a molecular assay for circadian entrainment became available. The TIM protein is degraded in response to light, and it mediates resetting of the molecular clock and of the ensuing behavioral rhythm.26,27 Flies lacking eyes or some of the components of the visual system are able to degrade TIM and reset their clocks.26,27 However, deficits in entrainment were noted in flies mutant for the trp (transient receptor potential) proteins, which are channels required for visual transduction, suggesting that the visual system might play a role when present.27 Work done in the late 1990s led to the identification of a dedicated circadian photoreceptor, a flavin-binding protein called cryptochrome (CRY).28 CRY functions within the clock cells and interacts directly with TIM in response to light.29,30 This is followed by an unidentified sequence of events that leads to the degradation of both TIM and CRY.31 Flies lacking CRY show severe deficits in their response to pulses of light—TIM is not degraded and the behavioral rhythm fails to reset.31,32 However, cry mutant flies can entrain their circadian rhythms to light:dark cycles.32 Circadian entrainment is completely eliminated when the cry mutation is coupled with the glass (gl) mutation, which is required for the development of all the visual structures in the fly—the compound eyes, the ocelli, and an extraretinal photosensory structure called the Hofbauer-Buchner eyelet.33 In the absence of gl, all opsinmediated transduction ceases. This, together with the elimination of CRY-mediated photoreception, results in a circadian-blind fly. However, the mechanisms by which the visual system resets the clock are not known (Figure 2). This redundant nature of circadian photoreception is also seen in the mammalian system. Although the eyes are clearly required for entrainment of the central clock within the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), the cells that mediate visual transduction (rods and cones) can be eliminated.34 An opsin expressed in retinal ganglion cells, melanopsin, appears Figure 1—The molecular clock mechanism in Drosophila. The loop involving per and tim is shown in solid lines, the interlocked Clock (Clk) loop is indicated by dashed lines. DOUBLETIME (DBT) affects TIMELESS (TIM)-dependent PERIOD (PER) stability. CASEIN KINASE 2 (CK2) and GSK3β affect the timing of nuclear entry of PER/TIM and, therefore, are shown to act on the heterodimer (since nuclear expression of PER affects TIM and vice versa) although they may actually phosphorylate the monomeric proteins. VRILLE (VRI) and PDP1 repress and activate CLK, respectively. SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 335 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal nents that function in the circadian system are not known, peptides such as these typically act through signaling pathways such as Ras/MAPK. In addition, the Ras/MAPK pathway is implicated in signaling in the SCN in both circadian input and output.51 Finally, in identifying parallels between flies and mammals with respect to circadian output, it is intriguing that circadian rhythm and sleep deficits have been noted in patients with Fragile X syndrome.52 to serve as a photoreceptor dedicated to nonvisual functions.35,36 However, as in the fly, the entrainment pathway is redundant, with both visual components as well as melanopsin contributing to the signal from the eye to the SCN.37,38 The redundancy of the system is most likely an adaptive mechanism that facilitates synchrony with the environment. Output from the Central Clock is Mediated, at Least in Part, by Secreted Peptides Central and Peripheral Clocks Function as Part of a System The major output of the central clock cells in Drosophila is an 18 amino-acid peptide termed pigment-dispersing factor (PDF). The accumulation of PDF cycles at specific nerve terminals, which may be indicative of cyclic release, and flies lacking PDF can not sustain rhythms in constant darkness.39,40 Both rest-activity and eclosion (hatching of adult flies from pupae) rhythms are affected, indicating that PDF is required for more than 1 output.39-41 The function of PDF appears to include synchronizing oscillations among different brain clock cells under free-running (constant-darkness) conditions.42 Although the mechanisms that affect PDF release are not known, they appear to not involve fast synaptic transmission.43 However, the integrity of the PDF projections appears to be important, as excessive branching of these, as caused by the loss of the Drosophila Fragile X (dfmr1) gene, results in arrhythmic behavior.44 Also, overexpression of PDF results in significant arrhythmia, but only when the extraneous expression is in cells that project to the relevant region (ie, the region where it normally cycles).45 Thus, the molecule is capable of limited diffusion. The PDF receptor has not yet been identified. However, some of the components that function downstream of PDF in a circadian output pathway are known. The Drosophila homolog of the Neurofibromatosis 1 (NF1) gene is required for rest-activity rhythms in a pathway that includes components of the Ras/MAPK pathway.46 MAPK activity cycles in the region of the brain where PDF accumulation cycles. Thus, this region (the dorsal region) is an important part of the output circuit. The function of the SCN also involves secreted peptides. Interestingly, a knockout of the VPAC2 peptide receptor, which binds 2 peptides implicated in photic entrainment, results in the loss of synchronous clock-gene oscillations in the SCN, similar to the effects seen in PDF-null flies.47 In addition, the rest-activity output rhythm only requires a diffusible molecule as opposed to an elaborate synaptic network. Transplantation experiments have shown that a transplanted SCN could restore rhythms in an SCN-lesioned animal even when it was encapsulated in a membrane.48 Since then, there has been considerable effort to identify these secreted molecules that drive rest-activity rhythms. As of this writing, 2 are known—transforming growth factor alpha (TGF-α) and prokineticin.49,50 Although the downstream compo- This is an increasingly popular area of circadian biology. Although many different aspects of physiology were known to occur with a circadian rhythm, it was the discovery of clock gene expression in various body tissues that lead to the concept of “peripheral clocks” that control local tissue-specific functions. Since the outputs of the different tissues vary greatly, the genes that cycle in these tissues also vary considerably.53,54 As for most other advances, the presence of clocks in different tissues was also first identified in the fly. Use of a luciferase reporter showed that per expression cycles in isolated head and body tissues.55 Experiments to determine whether these peripheral clocks are autonomous or under control of the central clock in the brain have produced mixed results. The clocks in the Malphigian tubules (the fly kidney) and the antenna (which houses an olfactory clock) are independent of the central clock in the brain.56,57 They are equipped with their own photoreceptors and are able to drive local molecular or physiologic rhythms even in the absence of the brain clock. In this respect, they are different from peripheral clocks in mammals, which appear to require the SCN, at least for synchrony if not for clock function per se.58,59 A more recent study of Drosophila eclosion indicates that this autonomy is not true of all Drosophila clocks. As noted above, eclosion is the hatching of an adult fly from its pupa, and it is gated to the early daylight hours. Although it occurs only once in a fly’s lifetime, it can be measured as a rhythm in a population of flies. It turns out that eclosion is controlled by a clock in the prothoracic gland (PG).41 This PG clock is not autonomous; it requires input, including PDF, from the central clock in the brain. Again, it is not clear whether this input is required for basic clock function or for synchrony. Since the measurement of a PG rhythm requires the coordination of multiple cells and animals, an arrhythmic phenotype does not allow one to distinguish between a complete lack of rhythm versus the loss of synchrony among cells or animals. Regardless, it is now clear that, in Drosophila, the degree of autonomy of peripheral clocks varies (Figure 2). Mammalian circadian research has now moved on to the effects of clock genes on the cell cycle and on tumor growth.60,61 Although many of these types of experiments, particularly the latter, are difficult with the fly, they are not impossible. There have been recent advances in the use of the fly for tumor biology.62 Thus, effects of circadian mutants on these processes may be studied. Finally, the fly may also prove to be a useful system for assaying the connection between feeding or metabolism and the clock, another subject that is currently of interest in the mammalian field. We already know of 1 starvation-induced gene in Drosophila, takeout, that is regulated by the circadian clock.63 Other links will most likely be found. DROSOPHILA AS A MODEL FOR SLEEP Figure 2—Organization of the circadian system in Drosophila. Central clock cells in the fly brain contain a photoreceptor, cryptochrome. In addition, the visual system can also entrain the clock although the mechanisms are not known. The output from the central clock includes PIGMENT DISPERSING FACTOR (PDF) which acts through the Ras/MAPK pathway and other unknown components and cells (indicated by the ?) to drive rest:activity rhythms. PDF also acts, either directly or indirectly, on a peripheral clock in the prothoracic gland (PG) to control eclosion rhythms. The PG may express a photoreceptor also, but requires PDF to sustain eclosion rhythms in constant darkness. Other peripheral clocks in the fly are photoreceptive and autonomous. SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 336 Sleep-like behavior in Drosophila was first reported in 2000. A brief summary of the published findings using this model is presented in Table 1. Tobler and colleagues had long noted that sleep-like behavior is manifested across the animal kingdom, regardless of our inability to Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal but the components of the cAMP-PKA signaling pathway were also implicated.67 A screen using baseline rest as an assay has independently confirmed that PKA is important in regulating fly sleep.83 The fly studies of CREB were useful in guiding mammalian studies using CREBmutant mice that revealed a conserved involvement of CREB in sleep regulation.84 Since CREB is a transcription factor that is part of a complex network of cell signaling, pinpointing the specificity of its involvement in states of sleep and wakefulness is the next challenge. Spurred by an the interest in the genetic mechanisms underlying the 2 regulatory systems (circadian and homeostatic), 2 laboratories investigated how rest was altered in null clock mutants.68,69 The clock-related transcription factor cycle (homolog of mammalian BMAL1) was shown in these 2 independent studies to be implicated in rest regulation. 68,69 Interestingly, other clock genes were found to have minimal or no effects on rest either at baseline or after deprivation, 68,69 and abolishing the central clock cells (lateral neurons, the fly homolog of the SCN) did not have a major effect.68 Thus, a noncircadian role of cycle was implicated in sleep regulation. In principle, this finding provides the basis for future studies examining the interaction of the circadian and homeostatic components of rest regulation in detail. One interesting prospect is to use the relatively simple fly CNS to understand the anatomic interconnections in detail. However, although much is known of the neuroanatomy of the fly clock, fundamental progress in understanding the neuroanatomy of the homeostatic regulatory system will be required before substantial studies can be conducted. There are additional novel implications of these studies. Since all of the null clock mutants lack a functional clock, but only the cycle mutants exhibit profound alterations in rest duration and homeostasis, a noncircadian role of cycle has been implicated in sleep regulation. Focusing on the abnormally prolonged rebound in female cycle mutants, Shaw used multiple genetic tools to implicate changes in deprivation-related induction of the heat-shock factor hsp83.69 The mechanism linking cycle to hsp83 was not elucidated but should be readily discernible if it is direct. Further, Shaw showed that prolonged sleep deprivation was lethal to both wild-type flies and to cycle mutants, providing a link to the fact that prolonged sleep deprivation is lethal in rats.85 The role of clock genes in sleep regulation in mammals is still under investigation. In mice, reports of PERIOD86 and CLOCK87 mutants have been published and are generally consistent with the fly studies. As in flies, PERIOD mutants have no phenotype68,69 and CLOCK mutants have a subtle decrease of baseline sleep.68 A change in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep homeostasis was noted in CLOCK mutant mice, which of course would not be discernible in flies, since no substates have been identified in fly sleep. Since CLOCK is the dimer partner of CYCLE, one might expect that the transcriptional activation produced by this dimer to be implicated in the changes in sleep, as well as the firmly established role in circadian rhythms. It may be, alternatively, that these PAS-containing proteins pair up with different partners to affect sleep duration and homeostasis. The BMAL1-mutant phenotype in mammals seems unlikely to resemble the null cycle-mutant phenotype in flies, as these mice have profoundly decreased locomotor activity.88 If BMAL1 affects sleep in the opposite direction as CLOCK, this would argue of course that these 2 proteins do not act as partners in exerting their effect on mammalian sleep. There is a precedent for this, as the clock genes in peripheral clocks also seem to make use of alternative partners in both mammals89,90 and flies.57 It will be interesting to follow future studies of the role of clock genes in noncircadian parameters of sleep and other behaviors as these investigations continue in flies and mammals. The sense had been that the endogenous clock uses dedicated genes that have no other functions. This idea is being modified, as it is obvious that these proteins can have multiple functions in addition to their role as central clock genes. As 2 interesting examples, the period gene has now been shown to have a role in tumor suppression in mammals,60 and microarray data in Clock-mutant flies revealed altered (mostly increased) levels of expression of many genes that do not have circadian cycles.91 document a sleeplike electroencephalogram signature.75 Further, large insects such as honeybees and cockroaches had been shown to have behavioral features of sleep.76-79 Probably because of their small size, fruit flies were not studied earlier, although the presumption that they were sleeping during their prolonged period of circadian inactivity was implicit in some early descriptions of their behavior.80 In 2000, two laboratories independently published data showing that fruit flies exhibit behavioral features of a sleep-like state.64,65 While the methods differed in detail, the findings were remarkably consistent: wild-type flies of both sexes exhibit prolonged nocturnal periods of immobility, in both conditions of alternating light-dark and constant darkness. During this period of consolidated rest lasting several hours, the arousal threshold to a variety of stimuli is elevated. If consolidated rest is prevented by mechanical stimulation for as little as 3 hours, a compensatory rebound follows, providing evidence of homeostatic regulation. Even in these initial descriptions, evidence was also provided that genes could modify the rest state: genes that altered amine metabolism65 and the circadian clock64 were reported to alter the homeostatic response to deprivation. Another early finding was that the circadian system and homeostatic systems interact in regulate sleep duration in flies,64 as they do in mammals.81 In a triumph of timing, the completed Drosophila genome was also released in 2000,3 and the theoretical utility of Drosophila as a genetic organism was reinforced by the undeniable fact that many genes of medical importance were conserved, including genes involved in many human CNS diseases.3,82 While many questions remain to be answered regarding the nature of the fly’s sleep state (are there substates within the apparently unitary fly sleep state? What duration is minimally required to accomplish the restorative function? What anatomic substrates underlie sleep?), the existence of a behavioral state similar to sleep is sufficiently well received that we will refer to the state interchangeably as “sleep” or “rest” for the remainder of this review. Pharmacology of Fly Sleep The initial reports both showed a wake-promoting effect of caffeine64,65 and also showed a sleep-promoting effect of an α1-receptor agonist64 or an antihistamine.65 Similarly, we have found that modafinil, a novel wake-promoting agent that acts through unknown mechanisms, produces sleeplessness in flies similar to the sleeplessness it produces in mammals.66 All of these responses resemble those in mammals and are suggestive that the mechanisms of action are conserved. This presumption has yet to be verified. Beginning to Understand the Genetics of Fly Sleep It is now hard to believe that there was initially some skepticism that sleep need would prove to be a genetically regulated behavior. Subsequent to the initial reports, a candidate-gene approach showed that changing the expression or activity of specific genes and their products could alter baseline rest and homeostatic rebound. Interestingly, while it might seem obvious that baseline sleep and compensatory rebound would be linked, this is not always the case.65,67,68,73 The array of reagents available in Drosophila allowed these investigations to move beyond implicating individual genes. Not only was the transcription factor CREB shown to be important for recovery from sleep deprivation, Table 1—What have we learned about sleep in flies? 1. Wake-promoting drugs (caffeine and modafinil) are effective in flies64-66 2. Changes in the function of a single gene can alter sleep duration and homeostasis65,67-69 3. Gender affects sleep regulation68-71 4. Many genes are induced by sleep deprivation64,69; the pattern mimics cellular stress65 5. Few genes are induced by sleep64,65 6. Prolonged mechanical sleep deprivation is lethal69 7. Baseline and rebound regulation can be dissociated67,68,72,73 8. Energy stores in the central nervous system are repleted during sleep74 SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 337 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal The possible involvement of the heat-shock proteins noted by Shaw and coauthors in rest regulation69 also has interesting implications. Heatshock proteins act as chaperones to optimize proper protein folding, which is especially important during heat stress. Gene-expression studies after sleep deprivation in flies65 and mammals92,93 (and personal communications, Miroslaw Mackiewicz, PhD, Center for Sleep and Respiratory Neurobiology, University of Pennsylvania, 2003) have consistently suggested that prolonged waking, at least when produced by external stimulation, leads to changes in gene expression that resemble the response to cellular stressors such as heat or reactive oxygen. CREB, of course, is also involved in stress responses,94,95 leading to the question of whether waking inevitably involves at least a mild form of cellular stress. If so, then prolonged waking would presumably exacerbate this stress. Do the results of admittedly unnatural experimental sleep-deprivation paradigms have relevance for such human conditions as natural short sleepers, shift workers, or insomniacs? Or is unrelenting, unavoidable, and involuntary laboratory-based sleep deprivation a special case that is outside the realm of ordinary human experience? Parallel studies on human volunteers will likely be required to resolve this question. Regardless, these findings reinforce the commonsense assessment that a prudent approach to reducing one’s sleep is warranted. Cumulative cellular stress, especially oxidative stress, is generally implicated in aging and neurodegenerative disease.96-101 If sleep deprivation acts synergistically with chronologic age, more-rapid deterioration in CNS function would be expected in individuals who also do not get sufficient sleep— whatever “sufficient” means for an individual. Interestingly, every study of sleep-related gene expression has shown that while many genes are upregulated during sleep deprivation, few are induced by sleep.64,92,102,103 Clearly, we are just beginning to identify genes involved in sleep regulation, but the fact that 2 transcription factors have been implicated is hopeful for the future. Combining microarray techniques with phenotyping of genetically modified mice and flies will help us to verify and extend these initial findings. In mice, strain differences have been shown,104,105 and at least 1 interesting gene locus has been identified by QTL mapping.104 Studies of the heritability of human sleep need are also underway at many institutions including the University of Pennsylvania. mented in humans,109,110 sex influences on sleep regulation has been surprisingly little studied. There is a striking difference in the rebound response of male and female cycle mutant flies, with females showing increased and males showing decreased rebound responses.68,69 Wildtype males have a more marked daytime nap and less consolidated nighttime sleep.70,71 Interestingly, male flies have been consistently and almost exclusively used to study circadian rhythms, and both sexes are routinely combined in molecular studies, so that important differences may have been missed in most published studies of circadian rhythms and other behaviors; this is an issue discussed in more detail elsewhere.111 The anatomic substrate for the differences between wild-type males and females has been pursued by artificially expressing a feminizing gene in specific regions of the CNS in male flies.70 We also have preliminary evidence that the response of Drosophila to pharmacologic agents can be sex-dimorphic (P. Schotland, Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania, unpublished observations, 2003). While interesting per se, sex dimorphism in sleep regulation is also a specific instance of the general cautionary rule that behavior, including sleep, is highly susceptible to background genetic modulation. That is, not surprisingly, many genes can alter sleep, and sex, with its global influence on cellular function, may also have global influences on the genetics of sleep regulation. Neural Activity During Fly Sleep and Waking For any neuroscientist accustomed to working in mammalian systems, the fly’s CNS is bewildering, not only because it bears little resemblance to the mammalian CNS, but also because it has been little investigated, especially in adults. The application of spatially and temporally specific gene-expression systems is increasingly refining our understanding of the functional anatomy of the fly CNS, since cellular function can be altered in specific regions or at specific times.43,112,113 Some of the most striking examples have been in the area of learning and memory.114,115 A more familiar approach for the mammalian neuroscientist is direct recordings, understandably a daunting task give the tiny size of the fruit fly. However, some interesting progress has been made in recording from the adult fly’s CNS.116-118 Imaging of calcium flux in the living adult fly has also been reported,119,120 and a culture system that allows both visualization of calcium flux and measurement of synaptic activity121,122 offers great potential. However, the restraint and dissection necessary to perform both of these latter methods do not permit observation of any behavioral signs of sleep or arousal. Even the electrophysiologic studies in the intact fruit fly require tethering the fly. Although in larger organisms (eg, honeybees76) such a preparation can be maintained for days and permits the expression of circadian rhythmicity in locomotor rest and activity,77 fruit flies only sleep for approximately 20% of the night in this situation. With sleep defined as periods of complete quiescence and reduced responsiveness, bouts are usually a little longer than 5 minutes, with a maximum of about 15 minutes in duration. Thus, the ideal tool for monitoring state-related brain activity in the same fashion as with a chronically implanted electroencephalogram is still not available in fruit flies. The great utility of the tethered preparation to date has been to establish that changes in oscillatory frequency accompany perception of relevant environmental stimuli in the waking fly.117,118 To date, no mass neural signature has been detected in this preparation that is correlated with the fly’s sleep state.118 It does not appear that synchronous slowing of the frequency of neural activity heralds or accompanies the periods of immobility displayed by the tethered fly118 (and personal communications, B. van Swinderen, Ph.D., 2003). It is always difficult and unsatisfying to make definitive conclusions based on a lack of information; one could easily imagine that technical problems, a lack of prolonged consolidated sleep, or the sheer lack of sufficient time for adaptation (flies are highly sensitive to environmental changes as innocuous as a change in food) might prevent successful recording of a sleep-specific waveform using the tethered fly preparation. Nonetheless, we cannot at present document that changes analogous to mammalian electroencephalographic sleep signatures exist in the fly. Interestingly, it does appear that prior to entering a period of immobility, the fly’s neu- CNS Energy Use in Fly Sleep and Waking Sleep would intuitively seem likely to allow or perhaps actively promote repletion of energy stores that are depleted during waking. Can we document that waking CNS activity depletes, and sleep repletes, neural energy stores? While this theory has been recognized as a very attractive concept ever since it was introduced in 1995,106 it has been difficult to answer the question conclusively in mammals.107,108 There are serious methodologic considerations for the measurement of glycogen in the relatively large brain of mammals that do not apply to flies. Metabolism in the mammalian brain continues after death unless death is produced by very rapid heating of the brain, which is difficult to achieve. However, near-instantaneous heating of the entire brain is trivial in flies, due to the small size and low thermal inertia of the tissue. The glycogen level of the fly brain has been shown to vary inversely with sleep in undisturbed flies, and repletion of depleted glycogen after sleep deprivation has also been shown to occur during rebound sleep.74 Mere stimulation was not responsible for the depletion of glycogen during sleep deprivation, as the same stimuli applied during the normal active period did not alter brain glycogen. This opens the possibility that studies of the oxidative stress accompanying wakefulness can be studied in detail in flies. Presumably, an interacting cascade of compensatory, protective, and modulating influences are involved. Since oxidative stress and aging have been usefully studied in flies (see, for example101), this is likely to be an interesting avenue to pursue. Sex Interactions with Genetic Sleep Regulation Another area that may also be easier to manipulate in flies is sex interactions with genotype. While male-female differences have been docuSLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 338 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal ral activity is uncoupled from environmental stimuli (B. van Swinderen, Ph.D., personal communications, 2003), presumably a neural correlate of the lack of behavioral responsiveness. Further, while overall power is maintained during brief (5- to 20-second) pauses in activity that occur during the waking state, overall power across the frequency spectrum declines when the fly is in the more prolonged (5- to 15-minute) quiescent, nonresponsive state defined as sleep. Thus, current information indicates that, even if there are not discernible synchronous high-amplitude discharges that characterize fly sleep, there is nonetheless a global change in brain electrical activity during the sleep state. Posttranscriptional modifications may, of course, be at least as important as transcriptional changes. Further, the issue of compartmentalization and movement may be almost as important as the gene-product profiles. For example, the normal circadian changes in subcellular distribution of the clock protein TIMELESS do not occur when the electrical activity in Drosophila clock neurons is silenced.113 The ability to visualize specific reporter-tagged molecules in the Drosophila brain might be combined with the newly developed techniques to culture brains to answer to the question of state-related changes in subcellular localization. For example, brains from “sleepless” mutants or modafinil-fed brains might exhibit consistent changes in the pattern of distribution of specific molecules that contrasts with the pattern in normal animals. How would changes in electrical activity become changes in cell function? Given that it seems inevitable that intracellular messengers must link sleeprelated changes in activity to gene expression and posttranscriptional changes (Figure 3B), is there any current information to guide future investigations into such a mechanism? Given current information, we favor the possibility that the link is made through changes in Ca++ (Figure 3C). Changes in Ca++ levels have been noted to be promoted by sleeping waveforms.124 Clearly, Ca++ can influence gene expression acting through a number of transcription factors,133-135 with the frequency of Ca++ oscillations being an important signal to specify the pattern of gene transcription.136 Ca++ oscillations have been noted in the Drosophila CNS (both larval and adult),119 and intracellular Ca++ is activity dependent in cultured Drosophila CNS.121,122 Whatever the signaling mechanism, we hypothesize that the endogenous signaling is optimized and the signal-to-noise ratio optimized by the sleeping state of the brain, such that specific (repair and plasticity-related) genes are transcribed best during sleep. In this scenario, longer consolidated sleep bouts would best permit the completion of these programs of gene transcription and related cellular-repair functions. The activity of the repair genes might persist during waking and thus contribute to the improvement of waking function that follows a prolonged restorative bout of sleep. Speculation: Can Flies Help Us to Answer the Question Why Animals Need Sleep Instead of Mere Rest? It is easy to understand the need for inactivity for somatic and neural recovery from exhaustion, but the need for sleep—a homeostatically regulated period of unresponsiveness—is harder to understand. Several putative biologic functions for sleep have, of course, been advanced.123126 We presume that the function of sleep must be fostered by sleep-specific changes in brain activity, whether sleep-specific waveforms, as in mammals, or a decrease of global activity, as shown in flies (Figure 3A). A hallmark of mammalian sleep is high-amplitude, slow, synchronous discharges during sleep. In contrast to waking, where the waveforms are in the faster alpha, beta, and gamma ranges, spindles, K complexes, and delta waves characterizes non-REM, and pontogeniculooccipital spikes occur just prior to and during REM sleep. In addition, a slower (0.1Hz) waveform has been noted that underlies the occurrence of spindles.124,127132 As noted above, flies have not been shown to have a specific neural waveform during their sleep. However, responsiveness to environmental stimuli is greatly decreased during the sleep state by either neural or behavioral measures. Together with the fact that glycogen is repleted during rest74 and the overall power of neural activity at all frequencies declines when flies are sleeping (B. van Swinderen, Ph.D., personal communications, 2003), it is reasonable to conclude that fly sleep is a time of greatly reduced neural activity. Since cell function during the sleep state is altered by the sleep-related changes in activity, it seems logical to assume that changes in cellular function are fundamental to the function of sleep (Figure 3B). The conversion of state-related changes in activity to changes in gene expression must rely on intracellular messenger systems. Sleep-related gene expression is under investigation in several labs, and the proteome during sleep will surely soon be attacked. CONCLUSIONS, NUANCES, AND NUISANCES We conclude with some caveats. We hope that fruit flies will increasingly be used to probe the genetics and cell biology of sleep. However, some basic cautions may help the investigator who is new to the use of Drosophila. Despite the fact that fruit flies are renowned for the ease of their cultivation, reproduction, and maintenance, they are actually quite sensitive and finicky about culture conditions. Behavior is readily influenced by environmental influences such as light, temperature, humidity, food, social crowding, and reproductive status. More subtle effects of stimuli such as noise, mechanical disruptions, odors, and electrical fields have not been well documented but may play a role in the notorious variability of assays of complex behaviors. One special instance that is highly relevant to the study of sleep is the possibility that insects have a stress response analogous to the mammalian adrenocortical response: stress is a serious issue for all studies of sleep deprivation, and there simply is very little information about this in insects. Using a variety of methods to produce sleep deprivation will be necessary to better understand this issue, as all studies to date have used mechanical stimuli. Figure 3—Are sleep-specific changes in neural activity related to restorative sleep functions? A. Sleep-specific brain activity changes are well documented, and many putative restorative functions have been proposed, can mechanisms to link them be Another fundamental issue is that we still identified? B. We posit that changes in electrical activity must lead to changes in cell function (note that we are not limiting have no definitive temporal criterion for fly this to neurons; glial function could also be involved). C. Sleep-specific activity changes are proposed to be converted into sleep. The initial descriptions used a 30-minute restorative cellular functions through changes in intracellular signaling. We suggest here that Ca++ levels (or, probably more importantly, frequency and perhaps amplitude of Ca++ oscillations) provide information that changes both gene transcription duration as the definition of rest64,65; however, and post-transcriptional modifications. For further details see text. subsequent studies have also used 5-minute SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 339 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal measures.66,69 In normal flies, most rest in a 24-hour period is accomplished in bouts lasting > 30 minutes,64 but this bout length can be significantly shortened by gene mutations68 and drugs.66 We need to know whether there is a minimal duration of immobility that meets the definition of sleep. That is, what is the shortest bout length that is accompanied by behavioral unresponsiveness and provides a restorative function? We have noted that modafinil decreases consolidated (30 minutes) but not brief (5 minutes) sleep over a 24-hour day in flies.66 Since withdrawal of modafinil after several days results in a slight but statistically significant rebound of sleep, we concluded that some but not all of the restorative function of sleep can be accomplished during these shorter bouts.66 Finally, while breeding flies is rather straightforward, and many mutants and transgenics are readily available either through public sources or from colleagues, interpreting the data must be critical and rigorous. Flies cannot be stored as frozen organisms but, rather, must be maintained as breeding colonies. Thus, genetic abnormalities can be lost or acquired. Any mutant or transgenic should be verified to have the abnormality of interest, and any role for genetic background should be ruled out before attributing a particular phenotype to a particular gene. For example, many lines of flies have a mutation that lengthens the endogenous circadian period (J. Hendricks, personal observations), and both baseline rest and amplitude of the circadian rhythm are quite variable among individual wild-type flies (J. Hendricks, personal observations). There are well-established methods for mapping a phenotype to a particular gene locus: rescuing the phenotype of a null mutant by transgenically restoring the mutant gene is one such method. We have also noted above that sex can interact profoundly with genotype. The commonsense warning to the novice fly researcher is simply to realize that many additional steps must follow the initial observation that a genetically altered line of flies has an abnormal phenotype. We have noted, for example, that whereas the baseline rest duration mapped to the cycle locus, the effect of cycle on homeostatic rebound and on lifespan in cycle-null flies is modified by genetic background in addition to the cycle mutation.68 This sensitivity to background does not change the fact that longevity, response to stress, and gene expression are altered in cycle mutants, but gene interactions must be considered before attributing these aspects of the phenotype simply to a single gene. In conclusion, flies helped to identify molecular mechanisms underlying the endogenous clock that are largely conserved in mammals. What we know so far encourages us to think that fly rest is a very useful homolog to mammalian sleep: in both mammals and flies, sleep loss resembles cellular stress and can be lethal; flies respond like mammals to several pharmacologic agents, and the CREB transcription pathway seems to be involved in promoting wakefulness in both flies and mammals. We do not yet have thoroughly elucidated pathways for sleep regulation or function, but we clearly have begun to take the first steps. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 37. Hall JC. Genetics and molecular biology of rhythms in Drosophila and other insects. Adv Genet 2003;48:1-280. Wang GK, Sehgal A. Signaling components that drive circadian rhythms. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2002;12:331-8,. Rubin GM, Yandell MD, Wortman JR. Comparative genomics of the eukaryotes. Science 2000;287:2204-15. Stebbins MJ, Urlanger S, Byrne G, Bello B, Hillen W Yin JCP. Tetracycline inducible systems for Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad S U S A 2001;98:10775-80. Roman G, Endo K, Zong L, Davis RL. P{Switch}, a system for spatial and temporal control of gene expression in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:12602-7. Martinek S, Young MW. Specific genetic interference with behavioral rhythms in Drosophila by expression of inverted repeats. Genetics 2000;156:1717-25. Dzitoyeva S, Dimitrijevic N, Manev H. Gamma-aminobutyric acid B receptor 1 mediates behavior-impairing actions of alcohol in Drosophila: adult RNA interference and pharmacological evidence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003;100:5485-90 Kalidas S, Smith DP. Novel genomic cDNA hybrids produce effective RNA interference in adult Drosophila. Neuron 2002;33:177-84. Kloss B, Rothenfluh A, Young MW, Saez L. Phosphorylation of period is influenced by cycling physical associations of double-time, period, and timeless in the Drosophila clock. Neuron 2001;30:699-706. SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 340 Bao S, Rihel J, Bjes E, Fan JY, Price JL. The Drosophila double-timeS mutation delays the nuclear accumulation of period protein and affects the feedback regulation of period mRNA. J Neurosci 2001;21:7117-26. Akten B, Jauch E, Genova GK, et al. A role for CK2 in the Drosophila circadian oscillator. Nat Neurosci 2003;6:251-7. Lin JM, Kilman VL, Keegan K, Paddock B, Emery-Le M, Rosbash M, Allada R. A role for casein kinase 2alpha in the Drosophila circadian clock. Nature 2002;420:816-20. Lee C, Etchegaray JP, Cagampang FR, Loudon AS, Reppert SM. Posttranslational mechanisms regulate the mammalian circadian clock. Cell 2001;107:855-67. Martinek S, Inonog S, Manoukian AS, Young MW. A role for the segment polarity gene shaggy/GSK-3 in the Drosophila circadian clock. Cell 2001;105:769-79. Yagita K, Tamanini F, Yasuda M, Hoeijmakers JH, van der Horst GT, Okamura H. Nucleocytoplasmic shuttling and mCRY-dependent inhibition of ubiquitylation of the mPER2 clock protein. EMBO Journal 2002;21:1301-14. Ashmore LJ, Sathyanarayanan S, Silvestre DW, Emerson MM, Schotland P, Sehgal A. Novel insights into the regulation of the timeless protein. J Neurosci 2003;23:7810-9. Barnes JW, Tischkau SA, Barnes JA, et al. Requirement of mammalian Timeless for circadian rhythmicity. Science 2003;302:439-42. Glossop NR, Houl JH, Zheng H, Ng FS, Dudek SM, Hardin PE. VRILLE feeds back to control circadian transcription of Clock in the Drosophila circadian oscillator. Neuron 2003;37:249-61. Cyran SA, Buchsbaum AM, Reddy KL, et al. vrille, Pdp1,and dClock form a second feedback loop in the Drosophila circadian clock. Cell 2003;112:329-42. Reppert SM, Weaver DR. Coordination of circadian timing in mammals. Nature 2002;418:935-41. Preitner N, Damiola F, Molina L-L, et al. The orphan nuclear receptor REV-ERBalpha controls circadian transcription within the positive limb of the mammalian circadian oscillator. Cell 2002;110:251-60. Kim EY, Bae K, Ng FS, Glossop NRJ, Hardin PE, Edery I. Drosophila CLOCK protein is under posttranscriptional control and influences light-induced activity. Neuron 2002;34:69-81. Yang Z and Sehgal A. Role of molecular oscillations in the Drosophila circadian clock. Neuron. 2001;29:453-67. Allada R, Kadener S, Nandakumar N, Rosbash M. A recessive mutant of Drosophila Clock reveals a role in circadian rhythm amplitude. EMBO J 2003;22:3367-75. Helfrich C. Role of the optic lobes in the regulation of the locomotor activity rhythm of Drosophila melanogaster: behavioral analysis of neural mutants. J Neurogenet 1986;3:321-43. Suri V, Qian Z, Hall JC, Rosbash M. Evidence that the TIM light response is relevant to light-induced phase shifts in Drosophila melanogaster. Neuron 1998;21:225-34. Yang Z, Emerson M, Su HS, Sehgal A. Response of the timeless protein to light correlates with behavioral entrainment and suggests a nonvisual pathway for circadian photoreception. Neuron 1998;21:225-34. Stanewsky R, Kaneko M, Emery P, et al. The cryb mutation identifies cryptochrome as a circadian photoreceptor in Drosophila. Cell 1998;95:681-92. Emery P, Stanewsky R, Helfrich-Foerster C, Emery-Le M, Hall JC, Rosbash M. Drosophila CRY is a deep-brain circadian photoreceptor. Neuron 2000;2:493-504. Ceriani MF, Darlington TK, Staknis D, et al. Light-dependent sequestration of TIMELESS by CRYPTOCHROME. Science1999; 285:553-6. Lin FJ, Song W, Meyer-Bernstein E, Naidoo N, Sehgal A. Photic signaling by cryptochrome in the Drosophila circadian system. Mol Cell Biol 2001;21:7287-94. Stanewsky R, Kaneko M, Emery P et al. The cryb mutation identifies cryptochrome as an essential photoreceptor in Drosophila. Cell 1998;95:681-92. Helfrich-Forster C, Winter C, Hofbauer A, Hall JC, Stanewsky R. The circadian clock of fruit flies is blind after elimination of all known photoreceptors. Neuron 2001;30:249-61. Lucas RJ, Freedman MS, Munoz M, Garcia-Fernandez JM, Foster RG. Regulation of the mammalian pineal by non-rod, non-cone, ocular photoreceptors. Science 1999;284:505-7. Panda S, Sato TK, Castrucci AM, et al. Melanopsin (Opn4) requirement for normal light-induced circadian phase shifting. Science 2002;298:2213-6. Lucas RJ, Hattar S, Takao M, Berson DM, Foster RG, K.W. Y. Diminished pupillary light reflex at high irradiances in melanopsin-knockout mice. Science 2003;299:245-7. Hattar S, Lucas RJ, Mrosovsky N, et al. Melanopsin and rod-cone photoreceptive systems account for all major accessory visual functions in mice. Nature 2003;424:75-81. Panda S, Provencio I, Tu DC, et al. Melanopsin is required for non-image-forming photic responses in blind mice. Science 2003;301:525-7. Renn SC, Park JH, Rosbash M, Hall JC, Taghert PH. A PDF neuropeptide gene mutation and ablation of PDF neurons each cause severe abnormalities of behavioral circadian rhythms in Drosophila. Cell 1999;99:791-802. Park JH, Helfrich-Foerster C, Lee G, Rosbash M, Hall JC. Differential regulation of circadian pacemaker output by separate clock genes in Drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97:3608-13. Myers EM, Yu J, Sehgal A. Circadian Control of Eclosion. Interaction between a Central and Peripheral Clock in Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 2003;18:526-33. Peng Y, Stoleru D, Levine JD, HAll JC, Rosbash M. Drosophila free-running rhythms require intercellular communication. PLoS Biol 2003;1:E13. Kaneko M, Park JH, Cheng Y, Hardin PE, Hall JC. Disruption of synaptic transmission or clock-gene-product oscillations in circadian pacemaker cells of Drosophila cause abnormal behavioral rhythms. J Neurobiol 2000;43:207-33. Dockendorff TC, Su HS, McBride SMJ, et al. Drosophila lacking dfmr1 activity show defects in circadian output and fail to maintain courtship interest. Neuron 2002;34:97384. Helfrich-Forster C, Tauber M, Park JH, Muhlig-Versen M, Schneuwly S, Hofbauer A. Ectopic expression of the neuropeptide pigment-dispersing factor alters behavioral Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. rhythms in Drosophila melanogaster. J Neurosci 2000;20:3339-53,. Williams JA, Su HS, Bernards A, Field J, Sehgal A. A circadian output in Drosophila mediated by neurofibromatosis-1 and Ras/MAPK. Science 2001;293:2251-6. Harmar AJ, Marston HM, Shen S, et al. The VPAC(2) receptor is essential for circadian function in the mouse suprachiasmatic nuclei. Cell 2002;497-508. Silver R, LeSauter J, Tresco PA, Lehman MN. A diffusible coupling signal from the transplanted suprachiasmatic nucleus controlling circadian locomotor rhythms. Nature 1996;382:810-3. Kramer A, Yang F-C, Snodgrass P, Li X, Scammell TE, Davis FD, Weitz CJ. Regulation of daily locomotor activity and sleep by hypothalamic EGF receptor signaling. Science 2001;294:2511-5. Cheng MY, Bullock CM, Li C, et al. Prokineticin 2 transmits the behavioural circadian rhythms of the suprachiasmatic nucleus. Nature 2002;417:405-10. Obrietan K, Impey S, Storm DR. Light and circadian rhythmicity regulate MAP kinase activation in the suprachiasmatic nuclei. Nat Neurosci 1998;1:693-700. Gould EL, Loesch DZ, Martin MJ, Hagerman RJ, Armstrong SM, Huggins RM. Melatonin profiles and sleep characteristics in boys with fragile X syndrome: a preliminary study. Am J Med Genet 2000;95:307-15. Storch K-F, Lipon O, Laykin I, et al. Extensive and divergent circadian gene expression in liver and heart. Nature 2002;407:78-83. Panda S, Antoch MP, Miller BH, et al. Coordinated transcription of key pathways in the mouse by the circadian clock. Cell 2002;109:307-20. Plautz JD, Kaneko M, Hall JC, Kay SA. Independent photoreceptive circadian clocks throughout Drosophila. Science 1997;278:1632-5/ Giebultowicz JM, Stanewsky R, Hall JC, Hege DM. Transplanted Drosophila excretory tubules maintain circadian clock cycling out of phase with the host. Curr Biol 2000;10:107-10. Krishnan B, Levine JD, Sisson K, et al. A new role for cryptochrome in a Drosophila circadian oscillator. Nature 2001;411:313-17. Sakamoto K, Nagase T, Fukui H, et al. Multitissue circadian expression of rat period homolog (rPer2) mRNA is governed by the mammalian circadian clock, the suprachiasmatic nucleus in the brain. J Biol Chem 1998;273:27039-49. Yamazaki S, Numano R, Abe M, et al. Resetting central and peripheral circadian oscillators in transgenic rats. Science 2000;288:682-5. Fu L, Pelicano H, Liu J, Huang P, Lee C. The circadian gene Period2 plays an important role in tumor suppression and DNA damage response in vivo. Cell 2002;111:4150. Matsuo T, Yamaguchi S, Mitsui S, Emi A, Shimoda F, Okamura H. Control mechanism of the circadian clock for timing of cell division in vivo.[comment]. Science 2003;302:255-9. Pagliarini RA, Xu T. A genetic screen in Drosophila for metastatic behavior. Science 2003;302:1227-31. Sarov-Blat L, So W, Liu L, Rosbash M. The Drosophila takeout gene is a novel molecular link between circadian rhythms and feeding behavior. Cell 2000;101:647-56. Hendricks JC, Finn SM, Panckeri KA, Chavkin J, Williams JA, Sehgal A, Pack AI. Rest in Drosophila is a sleep-like state. Neuron 2000;25:129-38. Shaw PJ, Cirelli C, Greenspan RJ, Tononi G. Correlates of sleep and waking in Drosophila melanogaster. Science 2000;287:1834-7. Hendricks JC, Kirk D, Panckeri K, Miller MS, Pack AI. Modafinil maintains waking in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster. Sleep 2003;26:139-46. Hendricks JC, Williams JA, Panckeri K, et al. A non-circadian role for cAMP signaling and CREB activity in Drosophila rest homeostasis. Nat Neurosci 2001;4:1108-15. Hendricks JC, Lu S, Kume K, Yin JC-P, Yang Z, Sehgal A. Gender dimorphism in the role of cycle (BMAL1) in rest, rest regulation, and longevity in Drosophila melanogaster. J Biol Rhythms 2003;18:12-25. Shaw PJ, Tononi G, Greenspan RJ, Robinson DF. Stress response genes protect against lethal effects of sleep deprivation in Drosophila. Nature 2002;417:287-91. Andretic R, Shaw P. Sexual dimorphism and critical periods influence sleep in Drosophila melanogaster. Sleep 2003;26:A415. Holladay C, Huber G, Biesadecki M, et al. Natural variation in the sleep phenotype in Drosophila melanogaster. Sleep 2003;26:A23. Shaw PH, Carneiro M, Schibler U. Rapid size determination of mRNAs complementary to cloned DNA sequences: plaque and colony hybrid-selection of cDNAs. Gene 1984;29:77-85. Biesadecki M, Huber R, Holladay C, Hill S, Tononi G, Cirelli C. Sleep homeostasis in the fruit fly. Sleep 2003;26:A22. Zimmerman JE, Mackiewicz M, Galante RJ, et al. Glycogen in the brain of Drosophila melanogaster: diurnal rhythm and the effect of rest deprivation. J Neurochem 2004;88:32-40. Campbell S, Tobler I. Animal sleep: a review of sleep duration across phylogeny. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 1984;8:269-300. Kaiser W, Steiner-Kaiser J. Neuronal correlates of sleep, wakefulness and arousal in a diurnal insect. .Nature 301: 231-239, 1983. Kaiser WJ. Busy bees need rest, too. Comp Physiol 1988;A163:565-84. Tobler I. The effect of forced locomotion on the rest-activity cycle of the cockroach. Behav Brain Res 1983;8:351-60. Tobler I, Neuner-Jehle M. 24-h variation of vigilance in the cockroach Blaberus giganteus. J Sleep Res 1992;1:231-9. Benzer S. From the gene to behavior. JAMA 1971;218:1015-22. Borbely AA. A two process model of sleep regulation. Biol Psychol 1982;25:153-72. Kornberg TB, Krasnow MA. The Drosophila genome sequence: implications for biology and medicine. Science 2000;287:2218-20. Cirelli C, Hill S, Holladay C, et al. Sleep in Drosophila melanogaster: A mutagenesis screening. Sleep 2003;26:A416. Graves L, Hellman K, Veasey S, Blendy JA, Pack AI, Abel TA. Genetic evidence for SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112. 113. 114. 115. 116. 117. 118. 119. 120. 341 a role of CREB in sustained cortical arousal. J Neurophysiol 2003;90:1152-9. Rechtschaffen A, Bergmann BM. Sleep deprivation in the rat: an update of the 1989 paper. Sleep 2002;25:18-24. Kopp C, Albrecht U, Zheng B, Tobler I. Homeostatic sleep regulation is preserved in mPer1 and mPer2 mutant mice. European J Neurosci 2002;16:1099-106. Naylor E, Bergmann kM, Krauski K, et al. The circadian Clock mutation alters sleep homeostasis in the mouse. J Neurosci 2000;20:8138-43. Bunger MK, Wilsbacher LD, Moran SM, et al. Mop3 is an essential component of the master circadian pacemaker in mammals. Cell 2000;103:1009-18. Reick M, Garcia JA, Dudley C, McKnight SL. NPAS2: an analog of clock operative in the mammalian forebrain. Science2001;293:506-9. McNamara P, Seo SP, Rudic RD, Sehgal A, Chakravarti D, FitzGerald GA. Regulation of CLOCK and MOP4 by nuclear hormone receptors in the vasculature: a humoral mechanism to reset a peripheral clock. Cell 2001;105:877-89. McDonald MJ, Rosbash M. Microarray analysis and organization of circadian gene expression in Drosophila. Cell 2001;107:567-78. Cirelli C, Tononi G. Differences in gene expression between sleep and wakefulness as revealed by mRNA differential disply and cDNA microarray technology. J Sleep Res 1999;8:44-52. Terao A, Steininger TL, Hyder K et al. Differential increase in the expression of heat shock protein family members during sleep deprivation and during sleep. Neuroscience 2003;116:187-200. Zhang L, Jope RS. Oxidative stress differentially modulates phosphorylation of ERK, p38, and CREB induced by NGF or EGF in PC12 cells. Neurobiol Aging 1999;20:2718. Duman RS, Vaidya VA. Molecular and cellular actions of chronic electroconvulsive seizures. J ECT:14:181-93. Cutler RG, Packer L, Bertram J, Mori A. Oxidative stress and aging. Basel, Boston, Berlin: Birkhaeuser-Verlag; 1995. Squier TC. Oxidative stress and protein aggregation during biological aging. Exp Gerontol 2001;36:1539-50. Shigenaga MK, Hagen TM, Ames BN. Oxidative damage and mitochondrial decay in aging. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1994;91:10771-8. Bonilla E, Medina-Leendertz S, Diaz S. Extension of life span and stress resistance of Drosophila melanogaster by long-term supplementation with melatonin. Exp Geront 2002;37:629-38. Sun H, Gao J, Ferrington DA, Biesiada H, Williams TD, Squier TC. Repair of oxidized calmodulin by methionine sulfoxide reductase restores ability to activate the plasma membrane Ca-ATPase. Biochemistry 1999;38:105-12. Ruan H, Tang XD, Chen ML, et al. High-quality life extension by the enzyme peptide methionine sulfoxide reductase. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2002;99:2748-53. Cirelli C. How sleep deprivation affects gene expression in the brain: a review of recent findings. J Appl Physiol 2002;92:394-400. Terao A, Greco MA, Davis RW, Heller HC, Kilduff TS. Region-specific changes in immediate early gene expression in response to sleep deprivation and recovery sleep in the mouse brain. Neuroscience 2003;120:1115-24. Franken P, Chollet D, Tafti M. The homeostatic regulation of sleep need is under genetic control. J Neurosci 2001;21:2610-21. Koehl M, Battle SE, Turek FW. Sleep in female mice: a strain comparison across the estrous cycle. Sleep 2003;26:267-72. Benington JH and Heller HC. Restoration of brain energy metabolism as the function of sleep. Prog Neurobiol 199545:347-60. Kong J, Shepel PN, Holden CP, Mackiewicz M, Pack AI, Geiger JD. Brain glycogen decreases with increased periods of wakefulness: implications for homeostatic drive to sleep. J Neurosci 2002;22:5581-5587,. Franken P, Gip P, Hagiwara G, Ruby NF, Heller HC. Changes in brain glycogen after sleep deprivation vary with genotype. A J Physiol - Regul Integr Comp Physiol 2003;285:R413-9. Armitage R, Hoffmann R, Trivedi M, Rush AJ. Slow-wave activity in NREM sleep: sex and age effects in depressed outpatients and healthy controls. Psychiatry Res 2000;95:201-13. Armitage R, Smith C, Thompson S, Hoffman R. Sex differences in slow-wave activity in response to sleep deprivation. Sleep Res Online 2001;4:33-41. Hendricks JC. Sleeping flies don’t lie: The use of Drosophila melanogaster to study sleep and circadian rhythms. J Appl Physiol 2003;94:1650-9. Kitamoto T. Conditional modification of behavior in Drosophila by targeted expression of a temperature-sensitive shibire allele in defined neurons. J Neurobiol 2001;47: 8192. Nitabach MN, Blau J, Holmes TC. Electrical silencing of Drosophila pacemaker neurons stops the free-running circadian clock. Cell 2002;109:485-95. Waddell S, Armstrong JD, Kitamoto T, Kaiser K, Quinn WG. The amnesiac gene product is expressed in two neurons in the Drosophila brain that are critical for memory. Cell 2000;103:805-13. Connolly JB, Roberts JH, Armstrong JD, et al. Associative learning is disrupted by impaired G(s) signaling. Science 1996;274:2104-7. Nitz DA, van Swinderen B, Tononi G, Greenspan RJ. Electrophysiological correlates of rest and activity in Drosophila melanogaster. Curr Biol 2002;12:1934-40. van Swinderen B, Greenspan RJ. Salience modulates 20-30 Hz brain activity in Drosophila. Nat Neurosci 2003;6:579-86. van Swinderen B, Andretic R. Arousal in Drosophila. Behav Processes 2003;64:13344. Rosay P, Armstrong JD, Wang Z, Kaiser K. Synchronized neural activity in the Drosophila memory centers and its modulation by amnesiac. Neuron 2001;30:759-70. Wang JW, Wong AM, Flores J, Vosshall LB, Axel R. Two-photon calcium imaging reveals an odor-evoked map of activity in the fly brain. Cell 2003;112:271-82. Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal 121. Su H, O’Dowd DK. Fast synaptic currents in Drosophila mushroom body Kenyon cells are mediated by alpha-bungarotoxin-sensitive nicotinic acetylcholine receptors and picrotoxin-sensitive GABA receptors. J Neurosci 2003;23:9246-53. 122. Lee D, Su H, O’Dowd DK. GABA receptors containing Rdl subunits mediate fast inhibitory synaptic transmission in Drosophila neurons. J Neurosci 2003;23:4625-34. 123. Hendricks JC, Sehgal A, Pack AI. The need for a simple animal model to understand sleep. Prog Neurobiol 2000;61:339-51. 124. Sejnowski TJ, Destexhe A. Why do we sleep? Brain Research 2000;886:208-23. 125. Rechtschaffen A. Current perspectives on the function of sleep. Perspect Biol Med 1998;41:359-90. 126. Horne JA. Sleep function, with particular reference to sleep deprivation. Ann Clin Res 1985;17:199-208. 127. Steriade M, Timofeev I. Neuronal plasticity in thalamocortical networks during sleep and waking oscillations. Neuron 2003;37:563-76. 128. Steriade M, Timofeev I, Grenier F. Natural waking and sleep states: a view from inside neocortical neurons. J Neurophysiol 2001;85:1969-85. 129. Steriade M. Sleep oscillations and their blockage by activating systems. J Psychiatry Neurosci 1994;19:354-58. 130. Steriade M, Amzica F. Coalescence of sleep rhythms and their chronology in corticothalamic networks. Sleep Res Online 1998;1:1-10. 131. Steriade M. Coherent oscillations and short-term plasticity in corticothalamic networks. Trends Neurosci 1999;22:337-45. 132. Lytton WW, Destexhe A, Sejnowski TJ. Control of slow oscillations in the thalamocortical neuron: a computer model. Neuroscience 1996;70:673-84. 133. Crabtree GR. Calcium, calcineurin, and the control of transcription. J Biol Chem 2001;26:2313-6. 134. Hardingham GE, Bading H. Nuclear calcium: a key regulator of gene expression. Biometals 1998;11:345-58. 135. West AE, Chen WG, Dalva MB, et al. Calcium regulation of neuronal gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2001;98:11024-31. 136. Dolmetsch RE. Calcium oscillations increase the efficiency and specificity of gene expression. Nature 1998;392:933-6. SLEEP, Vol. 27, No. 2, 2004 342 Why a Fly?—Hendricks and Sehgal