Predicting Risk in Space: Genetic Markers for Differential Vulnerability to Sleep Restriction.

Division of Sleep and Chronobiology, Department of Psychiatry, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA.
Acta Astronautica (Impact Factor: 0.82). 08/2012; 77:207-213. DOI: 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.002
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Several laboratories have found large, highly reliable individual differences in the magnitude of cognitive performance, fatigue and sleepiness, and sleep homeostatic vulnerability to acute total sleep deprivation and to chronic sleep restriction in healthy adults. Such individual differences in neurobehavioral performance are also observed in space flight as a result of sleep loss. The reasons for these stable phenotypic differential vulnerabilities are unknown: such differences are not yet accounted for by demographic factors, IQ or sleep need, and moreover, psychometric scales do not predict those individuals cognitively vulnerable to sleep loss. The stable, trait-like (phenotypic) inter-individual differences observed in response to sleep loss-with intraclass correlation coefficients accounting for 58%-92% of the variance in neurobehavioral measures- point to an underlying genetic component. To this end, we utilized multi-day highly controlled laboratory studies to investigate the role of various common candidate gene variants-each independently-in relation to cumulative neurobehavioral and sleep homeostatic responses to sleep restriction. These data suggest that common genetic variations (polymorphisms) involved in sleep-wake, circadian, and cognitive regulation may serve as markers for prediction of inter-individual differences in sleep homeostatic and neurobehavioral vulnerability to sleep restriction in healthy adults. Identification of genetic predictors of differential vulnerability to sleep restriction-as determined from candidate gene studies-will help identify astronauts most in need of fatigue countermeasures in space flight and inform medical standards for obtaining adequate sleep in space. This review summarizes individual differences in neurobehavioral vulnerability to sleep deprivation and ongoing genetic efforts to identify markers of such differences.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The two-process model of sleep-wake regulation asserts a neurobiological drive for sleep that varies homeostatically (increasing as a saturating exponential during wakefulness and decreasing in a similar manner during sleep) and a circadian process that neurobiologically modulates the homeostatic drive for sleep and waking performance and alertness. Sleep deprivation increases homeostatic sleep drive and degrades waking neurobehavioral functions as reflected in fatigue, sleepiness, attention, memory, and cognitive speed. Notably, there are robust individual differences in neurobehavioral responses to sleep loss which are trait-like and phenotypic and not explained by baseline functioning or other possible predictors. This review discusses “omics” methodologies (transcriptomics, epigenomics, and metabolomics) in sleep and circadian rhythm research. Since the molecular mechanisms underlying differential vulnerability remain virtually unknown, such methodologies can be used to yield biomarkers for predicting individual differences in neurobehavioral responses to sleep loss in humans. Reliable prediction of who is more or less likely to experience neurobehavioral decrements from sleep loss would provide more targeted use of biological countermeasures and optimization of personnel in a variety of occupational settings.
    03/2015; 1(1). DOI:10.1007/s40675-014-0003-7
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The use of caffeine-containing energy products has increased worldwide in recent years. All of the top-selling energy drinks contain caffeine, which is likely to be the primary psychoactive ingredient in these products. Research shows that caffeine-containing energy products can improve cognitive and physical performance. Presumably, individuals consume caffeine-containing energy products to counteract feelings of low energy in situations causing tiredness, fatigue, and/or reduced alertness. This review discusses the scientific evidence for sleep loss, circadian phase, sleep inertia, and the time-on-task effect as causes of low energy and summarizes research assessing the efficacy of caffeine to counteract decreased alertness and increased fatigue in such situations. The results of a placebo-controlled experiment in healthy adults who had 3 nights of total sleep deprivation (with or without 2-hour naps every 12 hours) are presented to illustrate the physiological and neurobehavioral effects of sustained low-dose caffeine. Individual differences, including genetic factors, in the response to caffeine and to sleep loss are discussed. The review concludes with future directions for research on this important and evolving topic.
    Nutrition Reviews 10/2014; 72 Suppl 1:34-47. DOI:10.1111/nure.12151 · 5.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We aimed to determine the association between psychomotor vigilance task (PVT) performance and sleep-related factors including sleep duration, daytime sleepiness, poor sleep quality, insomnia, and habitual snoring in a population-based sample. This was a cross-sectional analysis from the ongoing prospective cohort study, the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study. We measured PVT performance and documented demographics, sleep-related factors, life style, and medical conditions in community dwelling adults (N = 2499; mean age 57.1 ± 7.3; male 1259). Associations between PVT parameters and sleep-related factors were tested, adjusting for age, gender, smoking, alcohol use, education, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, depression, and the interval between mid-sleep time and PVT test. High Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS, ≥8) was associated with slower mean reciprocal response speed (mean RRT) (3.69 ± 0.02 vs. 3.77 ± 0.01, p < 0.001), higher probability for increased lapses (≥4) (OR 1.48, CI 1.12-1.88, p = 0.001), and more negative RRT slope (-0.036 ± 0.002 vs. -0.030 ± 0.001, p = 0.02). Older age, female gender, low education level, depressive mood, and the interval between mid-sleep and PVT test were also associated with poor performance. Sleep duration, habitual snoring, insomnia, or poor sleep quality (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index score > 5) was not related to PVT parameters. At the population level, our results revealed important modifiers of PVT performance, which included subjective reports of daytime sleepiness. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
    Sleep Medicine 11/2014; 16(1). DOI:10.1016/j.sleep.2014.07.028 · 3.10 Impact Factor