Home › Research › Brain scans and imaging
Sleep and circadian abnormalities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease: a role for cholinergic transmission
Wisor JP, Edgar DM, Yesavage J, Ryan HS, McCormick CM, Lapustea N, Murphy GM.. Neuroscience, 2005-01-01
Topic: Brain proteins, microglia and lab models
The Tg2576 mouse model of Alzheimer's disease (AD) exhibits age-dependent amyloid beta (Abeta) deposition in the brain. We studied electroencephalographically defined sleep and the circadian regulation of waking activities in Tg2576 mice to determine whether these animals exhibit sleep abnormalities akin to those in AD. In Tg2576 mice at all ages studied, the circadian period of wheel running rhythms in constant darkness was significantly longer than that of wild type mice. In addition, the increase in electroencephalographic delta (1-4 Hz) power that occurs during non-rapid eye movement sleep after sleep deprivation was blunted in Tg2576 mice relative to controls at all ages studied. Electroencephalographic power during non-rapid eye movement sleep was shifted to higher frequencies in plaque-bearing mice relative to controls. The wake-promoting efficacy of the acetylcholinesterase inhibitor donepezil was lower in plaque-bearing Tg2576 mice than in controls. Sleep abnormalities in Tg2576 mice may be due in part to a cholinergic deficit in these mice. At 22 months of age, two additional deficits emerged in female Tg2576 mice: time of day-dependent modulation of sleep was blunted relative to controls and rapid eye movement sleep as a percentage of time was lower in Tg2576 than in wild type controls. The rapid eye movement sleep deficit in 22 month-old female Tg2576 mice was abolished by brief passive immunization with an N-terminal antibody to Abeta. The Tg2576 model provides a uniquely powerful tool for studies on the pathophysiology of and treatments for sleep deficits and associated cholinergic abnormalities in AD.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Wisor, J. P., Edgar, D. M., Yesavage, J., Ryan, H. S., McCormick, C. M., Lapustea, N., et al. (2005). Sleep and circadian abnormalities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease: a role for cholinergic transmission. Neuroscience. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.11.018
Vancouver
Wisor JP, Edgar DM, Yesavage J, Ryan HS, McCormick CM, Lapustea N, et al. Sleep and circadian abnormalities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease: a role for cholinergic transmission. Neuroscience. 2005. doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.11.018. PMID: 15708480.
BibTeX
@article{wisor2005-15708480,
author = {Wisor, J. P. and Edgar, D. M. and Yesavage, J. and Ryan, H. S. and McCormick, C. M. and Lapustea, N. and Murphy, G. M.},
title = {{Sleep and circadian abnormalities in a transgenic mouse model of Alzheimer's disease: a role for cholinergic transmission}},
journal = {Neuroscience},
year = {2005},
doi = {10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.11.018},
pmid = {15708480},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2004.11.018}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- In Tg2576 mice at all ages studied, the circadian period of wheel running rhythms in constant darkness was significantly longer than that of wild type mice.
New to this subject? Start with our plain-English guide: Brain scans & tests →
Study details
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 36/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, effect reported and randomised / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 36 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Neuroscience) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2005 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 0 / 3 | No effect size reported — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Laboratory or animal study (title names “transgenic”) — scores zero |
| Randomised / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomisation or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multi-centre collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 15708480) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 21 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 21 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 36 out of 100. |
| Total | 36 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.