The absence of Neuroligin-1 shapes wake/sleep architecture, rhythmic and arrhythmic activities of the electrocorticogram in female mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Associated to glutamatergic neurotransmission, Neuroligin-1 (NLGN1) is a synaptic adhesion molecule with roles in the regulation of behavioral states and cognitive function. It was shown to shape electrocorticographic (ECoG) activity during wakefulness and sleep in male mice, including aperiodic activity under baseline conditions. Given that the expression of Neuroligins (Nlgn) differs between sexes, we here aim to characterize the impact of the absence of NLGN1 on the wakefulness and sleep architecture, rhythmic and arrhythmic activity dynamics, and responses to sleep deprivation in female animals. Nlgn1 knockout (KO) female mice and wild-type (WT) female littermates were implanted with ECoG electrodes, and ECoG signals were recorded for 48 hours comprising a 24-hour baseline, followed by a 6-hour sleep deprivation and 18 hours of undisturbed recovery (REC). Time spent in wakefulness, slow wave sleep (SWS) and paradoxical sleep (PS), and their alternation were interrogated, and ECoG activities were quantified using a standard spectral analysis and a multifractal analysis. Nlgn1 KO females spent more time in PS during the light period under baseline in comparison to WT females. This difference was observed along with more PS bouts and a shorter overall PS bout duration, indicative of a fragmented PS. Additionally, Nlgn1 KO females displayed less ECoG power between 8 and 13 Hz during wake, less power between 1.25 and 3.5 Hz during PS, and more between 2.5 and 3.75 Hz during SWS in comparison to WT. Under both baseline and REC, NLGN1 absence in females was significantly associated with a higher value of the most prevalent Hurst exponent (Hm) during SWS, which points to a higher persistence across scales of ECoG aperiodic activity. Indications for alterations in the daily dynamics of the Dispersion of Hurst exponents around Hm were also found during SWS in KO females. The present study highlights differences in wake/sleep architecture, and in periodic (rhythmic) and aperiodic (arrhythmic/multifractal) activities in female mice lacking NLGN1. These findings provide additional support to a role for NLGN1 in shaping the ECoG organization, in particular during sleep, and will help understanding the origin of sleep disturbances in neuropsychiatric diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".