« Mikiko C. Siomi | Main | Judith E. Mank »

Bruce R. Conklin

Gladstone Institute of Cardiovascular Disease, San Francisco, California

A geneticist wonders why we need to sleep.

Scientists can have a love–hate relationship with sleep. We know that it is vital for our health, but not the reasons why. We celebrate dreams that provide inspiration, but often dismiss sleep as a chore.

Yet deep sleep can provide insight into vexing problems. In 1920, pharmacologist Otto Loewi famously had a recurring dream that suggested how he could demonstrate neurotransmission in the lab. The key experimental details escaped him until he captured the dream in a bedside notebook. Later that day, he performed his Nobel-prizewinning experiments with the aid of a few frog hearts and a water bath.

Now, a team led by Ying-Hui Fu reports that a single mutation in a gene called DEC2 can cause people to sleep for only about six hours per night instead of the usual eight (Y. He et al. Science 325, 866–870; 2009). This mutation seems to be exceedingly rare, with only two carriers found so far. Only by introducing this mutation into transgenic mice and fruitflies could the researchers show compelling evidence of the mutation's effect. These two additional waking hours each day are quite remarkable when you consider that, over 80 years, this would add up to more than 8 years of extra productivity!

Why are extreme short sleepers so rare? Surely evolutionary pressures should favour less sleep? In prehistoric times, short sleepers would have had more time to hunt, gather food and guard against predators. In modern society, we must constantly balance home, work and other demands. Sleep is often sacrificed, so a drug that could provide hours of extra productivity would be hugely popular.

A better understanding of the reasons for sleep could provide a rationale for getting more of it. In the meantime, I will keep a notebook by my bedside as a dream catcher.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9478

Comments

I apologise if I offend you with this comment since I am not a geneticist but I couldn't help myself. It is strange to read your musings especially after going through this highlight in the same issue.http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7264/full/461573b.html. Would it be completely out of logic to assume that the body/brain needs rest after more taxing activities throughout the history which seems to be increasing too. I know it seems too simplistic an argument but then the proof is in the pudding or in this case in the paper.What do you think?

The juxtaposition of Dr. Conklin's article in Journal Club (Nature 10 October 2009) with the item on the same page, 573, under Neuroscience, 'Wake up to dementia', was fascinating, and the implications I think staggering.

Does sleep protect the brain from damage over the long term, as well as help us avoid inconveniences such as falling asleep while driving our cars? Are researchers investigating a possible connection between the rising incidence of Alzheimer's disease in aging populations in developed countries and chronic sleep deprivation, the result of our frantic, electric-light driven long days? Farmers and agriculturalists certainly don't work the graveyard shift.

Is there any data available that would allow researchers to do long-term investigation of a possible correlation between current victims of Alzheimer's disease, and those individuals long term sleep patterns?

Would people be willing to trade 8 additional productive years of life, say before the age of 70 if we knew that the last decade of life would be spent in an impenetrable fog?

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'journalclub at nature.com'.