4.8 Article

General anesthesia alters time perception by phase shifting the circadian clock

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1201734109

关键词

chronobiology; anesthesiology; post-operative sleep disruption

资金

  1. Marsden Fund [UOA 07/012]
  2. University of Auckland
  3. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [Me 365/32-1]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Following general anesthesia, people are often confused about the time of day and experience sleep disruption and fatigue. It has been hypothesized that these symptoms may be caused by general anesthesia affecting the circadian clock. The circadian clock is fundamental to our well-being because it regulates almost all aspects of our daily biochemistry, physiology, and behavior. Here, we investigated the effects of the most common general anesthetic, isoflurane, on time perception and the circadian clock using the honeybee (Apis mellifera) as a model. A 6-h daytime anesthetic systematically altered the time-compensated sun compass orientation of the bees, with a mean anticlockwise shift in vanishing bearing of 87 in the Southern Hemisphere and a clockwise shift in flight direction of 58 in the Northern Hemisphere. Using the same 6-h anesthetic treatment, time-trained bees showed a delay in the start of foraging of 3.3 h, and whole-hive locomotor-activity rhythms were delayed by an average of 4.3 h. We show that these effects are all attributable to a phase delay in the core molecular clockwork. mRNA oscillations of the central clock genes cryptochrome-m and period were delayed by 4.9 and 4.3 h, respectively. However, this effect is dependent on the time of day of administration, as is common for clock effects, and nighttime anesthesia did not shift the clock. Taken together, our results suggest that general anesthesia during the day causes a persistent and marked shift of the clock effectively inducing jet lag and causing impaired time perception. Managing this effect in humans is likely to help expedite postoperative recovery.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据