Cited by 40Sleep and Work-Related FatigueSleep and Wakefulness ResearchSpaceflight effects on biology

Predicting risk in space: genetic markers for differential vulnerability to sleep restriction

Open access
Goel, Namni, Dinges, David F.·2012·Acta Astronautica

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.actaastro.2012.04.002

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Data from unrelated individuals indicate that common genetic polymorphisms involved in sleep-wake, circadian, and cognitive regulation may underlie large interindividual differences in neurobehavioral vulnerability to sleep deprivation in healthy adults.

    “Indeed, data from unrelated individuals further indicate that common genetic polymorphisms involved in sleep–wake, circadian, and cognitive regulation may underlie these large interindividual differences in neurobehavioral vulnerability to sleep deprivation in healthy adults.164,181,183”

    From Circadian rhythms, sleep deprivation, and human performance (2013) · cites this paper as [183]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 64 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [13]Whitmire A Leveton LB Barger L Brainard G Dinges DF Klerman E Shea C Risk of Performance Errors due to Sleep Loss, Circadian Desynchronization, Fatigue, and Work Overload Evidence-based review by NASA Behavioral Health and Performance program, Johnson Space Center 2009 85 117
  2. [21]Institute of Medicine Review of NASA's human research program evidence books: A letter report National Academies Press Washington, DC 2008 1 100

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goel, N., & Dinges, D. F.
Affiliations
University of Pennsylvania (US)
Corresponding author
Goel, Namni
Venue
Acta Astronautica
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
77
Pages
207-213
ISSN
0094-5765 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1991139187
Cited by
40
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.71
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Acta Astronautica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Nursing Research (R01NR004281)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Sleep and Work-Related Fatigue
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
Keywords
sleep restriction, sleep deprivation, genetic polymorphism, candidate genes, individual differences, sleep homeostasis, neurobehavioral performance, fatigue, sleepiness, circadian rhythm, spaceflight, astronauts, fatigue countermeasures, genetic markers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review