Cited by 218Sleep and Wakefulness ResearchAnesthesia and Sedative AgentsNeurobiology and Insect Physiology Research

A conserved behavioral state barrier impedes transitions between anesthetic-induced unconsciousness and wakefulness: evidence for neural inertia

Open access
Friedman, Eliot B., Sun, Yi, Moore, Jason T., Hung, Hsiao-Tung, Meng, Qing Cheng, Perera, Priyan, Joiner, William J., Thomas, Steven A. +3 more·2010·PLoS ONE

Abstract

One major unanswered question in neuroscience is how the brain transitions between conscious and unconscious states. General anesthetics offer a controllable means to study these transitions. Induction of anesthesia is commonly attributed to drug-induced global modulation of neuronal function, while emergence from anesthesia has been thought to occur passively, paralleling elimination of the anesthetic from its sites in the central nervous system (CNS). If this were true, then CNS anesthetic concentrations on induction and emergence would be indistinguishable. By generating anesthetic dose-response data in both insects and mammals, we demonstrate that the forward and reverse paths through which anesthetic-induced unconsciousness arises and dissipates are not identical. Instead they exhibit hysteresis that is not fully explained by pharmacokinetics as previously thought. Single gene mutations that affect sleep-wake states are shown to collapse or widen anesthetic hysteresis without obvious confounding effects on volatile anesthetic uptake, distribution, or metabolism. We propose a fundamental and biologically conserved concept of neural inertia, a tendency of the CNS to resist behavioral state transitions between conscious and unconscious states. We demonstrate that such a barrier separates wakeful and anesthetized states for multiple anesthetics in both flies and mice, and argue that it contributes to the hysteresis observed when the brain transitions between conscious and unconscious states.

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 · 10.1371/journal.pone.0011903

Cites

55 of 55 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?

  • Shaker potassium channel mutants in fruit flies show a 25-50% right-shift in volatile anesthetic dose-response and can exit anesthesia at doses where wild-type siblings remain anesthetized and immobile.

    “These flies display a resistant, right-shift in their volatile anesthetic dose-response curves of roughly 25%−50% but, more remarkably, are capable of exiting states of anesthesia at doses in which their wild-type siblings remain fully anesthetized and immobile [54–57].”

    From The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate (2019) · cites this paper as [54]

  • The shared circuits hypothesis between sleep and anesthesia has been replicated across invertebrates to mammals.

    “This shared circuits hypothesis has been replicated across divergent species spanning invertebrates to mammals [54, 58, 82, 98, 99, 101].”

    From The Biology of General Anesthesia from Paramecium to Primate (2019) · cites this paper as [54]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Friedman, E. B., Sun, Y., Moore, J. T., Hung, H.-T., Meng, Q. C., Perera, P., Joiner, W. J., Thomas, S. A., Eckenhoff, R. G., Sehgal, A., & Kelz, M. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Kelz, Max B.
Venue
PLoS ONE
Published
2010-07-30
Volume
5
Issue
7
Pages
e11903
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2087748297
Cited by
218
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 21
FWCI
8.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research
  • University of Pennsylvania
  • Institute for Translational Medicine and Therapeutics
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (K08GM077357, R01GM088156)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Sleep and Wakefulness Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Anesthesia and Sedative Agents
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurobiology and Insect Physiology Research
Keywords
general anesthesia, consciousness, loss of consciousness, wakefulness, emergence from anesthesia, anesthesia induction, sleep-wake states, single-gene mutations, dose-response relationship, Drosophila, mice, behavioral state transitions
MeSH terms
Anesthetics, Animals, Brain, Central Nervous System, Drosophila, Male, Mice, Inbred C57BL, Unconsciousness, Wakefulness, Mice

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