So far in this course we have dealt entirely with the evolution of characters that are controlled by simple Mendelian inheritance at a single locus. There are notes on the course website about gametic disequilibrium and how allele frequencies change at two loci simultaneously, but we didn’t discuss them. In every example we’ve considered we’ve imagined that we could understand something about evolution by examining the evolution of a single gene. That’s the domain of classical population genetics. For the next few weeks we’re going to be exploring a field that’s actually older than classical population genetics, although the approach we’ll be taking to it involves the use of population genetic machinery. If you know a little about the history of evolutionary biology, you may know that after the rediscovery of Mendel’s work in 1900 there was a heated debate between the “biometricians” (e.g., Galton and Pearson) and the “Mendelians” (e.g., de Vries, Correns, Bateson, and Morgan). Biometricians asserted that the really important variation in evolution didn’t follow Mendelian rules. Height, weight, skin color, and similar traits seemed to

Human biochemical genetics

Co-Planar Stereotaxic Atlas of the Human Brain—3-Dimensional Proportional System: An Approach to Cerebral Imaging, J. Talairach, P. Tournoux. Georg Thieme Verlag, New York (1988), 122 pp., 130 figs. DM 268

Atherosclerosis, formerly considered a bland lipid storage disease, actually involves an ongoing inflammatory response. Recent advances in basic science have established a fundamental role for inflammation in mediating all stages of this disease from initiation through progression and, ultimately, the thrombotic complications of atherosclerosis. These new findings provide important links between risk factors and the mechanisms of atherogenesis. Clinical studies have shown that this emerging biology of inflammation in atherosclerosis applies directly to human patients. Elevation in markers of inflammation predicts outcomes of patients with acute coronary syndromes, independently of myocardial damage. In addition, low-grade chronic inflammation, as indicated by levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein, prospectively defines risk of atherosclerotic complications, thus adding to prognostic information provided by traditional risk factors. Moreover, certain treatments that reduce coronary risk also limit inflammation. In the case of lipid lowering with statins, this anti-inflammatory effect does not appear to correlate with reduction in low-density lipoprotein levels. These new insights into inflammation in atherosclerosis not only increase our understanding of this disease, but also have practical clinical applications in risk stratification and targeting of therapy for this scourge of growing worldwide importance.

/pdf/inflammation-and-atherosclerosis-1q9qkglell.pdf

Inflammation and Atherosclerosis

In 1998, the American Heart Association convened Prevention Conference V to examine strategies for the identification of high-risk patients who need primary prevention. Among the strategies discussed was the measurement of markers of inflammation.1 The Conference concluded that “many of these markers (including inflammatory markers) are not yet considered applicable for routine risk assessment because of: (1) lack of measurement standardization, (2) lack of consistency in epidemiological findings from prospective studies with endpoints, and (3) lack of evidence that the novel marker adds to risk prediction over and above that already achievable through the use of established risk factors.” The National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III Guidelines identified these markers as emerging risk factors,1a which could be used as an optional risk factor measurement to adjust estimates of absolute risk obtained using standard risk factors. Since these publications, a large number of peer-reviewed scientific reports have been published relating inflammatory markers to cardiovascular disease (CVD). Several commercial assays for inflammatory markers have become available. As a consequence of the expanding research base and availability of assays, the number of inflammatory marker tests ordered by clinicians for CVD risk prediction has grown rapidly. Despite this, there has been no consensus from professional societies or governmental agencies as to how these assays of markers of inflammation should be used in clinical practice.

On March 14 and 15, 2002, a workshop titled “CDC/AHA Workshop on Inflammatory Markers and Cardiovascular Disease: Applications to Clinical and Public Health Practice” was convened in Atlanta, Ga, to address these issues. The goals of this workshop were to determine which of the currently available tests should be used; what results should be used to define high risk; which patients should be tested; and the indications for which the tests would be most useful. These …

Markers of Inflammation and Cardiovascular Disease Application to Clinical and Public Health Practice: A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Heart Association

March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

OBJECTIVES: To inform the debate over whether human sleep can be chronically reduced without consequences, we conducted a dose-response chronic sleep restriction experiment in which waking neurobehavioral and sleep physiological functions were monitored and compared to those for total sleep deprivation. DESIGN: The chronic sleep restriction experiment involved randomization to one of three sleep doses (4 h, 6 h, or 8 h time in bed per night), which were maintained for 14 consecutive days. The total sleep deprivation experiment involved 3 nights without sleep (0 h time in bed). Each study also involved 3 baseline (pre-deprivation) days and 3 recovery days. SETTING: Both experiments were conducted under standardized laboratory conditions with continuous behavioral, physiological and medical monitoring. PARTICIPANTS: A total of n = 48 healthy adults (ages 21-38) participated in the experiments. INTERVENTIONS: Noctumal sleep periods were restricted to 8 h, 6 h or 4 h per day for 14 days, or to 0 h for 3 days. All other sleep was prohibited. RESULTS: Chronic restriction of sleep periods to 4 h or 6 h per night over 14 consecutive days resulted in significant cumulative, dose-dependent deficits in cognitive performance on all tasks. Subjective sleepiness ratings showed an acute response to sleep restriction but only small further increases on subsequent days, and did not significantly differentiate the 6 h and 4 h conditions. Polysomnographic variables and delta power in the non-REM sleep EEG-a putative marker of sleep homeostasis--displayed an acute response to sleep restriction with negligible further changes across the 14 restricted nights. Comparison of chronic sleep restriction to total sleep deprivation showed that the latter resulted in disproportionately large waking neurobehavioral and sleep delta power responses relative to how much sleep was lost. A statistical model revealed that, regardless of the mode of sleep deprivation, lapses in behavioral alertness were near-linearly related to the cumulative duration of wakefulness in excess of 15.84 h (s.e. 0.73 h). CONCLUSIONS: Since chronic restriction of sleep to 6 h or less per night produced cognitive performance deficits equivalent to up to 2 nights of total sleep deprivation, it appears that even relatively moderate sleep restriction can seriously impair waking neurobehavioral functions in healthy adults. Sleepiness ratings suggest that subjects were largely unaware of these increasing cognitive deficits, which may explain why the impact of chronic sleep restriction on waking cognitive functions is often assumed to be benign. Physiological sleep responses to chronic restriction did not mirror waking neurobehavioral responses, but cumulative wakefulness in excess of a 15.84 h predicted performance lapses across all four experimental conditions. This suggests that sleep debt is perhaps best understood as resulting in additional wakefulness that has a neurobiological "cost" which accumulates over time.

/pdf/the-cumulative-cost-of-additional-wakefulness-dose-response-3yfrcni48x.pdf

The Cumulative Cost of Additional Wakefulness: Dose-Response Effects on Neurobehavioral Functions and Sleep Physiology From Chronic Sleep Restriction and Total Sleep Deprivation

To determine whether a cumulative sleep debt (in a range commonly experienced) would result in cumulative changes in measures of waking neurobehavioral alertness, 16 healthy young adults had their sleep restricted 33% below habitual sleep duration, to an average 4.98 hours per night [standard deviation (SD) = 0.57] for seven consecutive nights. Subjects slept in the laboratory, and sleep and waking were monitored by staff and actigraphy. Three times each day (1000, 1600, and 2200 hours) subjects were assessed for subjective sleepiness (SSS) and mood (POMS) and were evaluated on a brief performance battery that included psychomotor vigilance (PVT), probed memory (PRM), and serial-addition testing, Once each day they completed a series of visual analog scales (VAS) and reported sleepiness and somatic and cognitive/emotional problems. Sleep restriction resulted in statistically robust cumulative effects on waking functions. SSS ratings, subscale scores for fatigue, confusion, tension, and total mood disturbance from the POMS and VAS ratings of mental exhaustion and stress were evaluated across days of restricted sleep (p = 0.009 to p = 0.0001). PVT performance parameters, including the frequency and duration of lapses, were also significantly increased by restriction (p = 0.018 to p = 0.0001). Significant time-of-day effects were evident in SSS and PVT data, but time-of-day did not interact with the effects of sleep restriction across days. The temporal profiles of cumulative changes in neurobehavioral measures of alertness as a function of sleep restriction were generally consistent. Subjective changes tended to precede performance changes by 1 day, but overall changes in both classes of measure were greatest during the first 2 days (P1, P2) and last 2 days (P6, P7) of sleep restriction. Data from subsets of subjects also showed: 1) that significant decreases in the MSLT occurred during sleep restriction, 2) that the elevated sleepiness and performance deficits continued beyond day 7 of restriction, and 3) that recovery from these deficits appeared to require two full nights of sleep. The cumulative increase in performance lapses across days of sleep restriction correlated closely with MSLT results (r = -0.95) from an earlier comparable experiment by Carskadon and Dement (1). These findings suggest that cumulative nocturnal sleep debt had a dynamic and escalating analog in cumulative daytime sleepiness and that asymptotic or steady-state sleepiness was not achieved in response to sleep restriction.

/pdf/cumulative-sleepiness-mood-disturbance-and-psychomotor-3dmt6gtthk.pdf

Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4-5 hours per night

Deficits in daytime performance due to sleep loss are experienced universally and associated with a significant social, financial, and human cost. Microsleeps, sleep attacks, and lapses in cognition increase with sleep loss as a function of state instability. Sleep deprivation studies repeatedly show a variable (negative) impact on mood, cognitive performance, and motor function due to an increasing sleep propensity and destabilization of the wake state. Specific neurocognitive domains including executive attention, working memory, and divergent higher cognitive functions are particularly vulnerable to sleep loss. In humans, functional metabolic and neurophysiological studies demonstrate that neural systems involved in executive function (i.e., prefrontal cortex) are more susceptible to sleep deprivation in some individuals than others. Recent chronic partial sleep deprivation experiments, which more closely replicate sleep loss in society, demonstrate that profound neurocognitive deficits accumulate over time in the face of subjective adaptation to the sensation of sleepiness. Sleep deprivation associated with disease-related sleep fragmentation (i.e., sleep apnea and restless legs syndrome) also results in neurocognitive performance decrements similar to those seen in sleep restriction studies. Performance deficits associated with sleep disorders are often viewed as a simple function of disease severity; however, recent experiments suggest that individual vulnerability to sleep loss may play a more critical role than previously thought.

/pdf/neurocognitive-consequences-of-sleep-deprivation-hg8oxdvlng.pdf

Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation

The Institute of Pennsylvania Hospital and University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania There is a need for brief, portable performance measures that are free of practice effects but that reliably show the impact of sleep loss on performance during sustained work. Reaction time (RT) tasks hold considerable promise in meeting this need, if the extensive number of responses they typically yield can be processed in ways that quickly provide the essential analyses. While testing the utility of a portable visual RT task during a sustained, quasi-continuous work schedule of 54 h, we developed a microcomputer software system that inputs, edits, transforms, analyzes, and reduces the data from the RT portable audiotapes, for each 10-min trial on the task. With relatively minor modifications, the software system can be used on a minimally configured microcomputer system that supports BASIC. The software is flexible and capable of retrieving distorted data, and it generates a variety of dependent variables reflecting intratrial optimum response capacity, lapsing, and response slowing.

/pdf/microcomputer-analyses-of-performance-on-a-portable-simple-3vb28phk1g.pdf

Microcomputer analyses of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task during sustained operations

Adequate sleep is essential for general healthy functioning. This paper reviews recent research on the effects of chronic sleep restriction on neurobehavioral and physiological functioning and discusses implications for health and lifestyle. Restricting sleep below an individual's optimal time in bed (TIB) can cause a range of neurobehavioral deficits, including lapses of attention, slowed working memory, reduced cognitive throughput, depressed mood, and perseveration of thought. Neurobehavioral deficits accumulate across days of partial sleep loss to levels equivalent to those found after 1 to 3 nights of total sleep loss. Recent experiments reveal that following days of chronic restriction of sleep duration below 7 hours per night, significant daytime cognitive dysfunction accumulates to levels comparable to that found after severe acute total sleep deprivation. Additionally, individual variability in neurobehavioral responses to sleep restriction appears to be stable, suggesting a traitlike (possibly genetic) differential vulnerability or compensatory changes in the neurobiological systems involved in cognition. A causal role for reduced sleep duration in adverse health outcomes remains unclear, but laboratory studies of healthy adults subjected to sleep restriction have found adverse effects on endocrine functions, metabolic and inflammatory responses, suggesting that sleep restriction produces physiological consequences that may be unhealthy.

Citation:
Banks S; Dinges DF. Behavioral and physiological consequences of sleep restriction. J Clin Sleep Med 2007;3(5):519-528.

/pdf/behavioral-and-physiological-consequences-of-sleep-4kripq40g7.pdf

David F. Dinges

Papers

The Cumulative Cost of Additional Wakefulness: Dose-Response Effects on Neurobehavioral Functions and Sleep Physiology From Chronic Sleep Restriction and Total Sleep Deprivation

Cumulative sleepiness, mood disturbance, and psychomotor vigilance performance decrements during a week of sleep restricted to 4-5 hours per night

Neurocognitive Consequences of Sleep Deprivation

Microcomputer analyses of performance on a portable, simple visual RT task during sustained operations

Behavioral and physiological consequences of sleep restriction