Skip to main content

Umbrella menu

  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SfN.org
  • eNeuro
  • The Journal of Neuroscience
  • Neuronline
  • BrainFacts.org

User menu

  • My alerts

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
  • My alerts

eNeuro

Advanced Search

Submit a Manuscript
  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Latest Articles
    • Issue Archive
    • Editorials
    • Research Highlights
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • EDITORIAL BOARD
  • BLOG
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
PreviousNext
Research ArticleFeature: Research Highlights, Disorders of the Nervous System

Neurocognitive and Synaptic Potentiation Deficits Are Mitigated by Inhibition of HIF1a Signaling following Intermittent Hypoxia in Rodents

Rosalind S.E. Carney DPhil
eNeuro 3 December 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0449-20.2020; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0449-20.2020
Rosalind S.E. Carney DPhil
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Highlighted Research Paper: A HIF1a-Dependent Pro-Oxidant State Disrupts Synaptic Plasticity and Impairs Spatial Memory in Response to Intermittent Hypoxia. Alejandra Arias-Cavieres, Maggie A. Khuu, Chinwendu U. Nwakudu, Jasmine E. Barnard, Gokhan Dalgin and Alfredo J. Garcia III

Sleep apnea is a condition that affects ∼18 million adults in the United States (National Sleep Foundation, 2020). Sleep apnea, which also affects children, can result in impairment of cognitive functions, such as learning and memory, attention, and emotional dysregulation, including depression (Beebe and Gozal, 2002; Schröder and O'Hara, 2005; Jackson et al., 2011; Wallace and Bucks, 2013; Varga et al., 2014; Gildeh et al., 2016; Devita et al., 2017a,b; Leng et al., 2017). Brain imaging studies in humans have shown that sleep apnea negatively affects multiple brain regions, including the hippocampus, which is involved in learning and memory processes (Sforza et al., 2016; Cha et al., 2017; Macey et al., 2018; Song et al., 2018). The neurocognitive defects associated with sleep apnea result from the periods of intermittent hypoxia (IH), caused by repeated cycles of disrupted breathing during sleep. The neural substrates of IH-induced cognitive dysfunction have been examined in rodents using intermittent or sustained IH-exposure paradigms. IH, rather than sustained hypoxia, induces the cardiorespiratory responses that best mimic sleep apnea (Peng and Prabhakar, 2004). In rodents, IH has been shown to impair spatial learning in rats (Row et al., 2002; Gozal et al., 2003), weaken synaptic plasticity (Goldbart et al., 2003; Payne et al., 2004; Xie et al., 2010; Zhang et al., 2012; Wall et al., 2014; Khuu et al., 2019), and increase oxidative stress (Nair et al., 2011; Chou et al., 2013). An IH-exposure-dependent shift toward a pro-oxidant state has been linked to upstream signaling of the transcriptional activator hypoxia-inducible factor 1a (HIF1a) in vitro and in HIF1a heterozygous knock-out (HIF1a+/–) mice (Peng et al., 2006). HIF1a expression was known to be upregulated in the cerebrum following IH (Peng et al., 2006), and HIF1a signaling can also induce pro-survival processes. Therefore, it was unknown whether HIF1a expression is altered specifically in the hippocampus following IH exposure, and if so, whether HIF1a-dependent signaling is responsible for neurocognitive defects associated with sleep apnea. In their eNeuro publication, Arias-Cavieres and colleagues examined the effects on IH on neurocognitive function, hippocampal synaptic and molecular physiology in wild-type (WT) mice and heterozygous HIF1a+/– knock-out (HIF1a+/–) mice.

Adult male and female WT and HIF1a+/– (Iyer et al., 1998; Peng et al., 2006) mice were used in the study as homozygous knock-outs for Hif1a are embryonic lethal. IH exposure occurred for 10 consecutive days (IH10) and included hypoxic cycles of 100% N2 air flow into a chamber. Each hypoxic cycle lasted for 1 min, followed by an air break, rendering a total of 80 hypoxic cycles during a daily 8-h period.

The authors first confirmed whether IH exposure alters HIF1a subcellular localization in the hippocampus. Hippocampal tissue was processed for Western blot analysis to quantify nuclear levels of HIF1a in WT mice unexposed (control) or exposed to IH10 (WT IH10). Following IH10, nuclear levels of HIF1a were two times greater compared with the control group. This finding shows that IH results in increased cytoplasmic-to-nuclear translocation of HIF1a within the hippocampus, positioning HIF1a in the nucleus to potentially bind to regulatory elements of hypoxic-responsive genes.

As IH altered HIF1a expression in the hippocampus, the authors determined whether spatial learning and memory were affected by IH exposure. The Barnes maze is a circular arena that contains 20 equidistant exit holes at the perimeter. During training and probe trials, each mouse was individually placed in the middle of the arena to eliminate any directional bias within the arena; no distinct visual cues were present outside of the arena. The authors designed exit number 20 as the target exit throughout the experiments. During training, all exit holes except Exit 20 were closed. At Exit 20, there was a ramp that led into a small box external to the arena. For three consecutive days, each mouse underwent a daily 6-min trial in which the latency and distance from placement into the maze to initial entry into the exit zone at Exit 20 were recorded. Upon failure to locate the target exit, the mouse was guided toward Exit 20, and a latency of 6 min was recorded. Whereas the training period assessed learning capability, the probe trial (day 4), served as a measure of memory. During the probe trial, all 20 exit holes were closed. The latency and distance to initial entry to the exit zone at Exit 20 and overall time spent at each exit were recorded.

Arias-Cavieres and colleagues found that latency and distance to initial entry to the exit zone were similar between control and IH10 WT mice, which demonstrated that IH exposure did not result in spatial learning or locomotor deficits. However, in the probe trial, WT IH10 mice exhibited significantly longer initial latency and distance to the entry zone at Exit 20 compared with control mice (Fig. 1A,B). To verify that the initial exit that each mouse visited accurately reflected overall recall of the target exit, the authors created a heat map for each experimental group of the average probability of entry to each exit zone during the probe trial. In the heat map, a “hot” (red) region indicates a higher average of repeated visits to an exit zone than a “cold” (blue) region. The heat maps showed that control mice were more likely to repeatedly enter the exit zone at Exit 20 than WT IH10 mice (Fig. 1C,D). Instead, WT IH10 mice could not discern where the target exit zone, Exit 20, was relative to the other exits. These results indicate that IH exposure impaired the ability of WT mice to recall the position of the target exit.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Ten days of IH disrupts Barnes maze performance in WT mice. A, During the probe trial, the distance traveled to initially enter the exit zone was shorter in control mice compared with WT IH10 mice. B, Latency to initial entry was also shorter in control mice. C, Heat maps of the mean entry probability across all false exits (1–19) and Exit 20 during probe trial for the control and WT IH10 mice. D, Comparison of entry probability into the exit zone during the probe trial reveals that control mice had a greater probability of entering the exit zone when compared with WT IH10 mice. (Adapted from Figure 1 in Arias-Cavieres et al., 2020.)

To determine whether the IH-induced memory deficit was dependent on HIF1a signaling, the same training and probe trial experiments were performed using 0-HIF1a+/− (no IH exposure) and 10-HIF1a+/− (10 d of IH exposure) mice. Both 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice exhibited comparable initial distance and latency to Exit 20 during training (Fig. 2A,B), and similar entry zone probabilities during the probe trial (Fig. 2C,D). In contrast to WT mice, in which IH exposure resulted in increased nuclear localization of HIF1a in hippocampal tissue, nuclear versus cytoplasmic levels of HIF1a were unaffected by IH exposure in HIF1a+/− mice. Thus far, the results of the HIF1a localization and behavioral analyses indicated that IH exposure was associated with a neurocognitive memory defect in mice that had high nuclear expression levels of HIF1a.

Figure 2.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 2.

Ten days of IH does not affect Barnes maze performance in HIF1a+/− mice. A, In HIF1a+/− mice, the distance initial to initial entry into the exit zone (Exit 20) was similar between 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice. B, Latency to initial entry into the exit zone (Exit 20) during the probe trial was similar between 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice. C, Heat maps of the mean entry probability into all zones during the probe trial for 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice. Entry probability was similar between 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; N.S., not significant. (Adapted from Figure 1 in Arias-Cavieres et al., 2020.)

Once a behavioral deficit associated with HIF1a signaling had been established, the authors examined whether IH exposure affected long-term potentiation, a neural substrate of both learning and memory processes. High-frequency stimulation (HFS) was used to evoke LTP (LTPHFS) in the CA1 area of hippocampal slices isolated from control and WT IH10 mice. In control mice, LTPHFS was attenuated in the presence of AP5, an NMDA receptor (NMDAr) antagonist. In slices from WT IH10 mice, LTP was attenuated by HFS both in the absence or presence of AP5. LTP magnitude was weaker in WT IH10 mice compared with control mice, which, combined with the lack of effect of AP5, demonstrates that IH exposure causes an NMDAr-mediated suppression of LTP. In contrast, in the absence of IH exposure, LTPHFS responses comprise both NMDAr-dependent and NMDAr-independent mechanisms. However, following IH10, the NMDAr-dependent component of LTP in WT mice was no longer sensitive to AP5, suggesting that an NMDAr-independent mechanism was predominantly responsible for LTP when WT mice had been exposed to IH. In 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice, HFS evoked a similar magnitude of LTP. Overall, these findings suggest that hippocampal synaptic physiology is affected by IH in mice with high nuclear expression of HIF1a and that suppressed synaptic potentiation may be more relevant to NMDAr-dependent, rather than NMDAr-independent, LTP mechanisms.

To further examine the NMDAr-dependent LTP response following IH, the authors performed a separate set of experiments using theta-burst stimulation (TBS) to evoke LTP (LTPTBS). LTPTBS is only NMDAr dependent; thereby, this electrophysiological approach circumvents the NMDAr-independent LTP mechanisms. In control mice, LTPTBS was evoked but was blocked by AP5 (Fig. 3A). In contrast, LTPTBS was not evoked in WT IH10 mice showing that IH affected NMDAr-dependent synaptic potentiation (Fig. 3B,C). The effect of IH on LTPTBS was associated with HIF1a expression, as 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice showed a comparable magnitude of LTPTBS, and AP5 blocked LTPTBS in 10-HIF1a+/− mice (Fig. 3D,E). Collectively, the LTPTBS results suggested that IH affects the NMDAr physiology of LTP in a HIF1a-dependent manner. This conclusion was further supported by additional experiments that showed that the expression of GluN1, an obligatory NMDAr subunit, was reduced in WT IH10 mice compared with controls. GluN1 expression levels in 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice were similar to the expression levels in control mice, supporting a HIF1a-dependent role of the effect of IH on NMDAr physiology. IH did not impact expression levels of a postsynaptic density marker, suggesting that the effect of IH was specific to the GluN1 subunit rather than a broad dysregulation of glutamatergic synapse components.

Figure 3.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 3.

IH suppresses NMDAr-dependent synaptic potentiation in WT hippocampal slices, but NMDAr-dependent LTP is unaffected by IH in the hippocampal slices from HIF1a+/− mice. A, LTPTBS is readily evoked in control (light blue) and is completely blocked by AP5 (light green). B, LTPTBS is present following IH (pink). C, Post hoc comparison of LTPTBS magnitude (60 min following TBS) show significant effects of AP5 or IH10 compared with the control condition. D, LTPTBS was evoked in 0-HIF1a+/− (light gray), 10-HIF1a+/− (light yellow), and 10-HIF1a+/− + AP5 (light green) groups. No difference was found when comparing LTPTBS magnitude of 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice. Representative traces illustrate baseline (black) and 60 min following HFS (colored trace). Scale bars: 0.2 mV/10 ms. In experiments using AP5, electrophysiological recordings began at 20 min before eliciting LTP (i.e., t = −20), while AP5 was applied 10 min before eliciting LTP (i.e., t = −10). For all experiments, the arrow represents the electric protocol (TBS); ***p < 0.01; N.S., p > 0.05. (Adapted from Figure 2 in Arias-Cavieres et al., 2020.)

Thus far, the experiments supported an IH-induced, HIF1a-dependent neurocognitive defect and molecular defects specific to synaptic potentiation. Next, Arias-Cavieres and colleagues examined changes in redox state in the experimental groups. HIF1a regulates the expression of NOX4 (Diebold et al., 2010), an NADPH oxidase that produces reactive oxygen species. Western blot analysis was used to determined NOX4 levels relative to the housekeeping gene GADPH in hippocampal tissue isolated from control, WT IH10, 0-HIF1a+/−, and 10-HIF1a+/− mice. WT IH10 mice had higher NOX4 expression levels compared with controls; expression in 0-HIF1a+/− and 10-HIF1a+/− mice was similar to controls (Fig. 4A). These results show that IH exposure results in an intracellular shift to a pro-oxidant state that is dependent on HIF1a signaling.

Figure 4.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 4.

Effects of IH on NOX4 expression and mitigation of IH-dependent effects on GluN1 expression and Barnes maze performance deficits by antioxidant treatment. A, Comparison of the prooxidant enzyme NOX4 expression levels in hippocampal homogenates from control, WT IH10, 0-HIF1a+/−, and 10-HIF1a+/− mice reveals that NOX4 is increased in WT IH10 but not elevated in either 0-HIF1a+/− or 10-HIF1a+/− mice. B, Normalized GluN1 protein expression was examined in control, WT IH10, IHSaline, and IHMnTMPyP mice. No difference in GluN1 expression was evident between IH10 (open black circles in IH10 label) and IHSaline (open blue circles in IH10 label); therefore, the two groups were merged into the IH10 label for comparisons to control. Comparisons revealed that GluN1 was reduced only in IH10 mice and unchanged in IHMnTMPyP mice. C, Heat maps of the mean entry probability across all false exits (1–19) and the exit zone (Exit 20) during the probe trial for IHSaline and IHMnTMPyP treatments. D, Comparison of entry probability into the exit zone during the probe trial reveals that IHMnTMPyP mice had a greater probability of entering the exit zone when compared with IHSaline mice; *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; N.S., p > 0.05. (Adapted from Figures 4 and 5 in Arias-Cavieres et al., 2020.)

To investigate whether a pro-oxidant state was associated with the dysregulation of GluN1 subunit expression, the authors measured GluN1 levels normalized to GADPH in four experimental groups of WT mice. In addition to control and WT IH10 mice, WT mice exposed to 10 d of IH exposure were administered daily injections of saline (IHsaline) or the superoxide anion scavenger MnTMPyP (IHMnTMPyP). IH exposure led to reduced GluN1 expression levels in the WT IH10 groups and IHsaline groups; however, GluN1 levels were similar between the control and IHMnTMPyP groups (Fig. 4B). These observations suggest that inhibiting a pro-oxidant state prevented the molecular dysregulation of the NMDAr.

To determine whether MnTMPyP could rescue the neurocognitive deficit exhibited by IH10 mice, Arias-Cavieres and colleagues repeated the LTPTBS and Barnes Maze experiments, including the IHMnTMPyP group. LTPTBS was evoked in hippocampal slices isolated from IHMnTMPyP mice showing that inhibition of the pro-oxidant state rescued the IH-induced phenotype. In the Barnes maze probe trial, IHsaline and IHMnTMPyP mice exhibited similar initial distance and latency to Exit 20. However, the heat map results revealed that the entry probability into the exit zone at Exit 20 was higher in IHMnTMPyP mice compared with IHsaline mice (Fig. 4C,D). This observation indicates that recall of the target exit location was more evident by the overall visits to Exit 20 by IHMnTMPyP mice compared with IHsaline mice. Therefore, rescue of the pro-oxidant phenotype mitigated the neurocognitive deficit that is normally induced by IH exposure.

This publication is an advance in the field because it provides evidence that HIF1a signaling mediates the adverse effects of IH exposure. HIF1a signaling is upstream of molecular aberrations that are linked to neurocognitive defects, positioning HIF1a signaling as a good target for potential therapies for sleep apnea. The neurocognitive defects associated with sleep apnea are often comorbid in other neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s disease. Therefore, it is important to mitigate the neurocognitive defects of sleep apnea, in particular in individuals who have increased susceptibility to neurological disorders in which cognitive function is impaired.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

References

  1. ↵
    Arias-Cavieres A, Khuu MA, Nwakudu CU, Barnard JE, Dalgin G, Garcia AJ (2020) A HIF1a-dependent pro-oxidant state disrupts synaptic plasticity and impairs spatial memory in response to intermittent hypoxia. eNeuro 7. ENEURO.0024-20.2020. doi:10.1523/ENEURO.0024-20.2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    Beebe DW, Gozal D (2002) Obstructive sleep apnea and the prefrontal cortex: towards a comprehensive model linking nocturnal upper airway obstruction to daytime cognitive and behavioral deficits. J Sleep Res 11:1–16. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2869.2002.00289.x pmid:11869421
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    Cha J, Zea-Hernandez JA, Sin S, Graw-Panzer K, Shifteh K, Isasi CR, Wagshul ME, Moran EE, Posner J, Zimmerman ME, Arens R (2017) The effects of obstructive sleep apnea syndrome on the dentate gyrus and learning and memory in children. J Neurosci 37:4280–4288. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3583-16.2017 pmid:28320844
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  4. ↵
    Chou YT, Zhan G, Zhu Y, Fenik P, Panossian L, Li Y, Zhang J, Veasey S (2013) C/EBP homologous binding protein (CHOP) underlies neural injury in sleep apnea model. Sleep 36:481–492. doi:10.5665/sleep.2528 pmid:23564995
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    Devita M, Montemurro S, Ramponi S, Marvisi M, Villani D, Raimondi MC, Rusconi ML, Mondini S (2017a) Obstructive sleep apnea and its controversial effects on cognition. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 39:659–669. doi:10.1080/13803395.2016.1253668 pmid:27845600
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    Devita M, Montemurro S, Zangrossi A, Ramponi S, Marvisi M, Villani D, Raimondi MC, Merlo P, Rusconi ML, Mondini S (2017b) Cognitive and motor reaction times in obstructive sleep apnea syndrome: a study based on computerized measures. Brain Cogn 117:26–32. doi:10.1016/j.bandc.2017.07.002 pmid:28700954
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    Diebold I, Petry A, Hess J, Görlach A (2010) The NADPH oxidase subunit NOX4 is a new target gene of the hypoxia-inducible factor-1. Mol Biol Cell 21:2087–2096. doi:10.1091/mbc.e09-12-1003 pmid:20427574
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    Gildeh N, Drakatos P, Higgins S, Rosenzweig I, Kent BD (2016) Emerging co-morbidities of obstructive sleep apnea: cognition, kidney disease, and cancer. J Thorac Dis 8:E901–E917. doi:10.21037/jtd.2016.09.23 pmid:27747026
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    Goldbart A, Cheng ZJ, Brittian KR, Gozal D (2003) Intermittent hypoxia induces time-dependent changes in the protein kinase B signaling pathway in the hippocampal CA1 region of the rat. Neurobiol Dis 14:440–446. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2003.08.004 pmid:14678760
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    Gozal D, Row BW, Gozal E, Kheirandish L, Neville JJ, Brittian KR, Sachleben LR Jr., Guo SZ (2003) Temporal aspects of spatial task performance during intermittent hypoxia in the rat: evidence for neurogenesis. Eur J Neurosci 18:2335–2342. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02947.x pmid:14622195
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  11. ↵
    Iyer NV, Kotch LE, Agani F, Leung SW, Laughner E, Wenger RH, Gassmann M, Gearhart JD, Lawler AM, Yu AY, Semenza GL (1998) Cellular and developmental control of O2 homeostasis by hypoxia-inducible factor 1 alpha. Genes Dev 12:149–162. doi:10.1101/gad.12.2.149 pmid:9436976
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    Jackson ML, Howard ME, Barnes M (2011) Cognition and daytime functioning in sleep-related breathing disorders. Prog Brain Res 190:53–68. doi:10.1016/B978-0-444-53817-8.00003-7 pmid:21531244
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  13. ↵
    Khuu MA, Pagan CM, Nallamothu T, Hevner RF, Hodge RD, Ramirez J-M, Garcia AJ (2019) Intermittent hypoxia disrupts adult neurogenesis and synaptic plasticity in the dentate gyrus. J Neurosci 39:1320–1331. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1359-18.2018 pmid:30587544
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    Leng Y, McEvoy CT, Allen IE, Yaffe K (2017) Association of sleep-disordered breathing with cognitive function and risk of cognitive impairment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 74:1237–1245. doi:10.1001/jamaneurol.2017.2180 pmid:28846764
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    Macey PM, Prasad JP, Ogren JA, Moiyadi AS, Aysola RS, Kumar R, Yan-Go FL, Woo MA, Albert Thomas M, Harper RM (2018) Sex-specific hippocampus volume changes in obstructive sleep apnea. Neuroimage Clin 20:305–317. doi:10.1016/j.nicl.2018.07.027
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  16. ↵
    Nair D, Dayyat EA, Zhang SX, Wang Y, Gozal D (2011) Intermittent hypoxia-induced cognitive deficits are mediated by NADPH oxidase activity in a murine model of sleep apnea. PLoS One 6:e19847. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019847 pmid:21625437
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  17. ↵
    National Sleep Foundation (2020) Sleep apnea. Updated August 21, 2020. Retrieved from https://www.sleepfoundation.org/sleep-apnea.
  18. ↵
    Payne RS, Goldbart A, Gozal D, Schurr A (2004) Effect of intermittent hypoxia on long-term potentiation in rat hippocampal slices. Brain Res 1029:195–199. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2004.09.045 pmid:15542074
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. ↵
    Peng YJ, Prabhakar NR (2004) Effect of two paradigms of chronic intermittent hypoxia on carotid body sensory activity. J Appl Physiol (1985) 96:1236–1242. doi:10.1152/japplphysiol.00820.2003 pmid:14660510
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. ↵
    Peng YJ, Yuan G, Ramakrishnan D, Sharma SD, Bosch-Marce M, Kumar GK, Semenza GL, Prabhakar NR (2006) Heterozygous HIF-1alpha deficiency impairs carotid body-mediated systemic responses and reactive oxygen species generation in mice exposed to intermittent hypoxia. J Physiol 577:705–716. doi:10.1113/jphysiol.2006.114033 pmid:16973705
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  21. ↵
    Row BW, Kheirandish L, Neville JJ, Gozal D (2002) Impaired spatial learning and hyperactivity in developing rats exposed to intermittent hypoxia. Pediatr Res 52:449–453. doi:10.1203/00006450-200209000-00024 pmid:12193683
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    Schröder CM, O'Hara R (2005) Depression and obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Ann Gen Psychiatry 4:13. doi:10.1186/1744-859X-4-13 pmid:15982424
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  23. ↵
    Sforza E, Celle S, Saint-Martin M, Barthélémy JC, Roche F (2016) Hippocampus volume and subjective sleepiness in older people with sleep-disordered breathing: a preliminary report. J Sleep Res 25:190–193. doi:10.1111/jsr.12367 pmid:26662175
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    Song X, Roy B, Kang DW, Aysola RS, Macey PM, Woo MA, Yan-Go FL, Harper RM, Kumar R (2018) Altered resting-state hippocampal and caudate functional networks in patients with obstructive sleep apnea. Brain Behav 8:e00994. doi:10.1002/brb3.994 pmid:29749715
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    Varga AW, Kishi A, Mantua J, Lim J, Koushyk V, Leibert DP, Osorio RS, Rapoport DM, Ayappa I (2014) Apnea-induced rapid eye movement sleep disruption impairs human spatial navigational memory. J Neurosci 34:14571–14577. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3220-14.2014 pmid:25355211
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  26. ↵
    Wall AM, Corcoran AE, O'Halloran KD, O'Connor JJ (2014) Effects of prolyl-hydroxylase inhibition and chronic intermittent hypoxia on synaptic transmission and plasticity in the rat CA1 and dentate gyrus. Neurobiol Dis 62:8–17. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2013.08.016 pmid:24055213
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    Wallace A, Bucks RS (2013) Memory and obstructive sleep apnea: a meta-analysis. Sleep 36:203–220. doi:10.5665/sleep.2374 pmid:23372268
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    Xie H, Leung KL, Chen L, Chan YS, Ng PC, Fok TF, Wing YK, Ke Y, Li AM, Yung WH (2010) Brain-derived neurotrophic factor rescues and prevents chronic intermittent hypoxia-induced impairment of hippocampal long-term synaptic plasticity. Neurobiol Dis 40:155–162. doi:10.1016/j.nbd.2010.05.020 pmid:20553872
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    Zhang SX, Wang Y, Gozal D (2012) Pathological consequences of intermittent hypoxia in the central nervous system. Compr Physiol 2:1767–1777. doi:10.1002/cphy.c100060 pmid:23723023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
View Abstract
Back to top

In this issue

eneuro: 7 (6)
eNeuro
Vol. 7, Issue 6
November/December 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Neurocognitive and Synaptic Potentiation Deficits Are Mitigated by Inhibition of HIF1a Signaling following Intermittent Hypoxia in Rodents
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
View Full Page PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Citation Tools
Neurocognitive and Synaptic Potentiation Deficits Are Mitigated by Inhibition of HIF1a Signaling following Intermittent Hypoxia in Rodents
Rosalind S.E. Carney
eNeuro 3 December 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0449-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0449-20.2020

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Respond to this article
Share
Neurocognitive and Synaptic Potentiation Deficits Are Mitigated by Inhibition of HIF1a Signaling following Intermittent Hypoxia in Rodents
Rosalind S.E. Carney
eNeuro 3 December 2020, 7 (6) ENEURO.0449-20.2020; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0449-20.2020
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Responses to this article

Respond to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Feature: Research Highlights

  • Astrocytes Function as an Intermediate for Retrograde Endocannabinoid Signaling in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus to Influence Circadian Clock Timing
  • Pharmacological Inactivation of Medial Prefrontal Cortex Does Not Support Dichotomous “Go/Stop” Roles for Dorsal and Ventral Subdivisions in Natural Reward Seeking in Rats
Show more Feature: Research Highlights

Disorders of the Nervous System

  • Astrocytes Function as an Intermediate for Retrograde Endocannabinoid Signaling in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus to Influence Circadian Clock Timing
  • Pharmacological Inactivation of Medial Prefrontal Cortex Does Not Support Dichotomous “Go/Stop” Roles for Dorsal and Ventral Subdivisions in Natural Reward Seeking in Rats
  • Mapping sex-specific neurodevelopmental alterations in neurite density and morphology in a rat genetic model of psychiatric illness
Show more Disorders of the Nervous System

Subjects

  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • Research Highlights
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2021 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.