↓ Skip to main content

Explaining general anesthesia: A two‐step hypothesis linking sleep circuits and the synaptic release machinery

Overview of attention for article published in BioEssays, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (57th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Explaining general anesthesia: A two‐step hypothesis linking sleep circuits and the synaptic release machinery
Published in
BioEssays, January 2014
DOI 10.1002/bies.201300154
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bruno van Swinderen, Benjamin Kottler

Abstract

Several general anesthetics produce their sedative effect by activating endogenous sleep pathways. We propose that general anesthesia is a two-step process targeting sleep circuits at low doses, and synaptic release mechanisms across the entire brain at the higher doses required for surgery. Our hypothesis synthesizes data from a variety of model systems, some which require sleep (e.g. rodents and adult flies) and others that probably do not sleep (e.g. adult nematodes and cultured cell lines). Non-sleeping systems can be made insensitive (or hypersensitive) to some anesthetics by modifying a single pre-synaptic protein, syntaxin1A. This suggests that the synaptic release machinery, centered on the highly conserved SNARE complex, is an important target of general anesthetics in all animals. A careful consideration of SNARE architecture uncovers a potential mechanism for general anesthesia, which may be the primary target in animals that do not sleep, but a secondary target in animals that sleep.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Belgium 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 39 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 17%
Student > Bachelor 5 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 10%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 10%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 6 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 15 36%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Psychology 3 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 2%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 5 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 August 2014.
All research outputs
#14,278,766
of 24,577,646 outputs
Outputs from BioEssays
#2,040
of 2,970 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#168,093
of 316,622 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BioEssays
#15
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,577,646 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,970 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.9. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 316,622 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 57% of its contemporaries.