↓ Skip to main content

What is unconsciousness in a fly or a worm? A review of general anesthesia in different animal models

Overview of attention for article published in Consciousness & Cognition, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
9 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
What is unconsciousness in a fly or a worm? A review of general anesthesia in different animal models
Published in
Consciousness & Cognition, June 2016
DOI 10.1016/j.concog.2016.06.017
Pubmed ID
Authors

Oressia Zalucki, Bruno van Swinderen

Abstract

All animals are rendered unresponsive by general anesthetics. In humans, this is observed as a succession of endpoints from memory loss to unconsciousness to immobility. Across animals, anesthesia endpoints such as loss of responsiveness or immobility appear to require significantly different drug concentrations. A closer examination in key model organisms such as the mouse, fly, or the worm, uncovers a trend: more complex behaviors, either requiring several sub-behaviors, or multiple neural circuits working together, are more sensitive to volatile general anesthetics. This trend is also evident when measuring neural correlates of general anesthesia. Here, we review this complexity hypothesis in humans and model organisms, and attempt to reconcile these findings with the more recent view that general anesthetics potentiate endogenous sleep pathways in most animals. Finally, we propose a presynaptic mechanism, and thus an explanation for how these drugs might compromise a succession of brain functions of increasing complexity.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 1%
Brazil 1 1%
Sweden 1 1%
United Kingdom 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 79 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 21 25%
Researcher 15 18%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 12 14%
Unknown 11 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 24 28%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 15%
Medicine and Dentistry 11 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Psychology 5 6%
Other 11 13%
Unknown 10 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. 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 22 February 2024.
All research outputs
#2,485,311
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Consciousness & Cognition
#344
of 1,706 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,302
of 367,282 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Consciousness & Cognition
#10
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,706 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 19.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its peers.
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 367,282 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 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 72% of its contemporaries.