Sustaining sleep spindles through enhanced SK2-channel activity consolidates sleep and elevates arousal threshold.

Sleep spindles are synchronized 11-15 Hz electroencephalographic (EEG) oscillations predominant during nonrapid-eye-movement sleep (NREMS). Rhythmic bursting in the reticular thalamic nucleus (nRt), arising from interplay between Ca(v)3.3-type Ca(2+) channels and Ca(2+)-dependent small-conductance-type 2 (SK2) K(+) channels, underlies spindle generation. Correlative evidence indicates that spindles contribute to memory consolidation and protection against environmental noise in human NREMS. Here, we describe a molecular mechanism through which spindle power is selectively extended and we probed the actions of intensified spindling in the naturally sleeping mouse. Using electrophysiological recordings in acute brain slices from SK2 channel-overexpressing (SK2-OE) mice, we found that nRt bursting was potentiated and thalamic circuit oscillations were prolonged. Moreover, nRt cells showed greater resilience to transit from burst to tonic discharge in response to gradual depolarization, mimicking transitions out of NREMS. Compared with wild-type littermates, chronic EEG recordings of SK2-OE mice contained less fragmented NREMS, while the NREMS EEG power spectrum was conserved. Furthermore, EEG spindle activity was prolonged at NREMS exit. Finally, when exposed to white noise, SK2-OE mice needed stronger stimuli to arouse. Increased nRt bursting thus strengthens spindles and improves sleep quality through mechanisms independent of EEG slow waves (<4 Hz), suggesting SK2 signaling as a new potential therapeutic target for sleep disorders and for neuropsychiatric diseases accompanied by weakened sleep spindles.

Spectrum of digoxin-induced ocular toxicity: a case report and literature review.

BACKGROUND: Digoxin intoxication results in predominantly digestive, cardiac and neurological symptoms. This case is outstanding in that the intoxication occurred in a nonagenarian and induced severe, extensively documented visual symptoms as well as dysphagia and proprioceptive illusions. Moreover, it went undiagnosed for a whole month despite close medical follow-up, illustrating the difficulty in recognizing drug-induced effects in a polymorbid patient. CASE PRESENTATION: Digoxin 0.25 mg qd for atrial fibrillation was prescribed to a 91-year-old woman with an estimated creatinine clearance of 18 ml/min. Over the following 2-3 weeks she developed nausea, vomiting and dysphagia, snowy and blurry vision, photopsia, dyschromatopsia, aggravated pre-existing formed visual hallucinations and proprioceptive illusions. She saw her family doctor twice and visited the eye clinic once until, 1 month after starting digoxin, she was admitted to the emergency room. Intoxication was confirmed by a serum digoxin level of 5.7 ng/ml (reference range 0.8-2 ng/ml). After stopping digoxin, general symptoms resolved in a few days, but visual complaints persisted. Examination by the ophthalmologist revealed decreased visual acuity in both eyes, 4/10 in the right eye (OD) and 5/10 in the left eye (OS), decreased color vision as demonstrated by a score of 1/13 in both eyes (OU) on Ishihara pseudoisochromatic plates, OS cataract, and dry age-related macular degeneration (ARMD). Computerized static perimetry showed non-specific diffuse alterations suggestive of either bilateral retinopathy or optic neuropathy. Full-field electroretinography (ERG) disclosed moderate diffuse rod and cone dysfunction and multifocal ERG revealed central loss of function OU. Visual symptoms progressively improved over the next 2 months, but multifocal ERG did not. The patient was finally discharged home after a 5 week hospital stay. CONCLUSION: This case is a reminder of a complication of digoxin treatment to be considered by any treating physician. If digoxin is prescribed in a vulnerable patient, close monitoring is mandatory. In general, when facing a new health problem in a polymorbid patient, it is crucial to elicit a complete history, with all recent drug changes and detailed complaints, and to include a drug adverse reaction in the differential diagnosis.