9 ms·

Scientists find second ‘short sleep’ gene (2019)

85 points by fybs 5y ago

cptskippy 5y ago
> Using a technique known as optogenetics, in which cells are modified so they can be activated by light, the researchers focused light on neurons in the pons to stimulate those in which ADRB1 was expressed. I feel like there's a Manchuria Candidate story waiting to written about this. That's cool as hell.
- mohn 5y ago
  It is cool, but having fiber optics poking out of your head is pretty conspicuous. Chemogenetics (RASSLs/DREADDs)[0] and magnetogenetics[1] allow for more subtle activation. The interesting magnetogenetics results from the mid 2010s were not well-reproduced in the late 2010s, but the physical principle seems sound to me. I'm still hopeful that the technique will see successful application in mammals. Being able to turn the effect off quickly by stopping the external stimulation (vs. having to wait for drug metabolism/excretion in the case of chemogenetics) seems very useful. Edit: the magnetoreceptors I read about in 2018 were naturally occurring in some turbid-water-dwelling fish. If they don't work well outside the chemical environment of the fish brain, it may be a while before a suitable alternative receptor can be discovered/engineered and used effectively in mammals. Skepticism about the utility of magnetogenetics is definitely warranted, given how much RF pollution there is in our environment. If your patients have to live the rest of their lives in a shielded room (or wearing a helmet) to prevent unintentional stimulation, then it's not a very good therapy. It could still be useful for preclinical research where you have more control over your subjects' environment, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a_synthetic_ligand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetogenetics
- pharmakom 5y ago
  You might enjoy the book Interface
  - cptskippy 5y ago
    To what?
    - alanbernstein 5y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(novel)
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
StrangeClone 5y ago
Will I be rejected during job interviews based on genes?
didibus 5y ago
Now it would be interesting to see if both type of short sleeper from both gene similarly don't suffer any health effects and have the same health benefits, or if it's only one of them. The way this gene effect was described, it doesn't make sense why they'd see no negative side effect, since it promotes "waking up". The other gene felt more like it allowed the brain to sleep more efficiently and require less sleep.
- at_a_remove 5y ago
  I'm interested in "how much less sleep" and two copies of the gene as compared to one. Wonder what you would get if you were homozygous for both short sleep genes. Both of them seem to shave off about two hours, but my guess is that they wouldn't perfectly "stack" and you'd end up needing five hours.
packhughes 5y ago
I’m sure the dna companies are salivating at their ability to sell another $60 gene report.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Why does this bother you? People drop $60 on video games, $50 on going to a movie, $100 on lottery tickets, $500 on cigarettes, and $2000 on first-class flights every day, and most of these are no big deal, just a person spending their money on entertainment in their own life. If they want to spend $60 out of mild curiosity on a genetic test, I don't understand why it merits some kind of particular scorn.
  - packhughes 5y ago
    It’s the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Capitalism has turned me into cynical asshole. How people spend their money is no concern of mine.
    - fb13 5y ago
      True until you look at gambling and other products engineered to maximize addiction.
      - dang 5y ago
        Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
        5y ago
hn_throwaway_99 5y ago
If there is one genetic quirk that I am extremely envious of, it's definitely this one. From the article: > But natural short sleepers actually seem to benefit from this quirk of their biology. Fu says researchers have found that short sleepers tend to be more optimistic, more energetic and better multitaskers. They also have a higher pain threshold, don’t suffer from jet lag and some researchers believe they may even live longer. I'm the opposite, I guess I'd be categorized as a "long sleeper" - the "natural" length of my sleep is ~9 hours. I feel pretty chronically lethargic, and if I go under 8 hours for multiple nights in a row I feel completely awful and often end up getting sick.
- malshe 5y ago
  I am a long sleeper as well and I don’t see any downside to it!
  - balfirevic 5y ago
    It's like adding 1-2 hours to the commute, only worse because you can't listen to anything during that time and you have to do it on weekends, the days you WFH and during vacations too.
- amelius 5y ago
  There probably are downsides to this gene later in life. Evolution is always about tradeoffs.
  - awillen 5y ago
    That's not true - evolution is about the best genes for survivability and reproduction continuing to be passed along. The evolutionary perspective here wouldn't be that there are downsides to this, but rather that people with this mutation are better able to survive and reproduce, so we'd expect it to be passed onto more offspring over the generations.
    - amelius 5y ago
oblak 5y ago
I manage about 6 hours on average. Sometimes 3-4, sometimes but not often, even 7. Been like that for as long as I can remember. If there's an advantage to this, it's yet to manifest itself in a way that I can recognize. Plus, it's boring because days aren't 28 hours long despite my needs. I would totally opt to need 8 hours if that would help me retain health and good looks. Focusing on something often drags me down to 3-4 hours for up to 15 days or so. It's exhausting though and I bounce back to my medium after a good 6.5-7 hour sleep.
gexla 5y ago
This must be difficult to determine. I can get by great on 4 - 6 hours of sleep and wake up without an alarm. During the day, I'll have a bit of a post-lunch slump at the office, but I don't seem to get it at home. If I take a step back from work and friends (shared routines) then I settle into an 8 hour sleep schedule. I feel the longer sleep schedule is better for me, but I can do either. I wonder how many other people are in the same situation?
maskedinvader 5y ago
Looks like I might have this particular gene, Although I can sleep longer most nights I can make do with just 5-6 hours and find it enough to function (I do drink a cup of coffee every morning but an hour or so after waking up so I dont mess with my natural ability to wake myself up), my wife would always be envious how I am able recharge my batteries with shorter sleep spans. Would be interesting to confirm this if 23andme has a new custom report to test this for me.
- dannyw 5y ago
  It probably can't because 23andme only scans for a tiny tiny percentage of your genome. Novel research is unlikely to match their selection.

85 points by fybs 5y ago

> Using a technique known as optogenetics, in which cells are modified so they can be activated by light, the researchers focused light on neurons in the pons to stimulate those in which ADRB1 was expressed. I feel like there's a Manchuria Candidate story waiting to written about this. That's cool as hell.

mohn 5y ago
It is cool, but having fiber optics poking out of your head is pretty conspicuous. Chemogenetics (RASSLs/DREADDs)[0] and magnetogenetics[1] allow for more subtle activation. The interesting magnetogenetics results from the mid 2010s were not well-reproduced in the late 2010s, but the physical principle seems sound to me. I'm still hopeful that the technique will see successful application in mammals. Being able to turn the effect off quickly by stopping the external stimulation (vs. having to wait for drug metabolism/excretion in the case of chemogenetics) seems very useful. Edit: the magnetoreceptors I read about in 2018 were naturally occurring in some turbid-water-dwelling fish. If they don't work well outside the chemical environment of the fish brain, it may be a while before a suitable alternative receptor can be discovered/engineered and used effectively in mammals. Skepticism about the utility of magnetogenetics is definitely warranted, given how much RF pollution there is in our environment. If your patients have to live the rest of their lives in a shielded room (or wearing a helmet) to prevent unintentional stimulation, then it's not a very good therapy. It could still be useful for preclinical research where you have more control over your subjects' environment, though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a_synthetic_ligand https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receptor_activated_solely_by_a... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetogenetics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetogenetics
pharmakom 5y ago
You might enjoy the book Interface
- cptskippy 5y ago
  To what?
  - alanbernstein 5y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(novel) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interface_(novel)
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

StrangeClone 5y ago

Will I be rejected during job interviews based on genes?

didibus 5y ago

Now it would be interesting to see if both type of short sleeper from both gene similarly don't suffer any health effects and have the same health benefits, or if it's only one of them. The way this gene effect was described, it doesn't make sense why they'd see no negative side effect, since it promotes "waking up". The other gene felt more like it allowed the brain to sleep more efficiently and require less sleep.

at_a_remove 5y ago
I'm interested in "how much less sleep" and two copies of the gene as compared to one. Wonder what you would get if you were homozygous for both short sleep genes. Both of them seem to shave off about two hours, but my guess is that they wouldn't perfectly "stack" and you'd end up needing five hours.

packhughes 5y ago

I’m sure the dna companies are salivating at their ability to sell another $60 gene report.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Why does this bother you? People drop $60 on video games, $50 on going to a movie, $100 on lottery tickets, $500 on cigarettes, and $2000 on first-class flights every day, and most of these are no big deal, just a person spending their money on entertainment in their own life. If they want to spend $60 out of mild curiosity on a genetic test, I don't understand why it merits some kind of particular scorn.
- packhughes 5y ago
  It’s the first thing I thought of when I read the headline. Capitalism has turned me into cynical asshole. How people spend their money is no concern of mine.
  - fb13 5y ago
    True until you look at gambling and other products engineered to maximize addiction.
    - dang 5y ago
      Could you please stop creating accounts for every few comments you post? We ban accounts that do that. This is in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html. You needn't use your real name, of course, but for HN to be a community, users need some identity for other users to relate to. Otherwise we may as well have no usernames and no community, and that would be a different kind of forum. https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0&query=community%20identity%20by:dang https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
      - 5y ago

hn_throwaway_99 5y ago

If there is one genetic quirk that I am extremely envious of, it's definitely this one. From the article: > But natural short sleepers actually seem to benefit from this quirk of their biology. Fu says researchers have found that short sleepers tend to be more optimistic, more energetic and better multitaskers. They also have a higher pain threshold, don’t suffer from jet lag and some researchers believe they may even live longer. I'm the opposite, I guess I'd be categorized as a "long sleeper" - the "natural" length of my sleep is ~9 hours. I feel pretty chronically lethargic, and if I go under 8 hours for multiple nights in a row I feel completely awful and often end up getting sick.

malshe 5y ago
I am a long sleeper as well and I don’t see any downside to it!
- balfirevic 5y ago
  It's like adding 1-2 hours to the commute, only worse because you can't listen to anything during that time and you have to do it on weekends, the days you WFH and during vacations too.
amelius 5y ago
There probably are downsides to this gene later in life. Evolution is always about tradeoffs.
- awillen 5y ago
  That's not true - evolution is about the best genes for survivability and reproduction continuing to be passed along. The evolutionary perspective here wouldn't be that there are downsides to this, but rather that people with this mutation are better able to survive and reproduce, so we'd expect it to be passed onto more offspring over the generations.
  - amelius 5y ago

oblak 5y ago

I manage about 6 hours on average. Sometimes 3-4, sometimes but not often, even 7. Been like that for as long as I can remember. If there's an advantage to this, it's yet to manifest itself in a way that I can recognize. Plus, it's boring because days aren't 28 hours long despite my needs. I would totally opt to need 8 hours if that would help me retain health and good looks. Focusing on something often drags me down to 3-4 hours for up to 15 days or so. It's exhausting though and I bounce back to my medium after a good 6.5-7 hour sleep.

gexla 5y ago

This must be difficult to determine. I can get by great on 4 - 6 hours of sleep and wake up without an alarm. During the day, I'll have a bit of a post-lunch slump at the office, but I don't seem to get it at home. If I take a step back from work and friends (shared routines) then I settle into an 8 hour sleep schedule. I feel the longer sleep schedule is better for me, but I can do either. I wonder how many other people are in the same situation?

maskedinvader 5y ago

Looks like I might have this particular gene, Although I can sleep longer most nights I can make do with just 5-6 hours and find it enough to function (I do drink a cup of coffee every morning but an hour or so after waking up so I dont mess with my natural ability to wake myself up), my wife would always be envious how I am able recharge my batteries with shorter sleep spans. Would be interesting to confirm this if 23andme has a new custom report to test this for me.

dannyw 5y ago
It probably can't because 23andme only scans for a tiny tiny percentage of your genome. Novel research is unlikely to match their selection.