Sleep Deprivation and Oxidative Stress in Animal Models: A Systematic Review

Table 1

Paradoxical sleep deprivation protocols.

Sleep deprivation method	Description	Controls	Advantages	Disadvantages
Multiple small platforms (MSP)	Multiple small platforms (3–5 cm) placed in a tank (40 × 30 cm) filled with water to within 1–4 cm of the upper surface of the platforms and spaced 7 cm. Water and food ad libitum. The loss of muscle tone results in animals touching the water and awakening	Home caged controls, may use MLP (10–16 cm) controls	Abolishes REM sleep. Eliminates immobilization and isolation stress. If MLP controls are used, then environmental confounds (stress and anxiety) can be controlled	May also decrease slow-wave sleep. Can be affected by environmental confounds (stress and anxiety)
Classical platform (CP)	The animals were individually placed on a platform of 4.5–10 cm diameter in individual containers filled with water up to 1 cm below the platform surface. Water and food ad libitum. The loss of muscle tone results in animals falling off the platform and wakening	Home caged controls. WP (13-14 cm) controls	Abolishes REM sleep	May also decrease slow-wave sleep. Isolation and immobilization stress may be present environmental confounds (stress and anxiety)
Grid over water (GOW)	The animals were placed on a grid floor (29 × 15 × 7 cm) inside the plastic cage filled with water to 1 cm below the grid surface. The stainless steel rods of the grid (3 mm wide) were set 2 cm apart from each other. Water and food ad libitum. The loss of muscle tone results in animals touching the water and awakening	Grids placed over saw dust controls and home caged controls	Abolishes REM sleep. Eliminates immobilization and isolation stress. Environmental confounds (stress and anxiety) controlled	May also decrease slow-wave sleep

Classical platform: CP, grid over water: GOW, multiple small platforms: MSP, multiple large platforms: MLP, and wide platform: WP.