Study
Rest in Drosophila is a sleep-like state
Hendricks, Joan C.; Finn, Stephen M.; Panckeri, Karen A.; Chavkin, Jessica; Williams, Julie A.; Sehgal, Amita; Pack, Allan I.
Neuron, 2000
Periods of fly inactivity were tested against the behavioural criteria for sleep rather than assumed to be sleep: arousal threshold was measured with mechanical stimuli, the state was checked for rapid reversibility, flies were deprived of rest and the subsequent rebound measured, and the state’s response to caffeine and antihistamines was recorded.
- Studied in
- Drosophila melanogaster
- Sample size
- multiple cohorts of flies across behavioural and pharmacological tests
Inactive flies showed a raised arousal threshold, adopted a characteristic posture, and after deprivation rested substantially more than usual — a homeostatic rebound. Stimulants reduced the state and antihistamines increased it, as they do in mammals.
What it means
The authors' reading, and ours. Where they differ, that difference is the point.
How the authors put it
Rest in Drosophila meets the behavioural definition of sleep and is regulated homeostatically, making the fly a usable genetic model for sleep.
How NatureHQ reads it
This is the experiment that made insect sleep a serious claim rather than an anthropomorphism, and the reason is the rebound. An animal that is simply inactive has no debt to repay. An animal that sleeps longer after being kept awake is regulating something, and regulation is what distinguishes sleep from stillness.
- Deprivation by mechanical disturbance is stressful, and stress alone changes behaviour.
- Behavioural criteria only — a fly brain is not recorded the way a mammal’s is.
- One species under laboratory light cycles that do not resemble a field environment.
Keeping a fly awake to find out whether it was asleep
Flies stop moving for hours at a time. Is that sleep, or just an insect standing still?
What this study is used for on NatureHQ
One study can inform several subjects. Here is everywhere this one is cited.
Published by: Cell PressPublished in a Cell Press journal.
doi.org/10.1016/s0896-6273(00)80877-6
This reference was resolved automatically against Crossref on 2026-08-11.
NatureHQ summarises research in its own words and does not reproduce published text. Reviewed 2026-08-10.