Cycling of CRYPTOCHROME proteins is not necessary for circadian-clock function in mammalian fibroblasts

cAMP-dependent signaling as a core component of the mammalian circadian pacemaker

The mammalian circadian clockwork is modeled as transcriptional and posttranslational feedback loops, whereby circadian genes are periodically suppressed by their protein products. We show that adenosine 3',5'-monophosphate (cAMP) signaling constitutes an additional, bona fide component of the oscillatory network. cAMP signaling is rhythmic and sustains the transcriptional loop of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, determining canonical pacemaker properties of amplitude, phase, and period. This role is general and is evident in peripheral mammalian tissues and cell lines, which reveals an unanticipated point of circadian regulation in mammals qualitatively different from the existing transcriptional feedback model. We propose that daily activation of cAMP signaling, driven by the transcriptional oscillator, in turn sustains progression of transcriptional rhythms. In this way, clock output constitutes an input to subsequent cycles.

The Drosophila circadian pacemaker circuit: Pas De Deux or Tarantella?

Molecular genetic analysis of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster has revolutionized our understanding of the transcription/translation loop mechanisms underlying the circadian molecular oscillator. More recently, Drosophila has been used to understand how different neuronal groups within the circadian pacemaker circuit interact to regulate the overall behavior of the fly in response to daily cyclic environmental cues as well as seasonal changes. Our present understanding of circadian timekeeping at the molecular and circuit level is discussed with a critical evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of present models. Two models for circadian neural circuits are compared: one that posits that two anatomically distinct oscillators control the synchronization to the two major daily morning and evening transitions, versus a distributed network model that posits that many cell-autonomous oscillators are coordinated in a complex fashion and respond via plastic mechanisms to changes in environmental cues.

Ac-ing the clock

Circadian clock proteins are modified in many different ways. The best-studied posttranslational modification is phosphorylation, with well-known kinases and phosphatases regulating the function and stability of clock proteins. Degradation of these proteins usually involves ubiquitylation or sumoylation, and some of the relevant E3 ligases are known. In addition, Hirayama et al. recently identified acetylation as a clock regulatory mechanism.

Probing the relative importance of molecular oscillations in the circadian clock

Circadian ( approximately 24 hr) rhythms of behavior and physiology are driven by molecular clocks that are endogenous to most organisms. The mechanisms underlying these clocks are remarkably conserved across evolution and typically consist of auto-regulatory loops in which specific proteins (clock proteins) rhythmically repress expression of their own genes. Such regulation maintains 24-hr cycles of RNA and protein expression. Despite the conservation of these mechanisms, however, questions are now being raised about the relevance of different molecular oscillations. Indeed, several studies have demonstrated that oscillations of some critical clock genes can be eliminated without loss of basic clock function. Here, we describe the multiple levels at which clock gene/protein expression and function can be rhythmically regulated-transcription, protein expression, post-translational modification, and localization-and speculate as to which aspect of this regulation is most critical. While the review is focused on Drosophila, we include some discussion of mammalian clocks to indicate the extent to which the questions concerning clock mechanisms are similar, regardless of the organism under study.

Circadian clock: time for a phase shift of ideas?

A recent study shows that cycling of cryptochrome proteins is dispensable for circadian clock function in mammalian cells. Is it time for a paradigm shift in how we think about the circadian clock mechanism?

Presence of robust circadian clock oscillation under constitutive over-expression of mCry1 in rat-1 fibroblasts

In mammals, mCRY proteins are essential and are major negative elements in circadian feedback loops. In this study, robust circadian clock oscillation was present even under conditions with constitutive over-expression of mCry1 in rat-1 cells. Rat-1 cells were produced to stably express mPer2 promoter-driven luciferase reporter, in which mCry1 was overexpressed under a tetracycline-dependent gene expression (Tet-On) system. Using these cells, we show that circadian clock oscillations in rat-1 fibroblasts persist when the mCRY1 protein constitutively accumulates in the nuclei.

Understanding the somitogenesis clock: what's missing?

The segmentation of vertebrate embryos depends on a complex genetic network that generates highly dynamic gene expression. Many of the elements of the network have been identified, but their interaction and their influence on segmentation remain poorly understood. A few mathematical models have been proposed to explain the dynamics of subsets of the network, but the mechanistic bases remain controversial. This review focuses on outstanding problems with the generation of somitogenesis clock oscillations, and the ways they could regulate segmentation. Proposals that oscillations are generated by a negative feedback loop formed by Lunatic fringe and Notch signaling are weighed against a model based on positive feedback, and the experimental basis for models of simple negative feedback involving Her/Hes genes or Wnt targets is evaluated. Differences are then made explicit between the many 'clock and wavefront' model variants that have been proposed to explain how the clock regulates segmentation. An understanding of the somitogenesis clock will require addressing experimentally the many questions that arise from the study of simple models.

Cross-talks between circadian timing system and cell division cycle determine cancer biology and therapeutics

The circadian clock orchestrates cellular functions over 24 hours, including cell divisions, a process that results from the cell cycle. The circadian clock and cell cycle interact at the level of genes, proteins, and biochemical signals. The disruption or the reinforcement of the host circadian timing system, respectively, accelerates or slows down cancer growth through modifications of host and tumor circadian clocks. Thus, cancer cells not only display mutations of cell cycle genes but also exhibit severe defects in clock gene expression levels or 24-hour patterns, which can in turn favor abnormal proliferation. Most of the experimental research actively ongoing in this field has been driven by the original demonstration that cancer patients with poor circadian rhythms had poor quality of life and poor survival outcome independently of known prognostic factors. Further basic research on the gender dependencies in circadian properties is now warranted, because a large clinical trial has revealed that gender can largely affect the survival outcome of cancer patients on chronotherapeutic delivery. Mathematical models further show that the therapeutic index of chemotherapeutic drugs can be optimized through distinct delivery profiles, depending on the initial host/tumor status and variability in circadian entrainment and/or cell cycle length. Clinical trials and systems-biology approaches in cancer chronotherapeutics raise novel issues to be addressed experimentally in the field of biological clocks. The challenge ahead is to therapeutically harness the circadian timing system to concurrently improve quality of life and down-regulate malignant growth.