Correlation between reproductive photoresponsiveness and photoregulated locomotor activity in meadow voles

Are Humans Seasonally Photoperiodic?

Humans exhibit seasonal variation in a wide variety of behavioral and physiological processes, and numerous investigators have suggested that this might be because we are sensitive to seasonal variation in day length. The evidence supporting this hypothesis is inconsistent. A new hypothesis is offered here—namely, that some humans indeed are seasonally photoresponsive, but others are not, and that individual variation may be the cause of the inconsistencies that have plagued the study of responsiveness to photoperiod in the past. This hypothesis is examined in relation to seasonal changes in the reproductive activity of humans, and it is developed by reviewing and combining five bodies of knowledge: correlations of human birthrates with photoperiod; seasonal changes in the activity of the neuroendocrine pathway that could link photoperiod to gonadal steroid secretion in humans; what is known about photoperiod, latitude, and reproduction of nonhuman primates; documentation of individual variation in photoresponsiveness in rodents and humans; and what is known about the evolutionary ecology of humans.

Tau Differences between Short-Day Responsive and Short-Day Nonresponsive White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) Do Not Affect Reproductive Photoresponsiveness

In laboratory-bred rodent populations, intraspecific variation in circadian system organization is a known cause of individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness. The authors sought to determine whether circadian system variation accounted for individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness in a single, highly genetically variable population of Peromyscus leucopusrecently derived from the wild. Running-wheel activity patterns of male and female mice, aged 70 to 90 days, from artificially selected lines of reproductively photoresponsive (R) and nonresponsive (NR) lines were monitored under short-day photoperiod (8 h light, 16 h dark), long-day photoperiod (16 h light, 8 h dark), and constant darkness (DD). NR mice displayed a significantly longer mean free-running period (24.08 h) in DD compared with R mice (23.75 h), due in large part to a difference between NR and R females (24.25 h vs. 23.74 h, respectively). All other entrainment characteristics (alpha, phase angle of activity) under short days, long days, and DD were similar between R and NR mice. Variation in free- running period and entrainment characteristics has been shown to affect photoresponsiveness in other rodent species by altering the manner in which the circadian system interprets short days. To determine whether variation in photoresponsiveness in P. leucopus is due to differences in free-running period instead of variation downstream from the central circadian clock in the pathway controlling photoresponsiveness, the authors exposed young R and NR mice to DD and measured the effect on reproductive organ development. If variation in free-running period affected how the circadian system of mice interpreted short days, then both R and NR mice exposed to DD should have exhibited a delay in gonadal development. Only R mice exhibited pubertal delay in DD. NR mice exhibited large paired testes, paired seminal vesicles, paired ovaries, and uterine weight typical of mice nonresponsive to short days, whereas R mice exhibited reproductive organ weight typical of mice responsive to short days. These data suggest that despite significant differences in free-running period between R and NR mice, individual variation in photoresponsiveness is not due to differences in how the circadian systems of R and NR mice interpret the LD cycle.

Circadian organization of a subarctic rodent, the northern red-backed vole (Clethrionomys rutilus)

Arctic and subarctic environments are exposed to extreme light: dark (LD) regimes, including periods of constant light (LL) and constant dark (DD) and large daily changes in day length, but very little is known about circadian rhythms of mammals at high latitudes. The authors investigated the circadian rhythms of a subarctic population of northern red-backed voles (Clethrionomys rutilus). Both wild-caught and third-generation laboratory-bred animals showed predominantly nocturnal patterns of wheel running when exposed to a 16:8 LD cycle. In LL and DD conditions, animals displayed large phenotypic variation in circadian rhythms. Compared to wheel-running rhythms under a 16:8 LD cycle, the robustness of circadian activity rhythms decreased among all animals tested in LL and DD (i.e., decreased chi-squared periodogram waveform amplitude). A large segment of the population became noncircadian (60% in DD, 72% in LL) within 8 weeks of exposure to constant lighting conditions, of which the majority became ultradian, with a few individuals becoming arrhythmic, indicating highly labile circadian organization. Wild-caught and laboratory-bred animals that remained circadian in wheel running displayed free-running periods between 23.3 and 24.8 h. A phase-response curve to light pulses in DD showed significant phase delays at circadian times 12 and 15, indicating the capacity to entrain to rapidly changing day lengths at high latitudes. Whether this phenotypic variation in circadian organization, with circadian, ultradian, and arrhythmic wheel-running activity patterns in constant lighting conditions, is a novel adaptation to life in the arctic remains to be elucidated.