Genome-wide screenings for circadian clock genes in Drosophila

Circadian control of global gene expression patterns

An internal time-keeping mechanism has been observed in almost every organism studied from archaea to humans. This circadian clock provides a competitive advantage in fitness and survival ( 18, 30, 95, 129, 137 ). Researchers have uncovered the molecular composition of this internal clock by combining enzymology, molecular biology, genetics, and modeling approaches. However, understanding the mechanistic link between the clock and output responses has been elusive. In three model organisms, Arabidopsis thaliana, Drosophila melanogaster, and Mus musculus, whole-genome expression arrays have enabled researchers to investigate how maintaining a time-keeping mechanism connects to an adaptive advantage. Here, we review the impacts transcriptomics have had on our understanding of the clock and how this molecular clock connects with system-level circadian responses. We explore the discoveries made possible by high-throughput RNA assays, the network approaches used to investigate these large transcript datasets, and potential future directions.

What Season Is It Anyway? Circadian Tracking vs. Photoperiodic Anticipation in Insects

The daily rhythm of 24 h and the annual rhythm of 12 mo constitute the 2 major, highly predictable rhythms of the biosphere. The internal circadian clock enables organisms to track daily changes in their environment; the photoperiodic timer, alone or in concert with a circannual clock, enables organisms to anticipate and prepare in advance for seasonal changes in their environment. The circadian clock entrains to dawn and dusk and tracks light and temperature on a day-to-day basis, while the photoperiodic timer serves as a long-term, physiological go/no-go switch that commits an animal to development, reproduction, dormancy, or migration on a seasonal or even lifetime basis. In 1936, Erwin Bünning proposed that circadian rhythms formed the basis ( Grundlage) for photoperiodic response to day length. Historical inertia generated by correlative evidence from early physiological studies and a proliferating number of descriptive models has resulted in the widespread assumption that the circadian clock constitutes the necessary, causal basis of photoperiodism in general. This historical inertia has also restricted the search for genes involved in insect photoperiodism to genes central to the circadian clock in Drosophila and has led investigators to conclude that any behavior, process, or gene expression that varies with day length represents photoperiodism or a gene involved in photoperiodism. The authors discuss how blinders imposed by the circadian imperative have retarded progress toward identifying the genetic basis of photoperiodism and how the insights gained from geographic variation in photoperiodic response have been used to show the independent evolution of the circadian clock and photoperiodism. When geographic variation is found in circadian genes, the most immediate and parsimonious search for adaptive significance should be in circadian function, not in extrapolation to photoperiodism. Finally, the authors propose that circadian-unbiased, forward genetic approaches should be used to identify genes involved in photoperiodism within extant populations and among populations over evolutionary time.

A comparative view of insect circadian clock systems

Recent studies revealed that the neuronal network controlling overt rhythms shows striking similarity in various insect orders. The pigment-dispersing factor seems commonly involved in regulating locomotor activity. However, there are considerable variations in the molecular oscillatory mechanism, and input and output pathways among insects. In Drosophila, autoregulatory negative feedback loops that consist of clock genes, such as period and timeless are believed to create 24-h rhythmicity. Although similar clock genes have been found in some insects, the behavior of their product proteins shows considerable differences from that of Drosophila. In other insects, mammalian-type cryptochrome (cry2) seems to work as a transcriptional repressor in the feedback loop. For photic entrainment, Drosophila type cryptochrome (cry1) plays the major role in Drosophila while the compound eyes are the major photoreceptor in others. Further comparative study will be necessary to understand how this variety of clock mechanisms derived from an ancestral one.