Tuning genetic clocks employing DNA binding sites

Periodic oscillations play a key role in cell physiology from the cell cycle to circadian clocks. The interplay of positive and negative feedback loops among genes and proteins is ubiquitous in these networks. Often, delays in a negative feedback loop and/or degradation rates are a crucial mechanism to obtain sustained oscillations. How does nature control delays and kinetic rates in feedback networks? Known mechanisms include proper selection of the number of steps composing a feedback loop and alteration of protease activity, respectively. Here, we show that a remarkably simple means to control both delays and effective kinetic rates is the employment of DNA binding sites. We illustrate this design principle on a widely studied activator-repressor clock motif, which is ubiquitous in natural systems. By suitably employing DNA target sites for the activator and/or the repressor, one can switch the clock “on” and “off” and precisely tune its period to a desired value. Our study reveals a design principle to engineer dynamic behavior in biomolecular networks, which may be largely exploited by natural systems and employed for the rational design of synthetic circuits.     

Stoichiometric relationship among clock proteins determines robustness of circadian rhythms

The mammalian circadian oscillator is primarily driven by an essential negative feedback loop comprising a positive component, the CLOCK-BMAL1 complex, and a negative component, the PER-CRY complex. Numerous studies suggest that feedback inhibition of CLOCK-BMAL1 is mediated by time-dependent physical interaction with its direct target gene products PER and CRY, suggesting that the ratio between the negative and positive complexes must be important for the molecular oscillator and rhythm generation. We explored this idea by altering expression of clock components in fibroblasts derived from Per2(Luc) and Per mutant mice, a cell system extensively used to study in vivo clock mechanisms. Our data demonstrate that the stoichiometric relationship between clock components is critical for the robustness of circadian rhythms and provide insights into the mechanistic organization of the negative feedback loop. Our findings may explain why certain mutant mice or cells are arrhythmic, whereas others are rhythmic, and suggest that robustness of circadian rhythms can be increased even in wild-type cells by modulating the stoichiometry.     

Biological timing and the clock metaphor: oscillatory and hourglass mechanisms

Living organisms have developed a multitude of timing mechanisms--"biological clocks." Their mechanisms are based on either oscillations (oscillatory clocks) or unidirectional processes (hourglass clocks). Oscillatory clocks comprise circatidal, circalunidian, circadian, circalunar, and circannual oscillations--which keep time with environmental periodicities--as well as ultradian oscillations, ovarian cycles, and oscillations in development and in the brain, which keep time with biological timescales. These clocks mainly determine time points at specific phases of their oscillations. Hourglass clocks are predominantly found in development and aging and also in the brain. They determine time intervals (duration). More complex timing systems combine oscillatory and hourglass mechanisms, such as the case for cell cycle, sleep initiation, or brain clocks, whereas others combine external and internal periodicities (photoperiodism, seasonal reproduction). A definition of a biological clock may be derived from its control of functions external to its own processes and its use in determining temporal order (sequences of events) or durations. Biological and chemical oscillators are characterized by positive and negative feedback (or feedforward) mechanisms. During evolution, living organisms made use of the many existing oscillations for signal transmission, movement, and pump mechanisms, as well as for clocks. Some clocks, such as the circadian clock, that time with environmental periodicities are usually compensated (stabilized) against temperature, whereas other clocks, such as the cell cycle, that keep time with an organismic timescale are not compensated. This difference may be related to the predominance of negative feedback in the first class of clocks and a predominance of positive feedback (autocatalytic amplification) in the second class. The present knowledge of a compensated clock (the circadian oscillator) and an uncompensated clock (the cell cycle), as well as relevant models, are briefly re viewed. Hourglass clocks are based on linear or exponential unidirectional processes that trigger events mainly in the course of development and aging. An important hourglass mechanism within the aging process is the limitation of cell division capacity by the length of telomeres. The mechanism of this clock is briefly reviewed. In all clock mechanisms, thresholds at which "dependent variables" are triggered play an important role.     

LIGHT-REGULATED WD1 and PSEUDO-RESPONSE REGULATOR9 form a positive feedback regulatory loop in the Arabidopsis circadian clock

In Arabidopsis thaliana, central circadian clock genes constitute several feedback loops. These interlocking loops generate an ~24-h oscillation that enables plants to anticipate the daily diurnal environment. The identification of additional clock proteins can help dissect the complex nature of the circadian clock. Previously, LIGHT-REGULATED WD1 (LWD1) and LWD2 were identified as two clock proteins regulating circadian period length and photoperiodic flowering. Here, we systematically studied the function of LWD1/2 in the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Analysis of the lwd1 lwd2 double mutant revealed that LWD1/2 plays dual functions in the light input pathway and the regulation of the central oscillator. Promoter:luciferase fusion studies showed that activities of LWD1/2 promoters are rhythmic and depend on functional PSEUDO-RESPONSE REGULATOR9 (PRR9) and PRR7. LWD1/2 is also needed for the expression of PRR9, PRR7, and PRR5. LWD1 is preferentially localized within the nucleus and associates with promoters of PRR9, PRR5, and TOC1 in vivo. Our results support the existence of a positive feedback loop within the Arabidopsis circadian clock. Further mechanistic studies of this positive feedback loop and its regulatory effects on the other clock components will further elucidate the complex nature of the Arabidopsis circadian clock.     

Modeling Temperature Compensation in Chemical and Biological Oscillators

All physicochemical and biological oscillators maintain a balance between destabilizing reactions (as, for example, intrinsic autocatalytic or amplifying reactions) and stabilizing processes. These two groups of processes tend to influence the period in opposite directions and may lead to temperature compensation whenever their overall influence balances. This principle of “antagonistic balance” has been tested for several chemical and biological oscillators. The Goodwin negative feedback oscillator appears of particular interest for modeling the circadian clocks in Neurospora and Drosophila and their temperature compensation. Remarkably, the Goodwin oscillator not only gives qualitative, correct phase response curves for temperature steps and temperature pulses, but also simulates the temperature behavior of Neurospora frq and Drosophila per mutants almost quantitatively. The Goodwin oscillator predicts that circadian periods are strongly dependent on the turnover of the clock mRNA or clock protein. A more rapid turnover of clock mRNA or clock protein results, in short, a slower turnover in longer period lengths. (Chronobiology International, 14(5), 499–510, 1997)     

松果体昼夜节律生物钟分子机制的研究进展

在各种非哺乳类脊椎动物中 ,松果体起着中枢昼夜节律振荡器的作用。近来 ,在鸟类松果体中相继发现了几种钟基因 ,如Per、Cry、Clock和Bmal等 ,其表达的时间变化规律与哺乳类视交叉上核 (SCN)的非常相似。钟的振荡由其自身调控反馈环路的转录和翻译组成 ,鸟类松果体和哺乳类SCN似乎具有共同的钟振荡基本分子构架 ;若干钟基因产物作为正向或负向调节子影响钟的振荡 ;昼夜性的控时机制同时也需要翻译后事件的参与。这些过程对钟振荡器的稳定性和 /或钟导引的光输入通路有着重要的调控作用     

moBeat: Using Interactive Music to Guide and Motivate Users During Aerobic Exercising

An increasing number of people are having trouble staying fit and maintaining a healthy bodyweight because of lack of physical activity. Getting people to exercise is crucial. However, many struggle with developing healthy exercising habits, due to hurdles like having to leave the house and the boring character of endurance exercising. In this paper, we report on a design project that explores the use of audio to motivate and provide feedback and guidance during exercising in a home environment. We developed moBeat, a system that provides intensity-based coaching while exercising, giving real-time feedback on training pace and intensity by means of interactive music. We conducted a within-subject comparison between our moBeat system and a commercially available heart rate watch. With moBeat, we achieved a comparable success rate: our system has a significant, positive influence on intrinsic motivation and attentional focus, but we did not see significant differences with regard to either perceived exertion or effectiveness. Although promising, future research is needed.     

Promoters Architecture-Based Mechanism for Noise-Induced Oscillations in a Single-Gene Circuit

It is well known that single-gene circuits with negative feedback loop can lead to oscillatory gene expression when they operate with time delay. In order to generate these oscillations many processes can contribute to properly timing such delay. Here we show that the time delay coming from the transitions between internal states of the cis-regulatory system (CRS) can drive sustained oscillations in an auto-repressive single-gene circuit operating in a small volume like a cell. We found that the cooperative binding of repressor molecules is not mandatory for a oscillatory behavior if there are enough binding sites in the CRS. These oscillations depend on an adequate balance between the CRS kinetic, and the synthesis/degradation rates of repressor molecules. This finding suggest that the multi-site CRS architecture can play a key role for oscillatory behavior of gene expression. Finally, our results can also help to synthetic biologists on the design of the promoters architecture for new genetic oscillatory circuits.     

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.     

Positive Feedback Promotes Oscillations in Negative Feedback Loops

A simple three-component negative feedback loop is a recurring motif in biochemical oscillators. This motif oscillates as it has the three necessary ingredients for oscillations: a three-step delay, negative feedback, and nonlinearity in the loop. However, to oscillate, this motif under the common Goodwin formulation requires a high degree of cooperativity (a measure of nonlinearity) in the feedback that is biologically “unlikely.” Moreover, this recurring negative feedback motif is commonly observed augmented by positive feedback interactions. Here we show that these positive feedback interactions promote oscillation at lower degrees of cooperativity, and we can thus unify several common kinetic mechanisms that facilitate oscillations, such as self-activation and Michaelis-Menten degradation. The positive feedback loops are most beneficial when acting on the shortest lived component, where they function by balancing the lifetimes of the different components. The benefits of multiple positive feedback interactions are cumulative for a majority of situations considered, when benefits are measured by the reduction in the cooperativity required to oscillate. These positive feedback motifs also allow oscillations with longer periods than that determined by the lifetimes of the components alone. We can therefore conjecture that these positive feedback loops have evolved to facilitate oscillations at lower, kinetically achievable, degrees of cooperativity. Finally, we discuss the implications of our conclusions on the mammalian molecular clock, a system modeled extensively based on the three-component negative feedback loop.     

BIOLOGICAL TIMING AND THE CLOCK METAPHOR: OSCILLATORY AND HOURGLASS MECHANISMS

Living organisms have developed a multitude of timing mechanisms— “biological clocks.” Their mechanisms are based on either oscillations (oscillatory clocks) or unidirectional processes (hourglass clocks). Oscillatory clocks comprise circatidal, circalunidian, circadian, circalunar, and circannual oscillations—which keep time with environmental periodicities—as well as ultradian oscillations, ovarian cycles, and oscillations in development and in the brain, which keep time with biological timescales. These clocks mainly determine time points at specific phases of their oscillations. Hourglass clocks are predominantly found in development and aging and also in the brain. They determine time intervals (duration). More complex timing systems combine oscillatory and hourglass mechanisms, such as the case for cell cycle, sleep initiation, or brain clocks, whereas others combine external and internal periodicities (photoperiodism, seasonal reproduction). A definition of a biological clock may be derived from its control of functions external to its own processes and its use in determining temporal order (sequences of events) or durations. Biological and chemical oscillators are characterized by positive and negative feedback (or feedforward) mechanisms. During evolution, living organisms made use of the many existing oscillations for signal transmission, movement, and pump mechanisms, as well as for clocks. Some clocks, such as the circadian clock, that time with environmental periodicities are usually compensated (stabilized) against temperature, whereas other clocks, such as the cell cycle, that keep time with an organismic timescale are not compensated. This difference may be related to the predominance of negative feedback in the first class of clocks and a predominance of positive feedback (autocatalytic amplification) in the second class. The present knowledge of a compensated clock (the circadian oscillator) and an uncompensated clock (the cell cycle), as well as relevant models, are briefly reviewed. Hourglass clocks are based on linear or exponential unidirectional processes that trigger events mainly in the course of development and aging. An important hourglass mechanism within the aging process is the limitation of cell division capacity by the length of telomeres. The mechanism of this clock is briefly reviewed. In all clock mechanisms, thresholds at which “dependent variables” are triggered play an important role. (Chronobiology International, 18(3), 329–369, 2001)