Journal of Biological Rhythms - Brandeis University of Biological Rhythms ... in tissue culture and...

http://jbr.sagepub.com/Journal of Biological Rhythms

http://jbr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/171The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0748730413489797

2013 28: 171J Biol RhythmsYue Li and Michael Rosbash

Protein Provides Insight into Light-Mediated Phase Shifting SperAccelerated Degradation of

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Society for Research on Biological Rhythms

can be found at:Journal of Biological RhythmsAdditional services and information for

http://jbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jbr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

What is This?

- Jun 4, 2013Version of Record >>

at BRANDEIS UNIV LIBRARY on May 15, 2014jbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from at BRANDEIS UNIV LIBRARY on May 15, 2014jbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

http://jbr.sagepub.com/

http://jbr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/171

http://www.sagepublications.com

http://www.srbr.org

http://jbr.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

http://jbr.sagepub.com/subscriptions

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

http://jbr.sagepub.com/content/28/3/171.full.pdf

http://online.sagepub.com/site/sphelp/vorhelp.xhtml



171

JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS, Vol. 28 No. 3, June 2013 171-182DOI: 10.1177/0748730413489797© 2013 The Author(s)

1 To whom all correspondence should be addressed: Michael Rosbash, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, National Center for Behavioral Genomics and Department of Biology, Brandeis University, 415 South Street, Waltham MA 02454; email: [email protected].

Accelerated Degradation of perS Protein Provides Insight into Light-Mediated Phase Shifting

Yue Li* and Michael Rosbash*,1

*Brandeis University, Waltham, MA

Abstract Phase resetting by light is an important feature of circadian rhythms, and the current Drosophila model focuses on light-mediated degradation of the clock protein TIMELESS (TIM). PERIOD (PER) is the binding partner of TIM and a major repressor of the molecular clock, but direct evidence of PER in phase resetting is lacking. Because light sensitivity of the perS short period mutant strain is strongly enhanced compared with wild-type strains, we assayed the importance of PER degradation for light-induced phase shifting. The perS protein (PERS) is markedly less stable than wild-type PER, in tissue culture and in flies, and PERS as well as PER is stabilized by TIM in both sys-tems. Consistent with this finding, light-induced TIM degradation appears to trigger PER degradation. Moreover, TIM degradation is similar in the clock neurons of both strains, suggesting that it is not strongly affected by PERS and does not dictate the difference in the light response. In contrast, there is a dra-matic quantitative difference between PER and PERS degradation in these neurons, indicating that PER degradation dictates the enhanced amplitude of the light-induced phase response. The data indicate that TIM inhibits PER deg-radation and that PER degradation follows light-mediated TIM degradation within circadian neurons; PER degradation then dictates qualitative as well as quantitative features of light-mediated phase-resetting.

Keywords circadian clock, degradation, PERIOD, TIMELESS, light-mediated, phase shift

Circadian clocks control the physiology and behavior of most eukaryotes and even some prokary-otes. This endogenous clock keeps ticking with a period of about 24 h even without temporal input from the environment. The circadian mechanism of Drosophila includes a transcriptional feedback loop, which controls the cycling expression of multiple clock genes including period (per) and timeless (tim). The transcription of per and tim is activated by a het-erodimer of 2 basic-helix-loop-helix (bHLH) tran-scription factors, CLOCK (CLK) and CYCLE (CYC). The mRNA levels of per and tim peak in the early

night, and their proteins (PER and TIM), accumulate to peak levels in the middle to late night (Hardin et al., 1990; Marrus et al., 1996; Sehgal et al., 1995) in fly heads. PER and TIM then enter the nucleus, where they inhibit the transcriptional activity of CLK: CYC and as a consequence their own transcription (Darlington et al., 1998; Nawathean and Rosbash, 2004; Saez and Young, 1996). A similar feedback loop operates in mammals.

In Drosophila, the perS mutant strain is 1 of 3 origi-nal per alleles isolated by Konopka and Benzer in 1971. Its free running locomotor activity rhythm is

at BRANDEIS UNIV LIBRARY on May 15, 2014jbr.sagepub.comDownloaded from


172 JOURNAL OF BIOLOGICAL RHYTHMS / June 2013

striking, about 5 h shorter than wild-type (wt) strains. The perS mutation is a serine to arginine mis-sense mutation at amino acid 589 (Bargiello et al., 1987; Yu et al., 1987). The region surrounding posi-tion 589 is intimately related to the DOUBLETIME (DBT) kinase. This is an important PER modifying enzyme and a casein kinase I family member, which affects circadian period (Kloss et al., 1998; Preuss et al., 2004; Price et al., 1998). The recent study by Edery and colleagues indicates that the normal phosphory-lation of the 589 serine by DBT inhibits the rate of phosphorylation at other key sites and therefore delays the daily PER degradation program. The S589N mutation in the perS protein (PERS) prevents this phosphorylation and therefore causes premature phosphorylation at the other key sites (Chiu et al., 2011). All features of perS cycling, including those of PERS abundance and phosphorylation, are advanced in these flies (Edery et al., 1994). Also significantly advanced is perS mRNA cycling, which suggests pre-mature PERS transcription (Hardin et al., 1990; Marrus et al., 1996). It is unknown whether all these advances are due to a primary effect of the mutation on PER half-life.

Another complication is that PER and TIM form a heterodimer, in artificial systems as well as in flies (Gekakis et al., 1995; Zeng et al., 1996). Although the function of the PER-TIM complex is uncertain, con-siderable data indicate that TIM and the PER-TIM complex are necessary for the nuclear entry of PER (Hunter-Ensor et al., 1996; Saez and Young, 1996; Vosshall et al., 1994). This is despite the fact that other experiments indicate that PER and TIM enter the nucleus independently (Meyer et al., 2006; Nawathean and Rosbash, 2004).

Given the observation that PER is more unstable without TIM in flies (Price et al., 1995), it is believed that PER is stabilized within the PER-TIM complex. Perhaps it protects PER from phosphorylation by DBT (Cyran et al., 2005; Kloss et al., 2001), or perhaps the complex is more accessible to stabilizing phos-phates like protein phosphatase 1 (PP1) (Fang et al., 2007; Sathyanarayanan et al., 2004). It is also unknown whether these possibilities might help explain the difference between PERS and PER.

Possibly relevant to the PER-TIM complex is the sensitivity of Drosophila circadian rhythms to light. A short light pulse in the early night causes a phase delay of fly locomotor activity rhythms, whereas a late night light pulse causes a phase advance (Saunders et al., 1994). These are general features of the phase-response curve (PRC) of many circadian systems including those of mammals. The current

model in flies is based on light-mediated degradation of TIM: Light triggers a conformational change of the Drosophila blue light photoreceptor CRYPTO-CHROME (CRY) within circadian neurons. This causes formation of a CRY-TIM complex and then rapid TIM degradation (Busza et al., 2004; Ceriani et al., 1999; Emery et al., 1998; Hunter-Ensor et al., 1996; Stanewsky et al., 1998). In the early night, a light pulse therefore causes premature TIM degradation, which delays the TIM accumulation profile and leads to a phase delay. A late night light pulse accelerates the TIM degradation profile and therefore causes a phase advance. However, this model does not explain why there is little or no phase response to a light pulse during the middle of the night between the delay and the advance zone regions of the PRC. This is the so-called “crossover region” of a PRC. Relevant to this issue is the PRC of perS flies, which was found long ago to have relatively little light-insensitivity, that is, little or no crossover region (Saunders et al., 1994). Another manifestation of this enhanced light sensitivity of perS is that these flies lose rhythmicity at an intensity of constant light too low to affect wt flies (Konopka, 1979; Saunders et al., 1994).

In this study, we addressed the effects of PERS and used it as a tool to further understand the mechanism of light-mediated phase shifting and oscillator syn-chronization. The degradation rate of PERS is faster than that of PER, and PERS as well as PER is stabi-lized by TIM. This is true not only in flies, as previ-ously shown, but also in tissue culture. A similar distinction takes place after a light pulse in clock neu-rons; that is, PERS disappeared faster than PER. This explains the previously described, dramatically differ-ent PRCs of wt and perS flies. The data indicate that PER degradation dictates qualitative as well as quan-titative features of light-mediated phase-resetting and oscillator entrainment and should be added to the classical cell-autonomous phase-resetting model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Drosophila Stocks and Plasmids

Drosophila melanogaster were reared on standard cornmeal/agar medium supplemented with yeast. The wild-type (Canton-S) and perS flies were described by Konopka and Benzer in 1971. The flies were entrained in 12:12 light-dark (LD) cycles at 25 °C. The per01, elav-GAL4, and UAS-per16 and UAS-per24 line were described previously (Blanchardon et al., 2001;



Li and Rosbash / ACCELERATED DEGRADATION OF PERS PROTEIN 173

Yang and Sehgal, 2001). The cry-GAL4(13) (Emery et al., 2000) and tim-GAL4 (Kaneko and Hall, 2000) were crossed into the per01 background. To generate UAS-perS transgenic flies, the coding region of per with a site mutation (G1766A) and a V5 tag sequence at the 3¢ end was inserted into pUAST between EcoRI and XbaI site. The pUAST-perS-V5 plasmid was injected into y w embryos (BestGene, Inc). Two trans-genes, UAS-perS7M and 9M, were used in the experi-ments. For the heat-shock experiment in cell culture, the coding region of per and perS with a V5 tag sequence, and the coding region of tim with a HBH tag sequence, were inserted into pCaSpeR-HS between EcoRI and XbaI sites.

RNA and Protein Analysis

Total protein was extracted from fly heads in RBS buffer (Yu et al., 2006). The protein extracts were resolved on 3% to 8% Tris-Acetate gel (Invitrogen) and transferred on nitrocellulose membrane using the iBlot Dry Blotting (Invitrogen, Carlsbad, CA). Antibodies against PER and TIM were used as described (Dembinska et al., 1997; Tang et al., 2010).

S2 Cell Transfection and In Vitro Degradation Assay

Drosophila Schneider 2 (S2) cells were maintained in insect tissue culture medium (HyClone, South Logan, UT) with 10% fetal bovine serum and 1% anti-anti (Antibiotics-Antimycotics, GIBCO, Carlsbad, CA) at 25 °C. Transfec tion was performed when the cell con-fluence reached 50% to 70% with Cellfectin II (Invitrogen) by standard protocol (Nawathean et al., 2005). Then 300 ng of pCaSpeR-HS-per, perS, or tim plasmid was transfected into S2 cells in 6-well plates about 24 h before heat shock. To activate the expres-sion of per and tim, the plates were put in a 37 °C water bath for 30 min. Then the plates were put back into a 25 °C incubator for 2 h. Next, the cells were treated with 100 mg/mL cycloheximide. The cells were lysed by RBS buffer at different time points. For immuno-precipitation, the cell lysates were incubated with anti-V5 agarose overnight. The agarose was then washed for 3 times and denatured by SDS buffer at 100 °C.

Locomotor Activity Analysis

Locomotor activity of individual male flies (aged 2-5 days) was measured with Trikinetics Activity Monitors (Waltham, MA) for at least 4 days under

12:12 LD conditions followed by 6 days of constant darkness at 25 °C. For light pulse experiments, a single pulse (~15 mW/cm2; 10 min) was delivered to the flies during the last night of an LD cycle, and the flies were then maintained in constant darkness. The resultant phase shift was measured as described pre-viously (Tang et al., 2010). Briefly, the group activity was generated and analyzed with MATLAB (MathWorks, Natick, MA) (Levine et al., 2002). The phase difference between experimental and control groups after several cycles in constant dark condition was then measured and averaged.

Fly Brain Immunocytochemistry

Immunostaining was performed as described (Yoshii et al., 2008). Briefly, fly heads were removed and fixed in PBS (pH 7.2) with 4% paraformaldehyde and 0.008% Triton X-100 for 1 h at 4 °C. Fixed heads were washed in PBS with 0.5% Triton X-100 and dis-sected in PBS. The brains were blocked in 5% goat serum (Jackson Immunoresearch, West Grove, PA) and subsequently incubated with primary antibodies at 4°C overnight. For TIM staining, a polyclonal rat anti-TIM was diluted 1:200 in blocking solution. For PER staining, a polyclonal rabbit anti-PER was pre-cleaned by per01 fly head extract and used at a 1:50 dilution. For PDF staining, a mouse anti-PDF anti-body (Developmental Studies Hybridoma Bank, University of Iowa, Iowa city, IA) was used at a 1:20 dilution. After washing with 0.5% PBST 3 times, the brains were incubated with Alexa Fluor 622 conju-gated anti-rabbit (PER) or anti-rat (TIM) and Alexa Fluor 488 conjugated anti-mouse (Molecular Probes, Carlsbad, CA) at 1:200 dilution. The brains were washed 3 more times before being mounted in Vectashield Mounting Medium (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA) and viewed in 1.1-mm sections sequentially at 20x on a Leica SP2 confocal micro-scope. To compare the PER or TIM signals from dif-ferent genotypes and time points, the laser intensity of the confocal was set at the same level during each experiment. The PER or TIM signals within PDF cells were quantified with ImageJ.

RESULTS

PERS Degradation Is More Rapid Than PER and Is Inhibited by TIM

Previous work has shown that the mRNA levels of the cycling genes per and tim accumulate earlier




in perS than in wt flies (Hardin et al., 1990; Marrus et al., 1996). We observed essentially identical early accumulation of tim pre-mRNA (data not shown), consistent with the expectation that the phase of clock gene mRNA cycling is predominantly tran-scriptional (Rodriguez et al., 2013). Because PER is a

critical repressor of CLK-mediated transcription (Allada et al., 2001; Takahashi, 2004), it is pos-sible that this earlier trans cription rise is due to a more rapid turnover of PERS relative to PER in the late night (Marrus et al., 1996) (Fig. 1A). However, expression and turnover occur concur-rently, making it difficult to measure definitively the relative turnover rates in vivo. To address this issue, we expressed both PER and PERS in S2 cells under the control of a heat-shock promoter. Following transcriptional activation by heat shock, the translation inhibitor cycloheximide (CHX) was added, and PER and PERS levels were then deter-mined over a time course of 6 h with anti-PER Western blots.

PERS decreased dra-matically within the first 2 h after addition of CHX. The half-life of PERS is about 4 h shorter than that of PER (Fig. 1C), indi-cating that the stability of PERS is substantially lower than that of PER in this system. In flies, TIM forms a very stable het-erodimeric complex with PER (Zeng et al., 1996) and also appears to stabi-lize PER (Ko et al., 2002; Nawathean and Rosbash, 2004; Price et al., 1995).

Consistent with these observations, the difference in apparent degradation rate between PER and PERS is only detectable after about ZT18, a time in the night when TIM starts to disappear during a nor-mal circadian cycle (Meyer et al., 2006) (Fig. 1, A and B). Although there may be some difference in the

Figure 1. The faster degradation of PERS is inhibited by TIM. Heads of wt and perS flies were col-lected at different time points throughout the day. Extracted proteins were resolved on SDS-PAGE and detected by anti-PER (A) or anti-TIM (B) Western blots. Band intensities were quantified by ImageJ. PER degradation rate was assayed in vitro, in S2 cells. Per-V5 and perS-V5 (C) under the control of a heat shock promoter were induced using a 37 °C heat shock for half an hour. Two hours later, cycloheximide (CHX) was added, and protein was extracted at different time points. Proteins were detected by Western blotting and normalized to beta-Tubulin. (D) Same experiments as (C) except tim, under control of a heat shock promoter, was also included. (E) PER/PERS and TIM were co-transfected into S2 cells, PER/PERS was immunoprecipitated from the S2 cell extracts with anti-V5 agarose. PER and TIM binding on beads was detected by Western blot.

1.21

0.8

0.6

0.40.2

Nor

mal

ized

to H

our 0

00 2 64

Hours After CHX

PERPERS

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

ZT2 ZT6 ZT10 ZT14 ZT18 ZT22

PERPERS

Sign

al o

f Wes

tern

blo

t

0ZT2 ZT6 ZT10 ZT14 ZT18 ZT22

TIMTIM(S)

700060005000400030002000

Sign

al o

f Wes

tern

blo

t

10000

C

A

1.21

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

Nor

mal

ized

to H

our 0

00 2 64

Hours After CHX

PER-TIMPERS-TIM

D

B

TIM

TIM(S)

PERPERS

P: PERS: PERS

A

E

B




degradation rate of TIM between the wt and perS flies, TIM levels decrease quite fast after ZT18 in both genotypes.

To determine whether TIM can affect the degrada-tion of PERS in the S2 cell system, we co-expressed a heat shock-inducible TIM with PER or PERS, and the degradation rates were assayed by Western blot as described above (Fig. 1D). The presence of TIM sub-stantially extended the half-lives of PERS as well as PER. TIM appeared to affect the 2 proteins similarly, as neither one decreased significantly until 6 h after the addition of CHX.

We also verified that TIM interacts directly with PER/PERS in S2 cells. TIM and V5 tagged PER or PERS were expressed, PER/PERS was immunopre-cipitated (IP) by anti-V5, and TIM was detected by Western blotting with an anti-TIM antibody (Fig. 1E). The association of PER/PERS and TIM occurred rap-idly, within 2 h of expression, and there was no noticeable difference between PER-TIM and PERS-TIM complex formation (Fig. 1E).

Neuronal PERS Overexpression Causes a Short Period in per01 Flies

Previous work has shown that the PER can cycle independently of rhythmic transcription (Cheng and Hardin, 1998; Frisch et al., 1994). Moreover, overex-pressing PER in clock neurons via the GAL4/UAS system in per01 null flies results in rhythmic flies with an approximately 24-h or even longer period (Busza et al., 2007; Grima et al., 2004; Kaneko et al., 2000) (Table 1). To assay whether overexpression of PERS

via the same system in per01 flies give rise to a fast clock, we overexpressed PERS in both cry-expressing cells and the larger set of tim-expressing cells (which include all cry-expressing cells and many other cells). Both drivers rescue the arrhythmic per01 pheno -type and with a short period (Table 1).

Because these drivers have circadian promoters, PER overexpression may influence their activity. We circumvented this issue by also using the pan-neural driver elav-GAL4 (Robinow and White, 1988). It has no reported circadian tran-

scriptional activity and in combination with UAS-per has been reported to give rise to approximately 24-h periods (Yang and Sehgal, 2001) (Table 1). We found that combining elav-GAL4 with either of 2 UAS-perS lines rescues per01 and gives rise to a short period (Table 1). This indicates the PERS alone dic-tates the short period.

Rapid Turnover of PERS in Clock Neurons Following a Light Pulse at ZT18

Light-induced phase shifting is linked to clock protein degradation. The current paradigm begins with a light-induced conformational change of CRY. This triggers CRY-mediated degradation of TIM, and the rhythm phase is then either delayed or advanced. The phase changes after light pulses at different cir-cadian times are represented by a phase-response curve (PRC). It is characterized in wt flies by a Type 1 PRC, which has modest delays and advances as well as a substantial crossover region (little or no phase shift) in the middle of the night between the delays and advance (Fig. 2).

Some strains like perS have a discontinuity PRC (also called Type 0 PRC), with more dramatic delays and advances as well as the absence of this distinct crossover region in the middle of the night; these PRCs have an abrupt shift from prominent delays to prominent advances (Konopka, 1979; Saunders et al., 1994) (Fig. 2). A Type 0 PRC is also characteristic of the short period doubletimeS strain, which like perS undergoes more rapid PER degradation (Bao et al., 2001). Interestingly, per01 flies rescued by elav-driven

Table 1. Activity rhythm phenotypes produced by overexpression of per and perS in per01 background.

Genotype Period SD n R%

per01/Y;; cry-GAL4/UAS-perS7Mper01/Y; UAS-perS9M/+; cry-GAL4/+

19.220.0

0.80.6

2632

57.762.5

per01/Y;; cry-GAL4/UAS-per16per01/Y; UAS-per24/+; cry-GAL4/+

25.423.1

0.92.2

2725

3712

per01/Y; tim-GAL4/+; UAS-perS7M/+per01/Y; tim-GAL4/UAS-perS9M

21.121.2

1.00.7

5353

69.884

per01/Y; tim-GAL4/+; UAS-per16/+per01/Y; tim-GAL4/UAS-per24

24.125.2

0.50.6

2426

91.796.2

per01, elav-GAL4;; UAS-perS7M/+per01, elav-GAL4; UAS-perS9M/+

21.321.6

1.10.8

2021

6585.7

per/perS

csperS

21.323.919.3

0.40.30.2

673548

73100100

n = animal numbers; R% = percentage of rhythmic animals; SD = standard deviation.




UAS-perS (per01, elav::perS9M) also have a Type 0 PRC (Fig. 2), indicating that it is likely due to the shorter half-life of PERS relative to PER rather than any tran-scriptional features of the gene. In per01, elav::perS9M flies, the delay-advance crossover point is also about 2 h delayed compared with perS flies, which presum-ably reflects the approximately 2 h longer period of per01, elav::perS9M flies compared with perS flies. Although different periods in perS and wt flies might affect the time of crossover in their PRCs, this experi-ment was performed to determine what type of PRC (0 v. 1) they displayed. The data suggest that the PRC is influenced by PER degradation as well as CRY-mediated degradation of TIM.

The difference between the wt PRC and the perS PRC is most dramatic at ZT18 in the middle of the night (Fig. 2). As mentioned above, it is notable that ZT18 is the starting point of spontaneous TIM degra-dation as assayed biochemically in both wt and perS

fly head extracts (Fig. 1B). Moreover, PERS is more unstable than PER without TIM (Fig. 1C), and a 10-min light pulse is known to cause rapid TIM deg-radation in circadian neurons (Hunter-Ensor et al., 1996), especially in the late night (Tang et al., 2010). This predicts that there might be a difference in PERS v. PER degradation within circadian neurons subse-quent to a light pulse.

To address this possibility, we assayed the effect of a 10-min ZT18 light pulse on PER and PERS levels as well as TIM levels by immunohistochemistry within PDF-expressing neurons (Figs. 3 and 4). One hour later at ZT19, PER levels in wt flies were not notice-ably reduced compared with the no-light pulse con-trol; this was also the case even 4 h after the light pulse, at ZT22 (Fig. 3, A and B). In contrast, PERS levels were dramatically lower 1 h after the light pulse, even less than those detected at ZT1 under standard LD conditions (Fig. 3B). TIM levels were reduced similarly in both genotypes and to a lesser extent than PERS levels (Fig. 4A and 4B). The most obvious TIM degradation occurred in nuclei, where PER and/or TIM contributes to transcriptional repression (Darlington et al., 1998; Nawathean and Rosbash, 2004; Saez and Young, 1996). The dramatic difference in PER v. PERS disappearance after a ZT18 light pulse is almost certainly relevant to the huge phase advance of perS flies at this time relative to vir-tually no phase shift of wt flies.

In contrast to the middle of the night (ZT18; Fig. 2), the PRCs of wt and perS flies are quite similar to each other in the early night, at or before ZT15, as well as in the late night, at or after ZT21. A further staining experiment was therefore done after a 10-min light pulse at ZT21. In contrast to the ZT18 light pulse result, PER (Fig. 5A) as well as TIM (Fig. 5B) has similar levels in the 2 genotypes 1 h after this light pulse (Fig. 5, C and D). The result further sup-ports the notion that PER degradation reflects or causes the magnitude of the phase shift and that residual PER levels after a light pulse dictate this magnitude.

A prediction of this PER degradation view is that a light pulse will only trigger a decrease in PERS in per/perS heterozygous flies during the middle of the night period. This is because the substantial residual levels of wt PER after the light pulse should mini-mize the magnitude of the phase shift. The result shows that the per/perS heterozygous strain has a Type 1 PRC (Fig. 2) with almost no phase shift at ZT18. This indicates that the PRC effect of perS is recessive and suggests that residual PER levels after

Figure 2. PERS causes a Type 0 light pulse PRC. A 10-min light pulse was delivered to the entrained flies at the indicated times during the night. The phase shift caused by the light pulse is shown as spots. The blue trend line indicates a Type 1 curve for wt flies, which has a gradual shift between the delay and advance zones. The perS flies have a Type 0 curve (red), which suddenly switches from the delay zone to the advance zone. The per01, elav::perS9M flies also have a Type 0 curve (green). The per/perS heterozygous female flies have a Type 1 curve (purple). The PRCs of wt and perS flies are based on our experiment results and published data (Bao et al., 2001). The tested time points and numbers of each genotypes: cs: ZT15 (n = 37), ZT18 (n = 32), ZT21 (n = 45); perS: ZT15 (n = 33), ZT17 (n = 24), ZT18 (n = 45), ZT19 (n = 63), ZT21 (n = 48); per/perS: ZT15 (n = 31), ZT17 (n = 42), ZT18 (n = 34), ZT19 (n = 39), ZT21 (n = 38); per01, elav::perS9M: ZT13 (n = 37), ZT15 (n = 47), ZT17 (n = 37), ZT18 (n = 48), ZT19 (n = 39), ZT21 (n = 46), ZT23 (n = 51). The phase delay of each genotype at ZT15: cs = –3.18 h; perS = –3.23 h; per/perS = –3.09 h; elav::perS9M = –3.09 h. The error bars indicate the standard deviation between multiple experiments.




the light pulse indeed determine the magnitude of the phase shift. As the free-running period of this heterozy-gous strain is 21.3 h (Table 1), it sug-gests that the Type 0 PRC of perS flies is not attributable to the short period or the advanced phase of the molecu-lar cycles. The data further suggest that PER multimers do not play an important role in light-induced PER turnover (see Discussion).

DISCUSSION

We report here that PER is stabi-lized by TIM in tissue culture cells as well as in flies and that PER degrada-tion occurs subsequent to TIM degra-dation. Importantly, the degradation rate of PERS is more pronounced than that of wild-type PER, both in tissue culture cells and following a light pulse in clock neurons. The results explain the previously described, dra-matically different phase response curves of wt and perS flies. PER degra-dation rates therefore dictate qualita-tive as well as quantitative features of light-mediated phase-resetting and should be added to the standard cell-autonomous model of Drosophila phase shifting (Fig. 6).

The earlier start of mRNA cycling and earlier disappearance of PERS protein had suggested that the half-life of PERS is shorter than that of wild-type PER and responsible for earlier transcription (Fig. 1A) (Marrus et al., 1996). Because transcription had not been directly measured, and because PER synthesis and degrada-tion do not occur at completely dis-tinct phases of the circadian cycle, we turned to tissue culture cells in which the start point of protein degradation can be precisely determined. PERS indeed turns over more rapidly in this system (Fig. 1C). This more rapid degradation then inspired an assay in

Figure 3. PERS degrades faster than PER in PDF cells after the light pulse at ZT18. A 10-min light pulse was given to the flies at ZT18. Fly brains were dissected and stained at ZT19, ZT20, and ZT22 to compare with the no-light pulse flies from same time points plus ZT1. (A) The PER staining pattern (magenta) in the PDF cells (green) of wt and perS flies with or without a light pulse at ZT18. Scale bar = 20 mm. (B) Quantification of PER signal in PDF cells from both genotypes per condition. All the results were normalized to a cs brain, which has the highest signal intensity at ZT19.

A

cs perS n = 7 10 10 11 8 4 7 7 14 11 16 5 8 6

B




flies using constitutive overexpres-sion of PERS. It had been shown that constitutively expressed PER can endow per null flies with an approxi-mately 24-h rhythm, indicating that cycling per transcription is not neces-sary for rhythmicity (Cheng and Hardin, 1998; Yang and Sehgal, 2001). Consistent with this notion, UAS-perS driven by the circadian promoters tim and cry linked to GAL4 has a short period phenotype in a per null background (Table 1). The driver elav-GAL4 is pan-neuronal and believed to promote constitutive gene expression with no relationship to the molecular clock (Robinow and White, 1988), and overexpression of UAS-perS with this driver also gives rise to a short period phenotype. We suspect that TIM levels and therefore the cycling of TIM are limiting for PER levels. This is because PERS becomes unstable as TIM levels decrease. So PERS cannot accumu-late even when overexpressed. This makes more rapid PERS degradation an even more likely explanation for the short period phenotype of perS flies. Presumably other transcrip-tional targets of circadian feedback are sufficient for near normal rhyth-micity.

The S2 cell experiments also showed that the well-described PER-TIM interaction (Zeng et al., 1996) can stabilize PERS as well as PER in this system (Fig. 1D). This result explains why the different degrada-tion rates of PER and PERS are appar-ent in fly head extracts only after TIM begins to disappears at ZT18 (Fig. 1, A and B). As this is a time of maximal difference between the PRCs of wt and perS flies, we suspected that the very rapid TIM degradation subse-quent to a light pulse might unmask the difference between PER and PERS degradation. Consistent with an important contribution of PER degradation to light-mediated phase

Figure 4. TIM degrades similarly in PDF cells of wt and perS flies after a light pulse at ZT18. Fly brains were collected in the same conditions described in Fig. 3. (A) The TIM staining pattern (magenta) in the PDF cells (green) of wt and perS flies with or without a light pulse at ZT18. Scale bar = 20 mm. (B) Quantification of TIM signal in PDF cells from both genotypes per condition. All the results were normalized to a cs brain, which has the highest signal intensity at ZT19.

cs perSn = 10 9 9 11 6 8 6 14 13 14 10 4 8 5

A

B




shifting is the Type 0 PRC of the UAS-perS-rescued per01 flies, which is very similar to the perS PRC and completely different from a wt Type 1 PRC.

Although a light pulse causes a similar decrease in TIM staining in wt and perS central clock neurons at ZT18 (Fig. 4), PER staining was dramatically differ-ent in the 2 genotypes: It was stable in wt flies but rapidly decreased in perS flies after a light pulse (Fig. 3). We therefore conclude that the magnitude of PER degradation can determine quantitative as well as qualitative features of light-mediated phase shifting, including the Type 1 and Type 0 PRCs of wt and perS genotypes, respectively. It is notable that PERS is also

more sensitive to low levels of con-stant light (Konopka et al., 1989), sug-gesting that the lengthened periods of perS flies under these conditions are due to decreased PERS levels.

A subsequent immunostaining experiment was done at ZT21, when a light pulse causes a similar modest phase advance in both wt and perS flies (Fig. 2). At this time, both PER and PERS staining decreases to a similar extent 1 h after the ZT21 light pulse (Fig. 5). Perhaps the accumulat-ing PER modifications during the night endow the wt protein with a faster degradation rate subsequent to light-mediated TIM degradation at ZT21 than at ZT18. Alternatively, the major difference between PERS and PER degradation may occur ear-lier in the night. By ZT21, light-medi-ated degradation of residual PERS may be similar to light-mediated degradation of PER.

The cell-autonomous model of light-mediated phase shifting and its sole reliance on TIM degradation has changed only modestly since it was introduced in 1996 (Ceriani et al., 1999; Hunter-Ensor et al., 1996; Koh et al., 2006; Myers et al., 1996; Peschel et al., 2009). The early night is the accumulation phase of the PER-TIM cycle, so light-mediated TIM degrada-tion at these times sets back this accu-mulation and therefore leads to phase delays. For example, the approximate 3-h phase delay caused by a light pulse at ZT15 sets back the circadian

program to roughly ZT12. The late night is the decreasing or degradation phase of the PER-TIM cycle, so a light pulse at this time causes premature or more pronounced degradation and advances the cycle. The magnitude of the phase shifts caused by late night light pulses suggests that they advance the circadian program to the expected lights-on time of ZT0 or that they mimic premature dawn. Therefore, advances as well as delays appear to shift the clock to the 2 light transitions, lights-on (dawn) and lights-off (dusk), respectively. The fact that the early night phase delays and the late night phase advances of perS are quasi-normal despite the enhanced PERS

Figure 5. PER and PERS degradation is similar in PDF cells after a light pulse at ZT21. A 10-min light pulse was given to the flies at ZT21. Fly brains were dissected and stained at ZT22 to compare with the no-light pulse flies. (A) Anti-PER staining (magenta) in PDF cells (green). (B) Anti-TIM staining (magenta) of PDF cells. Scale bar = 20 mm. Quantification of PER (C) and TIM (D) signal in PDF cells of both genotypes per condition. All the results were normalized to a cs brain, which has the highest signal intensity at ZT22.

cs per S cs per Sn = 10 11 9 11 n = 10 11 6 10

C D

A

B




Figure 6. Current model to explain light-induced PRC. The cur-rent model to explain light pulse phase responses focuses on the degradation of TIM. The cycling of TIM occurs predominantly at night and includes 2 steps: climbing the slope (accumulation) and descending the slope on the other side (degradation). A light pulse causes the process to rapidly fall off the slope to trough levels. In the early night the process will restart from the begin-ning, which causes the delay, whereas in the late night the pro-cess will continue to the next cycle, thereby advancing the phase (A). Given this model, a plot of the change in phase, the PRC curve, will be Type 0 (B). To date, this type of PRC is only found in mutants that cause unstable PER (perS, doubletimeS [Bao et al., 2001] and per01, elav::perS), so we speculate that the process affected by the light pulse is PER degradation. Between ZT17 and ZT18, TIM is degraded by the light pulse, releasing PER for subsequent degradation. Since the degradation rate of PERS is faster than that of PER, at ZT17 PERS levels decrease to normal ZT12 levels and the clock is delayed. At ZT18, PERS is also degraded faster, which causes the accumulated PERS pool to decrease more quickly such that it resembles wt PER levels sev-eral hours later, which allows the clock to advance. For wt flies, PER cannot achieve the level of ZT12 or ZT24, so the flies only achieve a mild shift.

13 15 17 19 21 23Zeitgeber Time

8

6

rs ) 4

( esaH

2

Ph 0

ein

-2

nC

hag

-4

-6

Type0 Type1

A

B

13 15 17 19 21 23Zeitgeber Time

8

6

rs ) 4

( esaH

2

Ph 0

ein

-2

nC

hag

-4

-6

-8

Type0 Type1

B

degradation further suggests that ZT12 and ZT0 are important stopping points for the clock (Fig. 2 and Fig. 5).

It is notable that these 2 times are still relevant when perS flies experience light pulses in the middle of the night. Indeed, our results also offer a partial explanation for the crossover region of a normal Type 1 PRC, the time in the middle of the night when a light pulse causes little or no phase shift of wt flies. This region of the PRC is much more responsive in perS, indicating that the enhanced degradation rate of PERS can transition the PER-TIM program more dramatically, up to 6 h from the crossover point back to ZT12 and forward to ZT0. However, the crossover region of a wt Type 1 PRC, the transition point between delays and advances, still awaits a cogent explanation. It is likely that features of the fly brain circadian network are relevant (Stoleru et al., 2007); that is, the cell-autonomous model may be insuffi-cient to explain this feature of Drosophila light-medi-ated phase shifting (Tang et al., 2010). For this reason, most of our analyses were restricted to the phase advance region. It may be more cell-autonomous than the phase delay region (Tang et al., 2010), mak-ing the immunohistochemistry focus on PDF cells more relevant to the resulting phase shifts.

A recent study on the crystal structure of PER showed that PER can form PER-PER homodimers via their PAS domains (Yildiz et al., 2005). Interrupting this dimerization with mutations within this domain dramatically inhibits these molecular interactions as well as behavioral rhythmicity (Landskron et al., 2009). This indicates that PER dimerization may con-tribute to the molecular clockworks. Unfortunately, the study did not address the region surrounding the perS serine 589. Although this mutation may therefore affect PER dimerization, we show here that per/perS heterozygous flies have a Type 1 PRC despite a free-running period of 21.3 h. This continuous PRC sug-gests that substantial PER levels must remain after the light pulse despite relevant PER-PER dimers in the heterozygous fly, that is, PER-PER, PERS-PERS, and PER-PERS.

It is still unclear what accounts for the enhanced degradation rates of PERS compared with PER, espe-cially after a light pulse at ZT18 within PDF cells. Possibly relevant is the advance of the time-dependent phosphorylation events that occur on PERS relative to PER (Chiu et al., 2011). In this view, light simply unmasks PER and PERS by causing TIM degradation.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors thank Sean Bradley, Kate Abruzzi, Jerome Menet, Weifei Luo, and Fang Guo for thoughtful discus-sion. This work was supported by P01 NS44232 (M.R.).




Edery I, Zwiebel LJ, Dembinska ME, and Rosbash M (1994) Temporal phosphorylation of the Drosophila period pro-tein. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 91(6):2260-2264.

Emery P, So WV, Kaneko M, Hall JC, and Rosbash M (1998) CRY, a Drosophila clock and light-regulated crypto-chrome, is a major contributor to circadian rhythm resetting and photosensitivity. Cell 95:669-679.

Emery P, Stanewsky R, Helfrich-Förster C, Emery-Le M, Hall JC, and Rosbash M (2000) Drosophila CRY Is a deep brain circadian photoreceptor. Neuron 26:493-504.

Fang Y, Sathyanarayanan S, and Sehgal A (2007) Post-translational regulation of the Drosophila circadian clock requires protein phosphatase 1 (PP1). Genes Dev 21:1506-1518.

Frisch B, Hardin PE, Hamblen-Coyle MJ, Rosbash M, and Hall JC (1994) A promoterless DNA fragment from the period locus rescues behavioral rhythmicity and mediates cyclical gene expression in a restricted subset of the Drosophila nervous system. Neuron 12:555-570.

Gekakis N, Saez L, Delahaye-Brown A-M, Myers MP, Sehgal A, Young MW, and Weitz CJ (1995) Isolation of timeless by PER protein interactions: defective interac-tion between timeless protein and long-period mutant PERL. Science 270:811-815.

Grima B, Chelot E, Xia R, and Rouyer F (2004) Morning and evening peaks of activity rely on different clock neurons of the Drosophila brain. Nature 431:869-873.

Hardin PE, Hall JC, and Rosbash M (1990) Feedback of the Drosophila period gene product on circadian cycling of its messenger RNA levels. Nature 343:536-540.

Hunter-Ensor M, Ousley A, and Sehgal A (1996) Regulation of the Drosophila protein timeless suggests a mechanism for resetting the circadian clock by light. Cell 84:677-685.

Kaneko M and Hall JC (2000) Neuroanatomy of cells expressing clock genes in Drosophila: transgenic manip-ulation of the period and timeless genes to mark the perikarya of circadian pacemaker neurons and their projections. J Comp Neurol 422:66-94.

Kaneko M, Park J, Cheng Y, Hardin P, and Hall J (2000) Disruption of synaptic transmission or clock- gene-product oscillations in circadian pacemaker cells of Drosophila cause abnormal behavioral rhythms. J Neurobiol 43:207-233.

Kloss B, Price JL, Saez L, Blau J, Rothenfluh-Hilfiker A, Wesley CS, and Young MW (1998) The Drosophila clock gene double-time encodes a protein closely related to human casein kinase Ie. Cell 94:97-107.

Kloss B, Rothenfluh A, Young MW, and Saez L (2001) Phosphorylation of period is influenced by cycling physical associations of double-time, period, and time-less in the Drosophila clock. Neuron 30:699-706.

Ko HW, Jiang J, and Edery I (2002) Role for Slimb in the degradation of Drosophila Period protein phosphory-lated by Doubletime. Nature 420:673-678.

Koh K, Zheng X, and Sehgal A (2006) JETLAG resets the Drosophila circadian clock by promoting light-induced degradation of TIMELESS. Science 312:1809-1812.

Konopka RJ (1979) Genetic dissection of the Drosophila circadian system. Fed Proc 38:2602-2605.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publica-tion of this article.

REFERENCES

Allada R, Emery P, Takahashi JS, and Rosbash M (2001) Stopping time: the genetics of fly and mouse circadian clocks. Annu Rev Neurosci 24:1091-1119.

Bao S, Rihel J, Bjes E, Fan JY, and Price JL (2001) The Drosophila double-timeS mutation delays the nuclear accumulation of period protein and affects the feedback regulation of period mRNA. J Neurosci 21:7117-7126.

Bargiello TA, Saez L, Baylies MK, Gasic G, Young MW, and Spray DC (1987) The Drosophila clock gene per affects intercellular junctional communication. Nature 328:686-691.

Blanchardon E, Grima B, Klarsfeld A, Chelot E, Hardin PE, Preat T, and Rouyer F (2001) Defining the role of Drosophila lateral neurons in the control of circadian rhythms in motor activity and eclosion by targeted genetic ablation and PERIOD protein overexpression. Eur J Neurosci 13:871-888.

Busza A, Emery-Le M, Rosbash M, and Emery P (2004) Roles of the two Drosophila CRYPTOCHROME struc-tural domains in circadian photoreception. Science 304:1503-1506.

Busza A, Murad A, and Emery P (2007) Interactions between circadian neurons control temperature syn-chronization of Drosophila behavior. J Neurosci. 27:10722-10733.

Ceriani MF, Darlington TK, Staknis D, Mas P, Petti AA, Weitz CJ, and Kay SA (1999) Light-dependent sequestra-tion of TIMELESS by CRYPTOCHROME. Science 285:553-556.

Cheng Y and Hardin PE (1998) Drosophila photoreceptors contain an autonomous circadian oscillator that can function without period mRNA cycling. J Neurosci 18:741-750.

Chiu JC, Ko HW, and Edery I (2011) NEMO/NLK phos-phorylates PERIOD to initiate a time-delay phosphory-lation circuit that sets circadian clock speed. Cell 145:357-370.

Cyran SA, Yiannoulos G, Buchsbaum AM, Saez L, Young MW, and Blau J (2005) The double-time protein kinase regulates the subcellular localization of the Drosophila clock protein period. J Neurosci. 25:5430-5437.

Darlington TK, Wager-Smith K, Ceriani MF, Staknis D, Gekakis N, Steeves TDL, Weitz CJ, Takahashi JS, and Kay SA (1998) Closing the circadian loop: CLOCK-induced transcription of its own inhibitors per and tim. Science 280:1599-1603.

Dembinska ME, Stanewsky R, Hall JC, and Rosbash M (1997) Circadian cycling of a PERIOD-beta-galactosidase fusion protein in Drosophila: evidence for cyclical deg-radation. J Biol Rhythms 12:157-172.




Konopka RJ, and Benzer S (1971) Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 68:2112-2116.

Konopka RJ, Pittendrigh C, and Orr D (1989) Reciprocal behavior associated with altered homeostasis and pho-tosensitivity of Drosophila clock mutants. J Neurogenet 6:1-10.

Landskron J, Chen KF, Wolf E, and Stanewsky R (2009) A role for the PERIOD:PERIOD homodimer in the Drosophila circadian clock. PLoS Biol 7:e3.

Levine JD, Funes P, Dowse HB, and Hall JC (2002) Signal analysis of behavioral and molecular cycles. BMC Neurosci 3:1.

Marrus SB, Zeng H, and Rosbash M (1996) Effect of con-stant light and circadian entrainment of perS flies: evi-dence for light-mediated delay of the negative feedback loop in Drosophila. EMBO J 15:6877-6886.

Meyer P, Saez L, and Young MW (2006) PER-TIM interac-tions in living Drosophila cells: an interval timer for the circadian clock. Science 311:226-229.

Myers MP, Wager-Smith K, Rothenfluh-Hilfiker A, and Young MW (1996) Light-induced degradation of TIMELESS and entrainment of the Drosophila circadian clock. Science 271:1736-1740.

Nawathean P, Menet JS, and Rosbash M (2005) Assaying the Drosophila negative feedback loop with RNA inter-ference in s2 cells. Methods Enzymol 393:610-622.

Nawathean P and Rosbash M (2004) The doubletime and CKII kinases collaborate to potentiate Drosophila PER transcriptional repressor activity. Mol Cell 13:213-223.

Peschel N, Chen KF, Szabo G, and Stanewsky R (2009) Light-dependent interactions between the Drosophila circadian clock factors cryptochrome, jetlag, and time-less. Curr Biol 19:241-247.

Preuss F, Fan JY, Kalive M, Bao S, Schuenemann E, Bjes ES, and Price JL (2004) Drosophila doubletime mutations which either shorten or lengthen the period of circadian rhythms decrease the protein kinase activity of casein kinase I. Mol Cell Biol 24:886-898.

Price JL, Blau J, Rothenfluh-Hilfiker A, Abodeely M, Kloss B, and Young MW (1998) double-time is a novel Drosophila clock gene that regulates PERIOD protein accumulation. Cell 94:83-95.

Price JL, Dembinska ME, Young MW, and Rosbash M (1995) Suppression of PERIOD protein abundance and circadian cycling by the Drosophila clock mutation time-less. EMBO J 14:4044-4049.

Robinow S and White K (1988) The locus elav of Drosophila melanogaster is expressed in neurons at all develop-mental stages. Dev Biol 126:294-303.

Rodriguez J, Tang CH, Khodor YL, Vodala S, Menet JS, and Rosbash M (2013) Nascent-Seq analysis of Drosophila cycling gene expression. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:E275-284.

Saez L and Young MW (1996) Regulation of nuclear entry of the Drosophila clock proteins PERIOD and TIMELESS. Neuron 17:911-920.

Sathyanarayanan S, Zheng X, Xiao R, and Sehgal A (2004) Posttranslational regulation of Drosophila PERIOD pro-tein by protein phosphatase 2A. Cell 116:603-615.

Saunders DS, Gillanders SW, and Lewis RD (1994) Light-pulse phase response curves for the locomotor activity rhythm in period mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. J Insect Physiol 40:957-968.

Sehgal A, Rothenfluh-Hilfiker A, Hunter-Ensor M, Chen Y, Myers M, and Young MW (1995) Rhythmic expres-sion of timeless: a basis for promoting circadian cycles in period gene autoregulation. Science 270:808-810.

Stanewsky R, Kaneko M, Emery P, Beretta M, Wager-Smith K, Kay SA, Rosbash M, and Hall JC (1998) The cryb mutation identifies cryptochrome as a circadian photo-receptor in Drosophila. Cell 95:681-692.

Stoleru D, Nawathean P, Fernandez Mde L, Menet JS, Ceriani MF, and Rosbash M (2007) The Drosophila circa-dian network is a seasonal timer. Cell 129:207-219.

Takahashi JS (2004) Finding new clock components: past and future. J Biol Rhythms 19:339-347.

Tang CH, Hinteregger E, Shang Y, and Rosbash M (2010) Light-mediated TIM degradation within Drosophila pacemaker neurons (s-LNvs) is neither necessary nor suf-ficient for delay zone phase shifts. Neuron 66:378-385.

Vosshall LB, Price JL, Sehgal A, Saez L, and Young MW (1994) Block in nuclear localization of period protein by a second clock mutation, timeless. Science 263:1606-1609.

Yang Z and Sehgal A (2001) Role of molecular oscillations in generating behavioral rhythms in Drosophila. Neuron 29:453-467.

Yildiz O, Doi M, Yujnovsky I, Cardone L, Berndt A, Hennig S, Schulze S, Urbanke C, Sassone-Corsi P, and Wolf E (2005) Crystal structure and interactions of the PAS repeat region of the Drosophila clock protein PERIOD. Mol Cell 17:69-82.

Yoshii T, Todo T, Wulbeck C, Stanewsky R, and Helfrich-Forster C (2008) Cryptochrome is present in the com-pound eyes and a subset of Drosophila’s clock neurons. J Comp Neurol 508:952-966.

Yu Q, Jacquier AC, Citri Y, Hamblen M, Hall JC, and Rosbash M (1987) Molecular mapping of point muta-tions in the period gene that stop or speed up biological clocks in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 84:784-788.

Yu W, Zheng H, Houl JH, Dauwalder B, and Hardin PE (2006) PER-dependent rhythms in CLK phosphoryla-tion and E-box binding regulate circadian transcription. Genes Dev 20:723-733.

Zeng H, Qian Z, Myers MP, and Rosbash M (1996) A light-entrainment mechanism for the Drosophila circadian clock. Nature 380:129-135.



Journal of Biological Rhythms - Brandeis University of Biological Rhythms ... in tissue culture and...

Documents

Transcript of Journal of Biological Rhythms - Brandeis University of Biological Rhythms ... in tissue culture and...