Search

The stability of circadian clock mechanisms under cyclic environments contributes to increased Darwinian fitness by accurately timing daily behavior and physiology. Earlier studies on biological clocks speculated that the timing of behavior and its accuracy are determined by the intrinsic period (τ) of the circadian clock under constant conditions, its stability, the period of the external cycle (T), and resetting of the clock by environmental time cues. However, most of these previous studies suffered from certain limitations, the major ones being a narrow range of examined τ values and a non-uniformity in the genetic background across the individuals tested. We present data that rigorously test the following hypotheses by employing Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies with τ ranging from 17 to 30 h in a uniform genetic background. We tested whether 1) precision (day-to-day stability of τ) is greater for clocks with τ close to 24 h; 2) accuracy (i.e., day-to-day stability of the phase relationship (ψ), where ψ is the duration between a phase of the rhythm and a phase of the external cycle) is greater for clocks with τ close to 24 h; 3) Ψ is delayed with an increase in τ; and 4) Ψ becomes more advanced with an increase in length of zeitgeber cycle (T). We show that precision is not always maximum for ~24-h clocks, but that accuracy is greatest when τ approximates T. Further, flies exhibit a delayed phase relationship with increasing τ and an advanced phase relationship under long T-cycles as compared with shorter T-cycles. We also describe relationships between activity and rest durations and how our observations fit predictions from models of circadian entrainment. Overall, we confirm that accuracy and phase of entrained rhythm are governed by both intrinsic clock period and the length of the external cycle; however, we find that the relationship between intrinsic period and precision does not fit previous predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Organisms quickly learn about their surroundings and display synaptic plasticity which is thought to be critical for their survival. For example, fruit flies Drosophila melanogaster exposed to highly enriched social environment are found to show increased synaptic connections and a corresponding increase in sleep. Here we asked if social environment comprising a pair of same-sex individuals could enhance sleep in the participating individuals. To study this, we maintained individuals of D. melanogaster in same-sex pairs for a period of 1 to 4 days, and after separation, monitored sleep of the previously socialized and solitary individuals under similar conditions. Males maintained in pairs for 3 or more days were found to sleep significantly more during daytime and showed a tendency to fall asleep sooner as compared to solitary controls (both measures together are henceforth referred to as “sleep-enhancement”). This sleep phenotype is not strain-specific as it is observed in males from three different “wild type” strains of D. melanogaster. Previous studies on social interaction mediated sleep-enhancement presumed ‘waking experience’ during the interaction to be the primary underlying cause; however, we found sleep-enhancement to occur without any significant increase in wakefulness. Furthermore, while sleep-enhancement due to group-wise social interaction requires Pigment Dispersing Factor (PDF) positive neurons; PDF positive and CRYPTOCHROME (CRY) positive circadian clock neurons and the core circadian clock genes are not required for sleep-enhancement to occur when males interact in pairs. Pair-wise social interaction mediated sleep-enhancement requires dopamine and olfactory signaling, while visual and gustatory signaling systems seem to be dispensable. These results suggest that socialization alone (without any change in wakefulness) is sufficient to cause sleep-enhancement in fruit fly D. melanogaster males, and that its neuronal control is context-specific. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies have implicated a role for circadian clocks in regulating pre-adult development of organisms. Among them two approaches are most notable: 1) use of insects whose clocks have different free-running periods and 2) imposition of artificial selection on either rate of development, timing of emergence or circadian period in laboratory populations. Using these two approaches, influence of clock on rate of development has been elucidated. However, the contribution of circadian clocks in determining time taken for pre-adult development has remained unclear. Here we present results of our studies aimed to understand this influence by examining populations of fruit flies carrying three different alleles of the period gene and hence having different free-running periods. We tried to achieve similarity of genetic background among the three strains while also ensuring that they harbored sufficient variation on loci other than period gene. Results: We find that under constant conditions, flies with long period have slower development whereas in presence of light-dark cycles (LD) of various lengths, the speed of development for each genotype is influenced by whether their eclosion rhythms can entrain to them. Under LD 12:12 (T24), where all three strains entrain, they do not show any difference in time taken for emergence, whereas under LD 10:10 (T20) where long period flies do not entrain and LD 14:14 (T28) where short period flies do not entrain, they have slower and faster pre-adult development, respectively, compared to the controls. We also show that a prior stage in development namely pupation is not rhythmic though time taken for pupation is determined by both the environmental cycle and period allele. Conclusion: We discuss how in presence of daily time cues, interaction of the cyclic environmental factors with the clock determines the position and width of the gate available for a fly to emerge (duration of time within a cycle when adult emergence can occur) resulting in an altered developmental duration from that observed under constant conditions. We also discuss the relevance of genetic background influencing this regulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]