AJP - Regu Information on EB 2010
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol (September 3, 2008). doi:10.1152/ajpregu.90510.2008
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
295/5/R1688    most recent
90510.2008v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Mickman, C. T
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Mickman, C. T
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, D. E
Submitted on June 17, 2008
Revised on August 25, 2008
Accepted on August 26, 2008

Photoperiod alters the phase difference between activity onset in vivo and mPer2::luc peak in vitro

Carl T Mickman1, Jeremy Stubblefield1, Mary Harrington2*, and Dwight E Nelson1

1 University of St. Thomas
2 Smith College

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: mharring{at}email.smith.edu.

Photoperiod is a significant modulator of behavior and physiology for many organisms. In rodents changes in photoperiod are associated with changes in circadian period and photic resetting of circadian pacemakers. Utilizing rhythms of in vivo behavior and in vitro mPer2::luc expression we investigated whether different entrainment photoperiods (16:8 and 8:16 L:D) alter the period or phase relationships between these rhythms and the entraining light cycle in Per2::luc c57Bl/6J mice. We also tested whether mPer2::luc rhythms differed in anterior and posterior SCN slices. Our results demonstrate that photoperiod significantly changes the timing of the mPer2::luc peak relative to the time of light offset and the activity onset in vivo. In both 8:16 and 16:8 L:D the mPer2::luc peak maintained a more stable phase relationship to activity offset, while altering the phase relationship to activity onset. Following the initial cycle in culture, the period, phase and peaks per cycle were not significantly different for anterior vs. posterior SCN slices taken from animals within one photoperiod. Following short photoperiod treatment, anterior SCN slices showed increased amplitude Per2::luc waveforms and posterior SCN slices showed shorter duration peak width. Finally, the SCN tissue in vitro did not demonstrate differences in period attributable to photoperiod pretreatment, indicating that period aftereffects observed in behavioral rhythms following long and short day photoperiods are not sustained in Per2::luc rhythms in vitro. The change in phase relationship to activity onset suggests Per2::luc rhythms in the SCN may track activity offset rather than activity onset. The reduced amplitude rhythms following long photoperiod treatment may represent a loss of coupling of component oscillators.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Visit Other APS Journals Online
Copyright © 2008 by the American Physiological Society.