Epigenetic inheritance of circadian period in clonal cells

  1. Yan Li
  2. Yongli Shan
  3. Gokhul Krishna Kilaru
  4. Stefano Berto
  5. Guang-Zhong Wang
  6. Kimberly H Cox
  7. Seung-Hee Yoo
  8. Shuzhang Yang
  9. Genevieve Konopka
  10. Joseph S Takahashi  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States
  2. Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, China
  3. University of Texas Health Science Houston, United States
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Circadian oscillations are generated via transcriptional-translational negative feedback loops. However, individual cells from fibroblast cell lines have heterogeneous rhythms, oscillating independently and with different period lengths. Here we showed that heterogeneity in circadian period is heritable and used a multi-omics approach to investigate underlying mechanisms. By examining large-scale phenotype-associated gene expression profiles in hundreds of mouse clonal cell lines, we identified and validated multiple novel candidate genes involved in circadian period determination in the absence of significant genomic variants. We also discovered differentially co-expressed gene networks that were functionally associated with period length. We further demonstrated that global differential DNA methylation bidirectionally regulated these same gene networks. Interestingly, we found that depletion of DNMT1 and DNMT3A had opposite effects on circadian period, suggesting non-redundant roles in circadian gene regulation. Together, our findings identify novel gene candidates involved in periodicity, and reveal DNA methylation as an important regulator of circadian periodicity.

Data availability

RNA Sequencing data have been deposited in GEO under accession codes: GSE132663 and GSE132665. Exome sequencing data have been deposited in SRA under accession number: PRJNA548837. All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files. Source data have been provided for Figures 2 and 4.

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Yan Li

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Yongli Shan

    Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Gokhul Krishna Kilaru

    Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Stefano Berto

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Guang-Zhong Wang

    Key Laboratory of Computational Biology, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Shanghai, China
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-6432-8310
  6. Kimberly H Cox

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Seung-Hee Yoo

    Biochemistry, University of Texas Health Science Houston, Houston, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Shuzhang Yang

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Genevieve Konopka

    Department of Neuroscience, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-3363-7302
  10. Joseph S Takahashi

    Department of Neuroscience, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States
    For correspondence
    joseph.takahashi@utsouthwestern.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0384-8878

Funding

Howard Hughes Medical Institute

  • Joseph S Takahashi

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Amita Sehgal, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Pennsylvania, United States

Version history

  1. Received: December 5, 2019
  2. Accepted: May 26, 2020
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: May 27, 2020 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: June 11, 2020 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2020, Li et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,872
    views
  • 481
    downloads
  • 11
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Yan Li
  2. Yongli Shan
  3. Gokhul Krishna Kilaru
  4. Stefano Berto
  5. Guang-Zhong Wang
  6. Kimberly H Cox
  7. Seung-Hee Yoo
  8. Shuzhang Yang
  9. Genevieve Konopka
  10. Joseph S Takahashi
(2020)
Epigenetic inheritance of circadian period in clonal cells
eLife 9:e54186.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54186

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.54186

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Vezha Boboeva, Alberto Pezzotta ... Athena Akrami
    Research Article

    The central tendency bias, or contraction bias, is a phenomenon where the judgment of the magnitude of items held in working memory appears to be biased toward the average of past observations. It is assumed to be an optimal strategy by the brain and commonly thought of as an expression of the brain’s ability to learn the statistical structure of sensory input. On the other hand, recency biases such as serial dependence are also commonly observed and are thought to reflect the content of working memory. Recent results from an auditory delayed comparison task in rats suggest that both biases may be more related than previously thought: when the posterior parietal cortex (PPC) was silenced, both short-term and contraction biases were reduced. By proposing a model of the circuit that may be involved in generating the behavior, we show that a volatile working memory content susceptible to shifting to the past sensory experience – producing short-term sensory history biases – naturally leads to contraction bias. The errors, occurring at the level of individual trials, are sampled from the full distribution of the stimuli and are not due to a gradual shift of the memory toward the sensory distribution’s mean. Our results are consistent with a broad set of behavioral findings and provide predictions of performance across different stimulus distributions and timings, delay intervals, as well as neuronal dynamics in putative working memory areas. Finally, we validate our model by performing a set of human psychophysics experiments of an auditory parametric working memory task.

    1. Neuroscience
    Michael Berger, Michèle Fraatz ... Henrike Scholz
    Research Article

    The brain regulates food intake in response to internal energy demands and food availability. However, can internal energy storage influence the type of memory that is formed? We show that the duration of starvation determines whether Drosophila melanogaster forms appetitive short-term or longer-lasting intermediate memories. The internal glycogen storage in the muscles and adipose tissue influences how intensely sucrose-associated information is stored. Insulin-like signaling in octopaminergic reward neurons integrates internal energy storage into memory formation. Octopamine, in turn, suppresses the formation of long-term memory. Octopamine is not required for short-term memory because octopamine-deficient mutants can form appetitive short-term memory for sucrose and to other nutrients depending on the internal energy status. The reduced positive reinforcing effect of sucrose at high internal glycogen levels, combined with the increased stability of food-related memories due to prolonged periods of starvation, could lead to increased food intake.