Decentralized Clocks and Direct Photoreception: The Zebrafish as an Integrative Model for Circadian Biology

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

Wang Liao and colleagues aim to provide a comprehensive synthesis of zebrafish circadian research, with particular emphasis on the decentralized photoreceptive architecture that distinguishes teleosts from mammals, and to outline future research directions leveraging emerging technologies for translational applications. The authors frame zebrafish as occupying a "crucial evolutionary and experimental niche" and argue that the model system is uniquely suited to address open questions in chronobiology.

Strengths:

The review is broad in scope and up to date in its citation of recent primary literature. The coverage of physiological outputs - spanning cardiovascular rhythmicity, hepatic metabolism, immune function, reproduction, and gut homeostasis - is more comprehensive than many existing reviews in this area, and researchers seeking an entry point into any of these subfields will find a useful orientation. The figures are well-designed and effectively summarise complex regulatory relationships. The section on immune rhythmicity is a particular strength, providing mechanistic detail on how specific clock components (Clock1a, Per1b, Per2, Cry1a) differentially regulate neutrophil behaviour, bacterial killing, and cytokine expression; this level of molecular specificity distinguishes it from comparable sections in the review. The brief discussion of non-canonical clock gene functions (CLOCK in neuronal connectivity, BMAL1 in stem cell state, vascular calcification) raises genuinely interesting points that are underexplored in the field and might deserve more prominence.

The future perspectives section makes a conceptually interesting move in suggesting that the zebrafish decentralized architecture could reframe a central question in chronobiology - from how a master clock imposes order on passive peripheral oscillators, to how semi-autonomous oscillators achieve coherence. This is the most original conceptual contribution in the manuscript, and it would benefit from much further development.

Weaknesses:

The core limitation of this review is that it functions primarily as an annotated bibliography rather than a critical synthesis. Section after section follows the same pattern: a physiological system is introduced, several findings from recent papers are described in sequence, and the section ends. Missing throughout is an evaluative voice - where does the field agree, where does it disagree, which findings have been replicated versus remain preliminary, and which conceptual questions are genuinely unresolved versus merely unstudied? Readers with expertise in the field will find little that reframes their understanding; readers new to the field will receive information but not the interpretive scaffolding needed to assess its significance.

The framing of zebrafish as occupying a "crucial evolutionary and experimental niche" is asserted but not substantiated. The experimental advantages of zebrafish - optical transparency, external development, genetic tractability - are real, but they apply primarily to larval stages, typically the first two weeks of development. The review does not adequately address whether the key features it highlights, particularly peripheral photosensitivity and autonomous peripheral oscillators, have been demonstrated in adult animals, where optical transparency is lost. Many of the physiological findings described (sleep-wake cycles, cardiovascular function, reproduction, and immune function) are most relevant in adult or juvenile fish, yet the mechanistic underpinnings often come from larval studies. Whether the mechanisms generalise across developmental stages is not discussed, and this is an important gap that the review could acknowledge explicitly.

The claim that zebrafish bridge invertebrate and mammalian models is a conventional framing that appears in most zebrafish review articles; its repetition here adds little. More interesting - and underexplored - is the comparative question of how the decentralised clock architecture of teleosts compares with that of other non-mammalian vertebrates, or indeed with invertebrate systems such as Drosophila, where peripheral tissue clocks and non-visual photoreception have also been studied. The review does not engage with this comparative dimension, which would be the natural intellectual context for the claims being made.

The future perspectives section identifies several promising directions - optogenetic circuit mapping, whole-body longitudinal imaging, inter-organ communication, network modeling - but these are described at a high level of generality. Most are not specific to the questions raised by the zebrafish decentralized clock architecture; they would appear in any forward-looking review of circadian biology. The one conceptually distinctive idea - that zebrafish could be used to ask how distributed oscillators achieve coordinated coherence without hierarchical control - is identified but not developed into concrete experimental questions or testable predictions. The discussion of non-canonical clock gene functions in the Future Perspectives section would benefit from being more directly connected to what zebrafish specifically can offer: given that teleost genome duplication has produced additional paralogues of clock genes, there is a concrete opportunity to dissect canonical from non-canonical functions through comparative analysis of paralogues with diverged expression patterns. This point is hinted at but not made explicitly.

Appraisal of conclusions:

The conclusions are broadly consistent with the evidence cited, and the authors are appropriately cautious in noting that many signalling cascades and inter-tissue communication mechanisms remain incompletely characterised. The conclusion that zebrafish represents a valuable and underexploited model for circadian-disease translational research is well-supported. However, the review would be significantly strengthened if the authors distinguished more clearly between what is firmly established, what is supported by preliminary or single-study evidence, and what remains genuinely speculative.

Likely impact and utility:

This review will be useful as an orientation document for researchers new to zebrafish circadian biology, and the comprehensive treatment of physiological outputs across organ systems is a genuine service to the field. Its impact as an intellectual contribution is limited by the descriptive approach and the absence of original synthesis or conceptual reframing. The most interesting ideas in the manuscript - the reframing of the central/peripheral clock hierarchy question, and the potential of clock gene paralogues for probing non-canonical functions - could be further developed and, if pursued, could form the basis of a more distinctive and impactful contribution.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This review is valuable in principle because circadian rhythms in zebrafish are unexplored and therefore this degree is valuable in principle. There are a number of significant weaknesses that should be addressed for it to have an impact. First, while the review covers a broad range of topics in chronobiology, it does not put them in context. Placing zebrafish work in the context of other model organisms that are better understood and other fish species would broaden the appeal. The review could also expand to a discussion of sleep, where the understanding in zebrafish is much more advanced. Critically, providing a novel framework, identifying new areas of opportunity and limitations of the system would expand the interest to non-zebrafish research groups. In addition, there are a number of misstatements/mis-citations that are critical to correct. Therefore, I find this review potentially impactful, but its current form is likely to limit its impact.

Strengths:

Focusing on decentralized photo sensing is a strength because it is relatively unique to zebrafish.

The breadth of discussion in zebrafish is a strength.

Weaknesses:

It might be helpful to reorganize the review with an introduction on what is known in other better studied systems to be highly conserved, then to focus in on the components of zebrafish that are discussed here.

A weakness is the lack of integration with other model organisms and other fish systems. Therefore, the narrow focus on zebrafish is unlikely to appeal to broader audiences.

It's surprising that there is not more discussion of sleep, which has been studied in detail, and its relationship to the clock.

Discussions of limitations of the model, including adult vs larval analysis and challenges performing long-term behavioral analysis in fish, would be valuable.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

Over the past 3 or 4 decades, our understanding of the molecular mechanism underlying the circadian clock has increased substantially. This is in large part due to successful forward and reverse genetics approaches applied to a broad range of genetic model systems, notably Drosophila, Neurospora, mouse, Arabidopsis and cyanobacteria. Although the clock components in these species are diverse, the basic operating principles are highly conserved, allowing us to build a general view of clock mechanisms. Looking forward, there are still many unanswered questions regarding how clocks are organized at the systems level and, in turn, how they are coupled to key aspects of physiology. Each model species has its own set of advantages and disadvantages for tackling particular questions. As this timely review aims to illustrate, the zebrafish has become a particularly valuable model for exploring circadian clock biology. This is in part due to its technical advantages, accessibility of early developmental stages and its directly light-entrainable peripheral clocks. This provides unparalleled opportunities for studying the circadian clock hierarchy and its links with physiology.

Strengths:

This review does a good job of integrating the many lines of circadian clock research where the zebrafish has been used as a model and provides an overview of many future challenges it is well-suited to tackle.

Weaknesses:

There are citation errors, as well as inaccurate and misleading statements that must be remedied in a revised version.

Author response:

We sincerely thank the reviewers and editors for the thorough, constructive, and insightful comments, which have greatly helped us improve the accuracy, clarity, and rigor of the manuscript. We acknowledge that the current version has several limitations, including insufficient contextualization with other model systems and lack of critical synthesis. These important weaknesses will be comprehensively addressed in a future revised version of the review.

For the present revision, we have focused exclusively on correcting objective errors, factual inaccuracies, and citation mistakes as pointed out by the reviewers. All specific factual and reference issues raised by Reviewer 2 and Reviewer 3 have been carefully corrected in the revised manuscript, including inaccurate statements, incorrect citations, missing references, and inconsistent descriptions of zebrafish clock genes, photoreception, and physiological functions.

We appreciate the reviewers’ thoughtful suggestions regarding the conceptual depth, comparative context, critical synthesis, and expanded discussion of sleep and model limitations. While we fully agree that these aspects would significantly strengthen the review, we plan to systematically incorporate these broader conceptual improvements in a future, more substantial revision.