Evidence for a role of human blood-borne factors in mediating age-associated changes in molecular circadian rhythms

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Aging is associated with a number of physiologic changes including perturbed circadian rhythms. However, mechanisms by which rhythms are altered remain unknown. Here authors tested the hypothesis that age-dependent factors in the sera affect the core clock or outputs of the core clock in cultured fibroblasts. They find that both sera from young and old donors are equally potent at driving robust ~24h oscillations in gene expression, and report the surprising finding that the cyclic transcriptome after stimulation by young or old sera differs markedly. In particular, genes involved in the cell cycle and transcription/translation remain rhythmic in both conditions, while genes associated with oxidative phosphorylation and Alzheimer's Disease lose rhythmicity in the aged condition. Also, the expression of cycling genes associated with cholesterol biosynthesis increases in the cells entrained with old serum. Together, the findings suggest that age-dependent blood-borne factors, yet to be identified, affect circadian rhythms in the periphery. The most interesting aspect of the paper is that the data suggest that the same system (BJ-5TA), may significantly change its rhythmic transcriptome depending on how the cells are synchronized. While there is a succinct discussion point on this, it should be expanded and described whether there are parallels with previous works, as well as what would be possible mechanisms for such an effect.

Major points:
Fig 1 and Table S1. Serum composition and levels of relevant blood-borne factors probably change in function of time. At what time of the day were the serum samples from the old and young groups collected? This important information should be provided in the text and added to Table S1.

Fig 2A. Luminescence traces: the manuscript would greatly benefit from inclusion of raw luminescence traces.

Fig 2. Of the many genes that change their rhythms after stimulation with young and old sera, what are the typical fold changes? For example, it would be useful to show histograms for the two groups. Does one group tend to have transcript rhythms of higher or lower fold changes?

Fig. 2 Gene expression. Also here, the presentation would benefit from showing a few key examples for different types of responses.

What was the rationale to use these cells over the more common U2OS cells? Are there similarities between the rhythmic transcriptomes of the BJ-5TA cells and that of U2OS cells or other human cells? This could easily be assessed using published datasets.

For the rhythmic cell cycle genes, could this be the consequence of the serum which synchronizes also the cell cycle, or is it rather an effect of the circadian oscillator driving rhythms of cell cycle genes?

While the reduction of rhythmicity in the old serum for oxidative phosphorylation transcripts is very interesting and fits with the general theme that metabolic function decreases with age, it is puzzling that the recipient cells are the same, but it is only the synchronization by the old and young serum that changes. Are the authors thus suggesting that decrease of metabolic rhythms is primarily a non cell-autonomous and systemic phenomenon? What would be a potential mechanism?

The delayed shifts after aged serum for clock transcripts (but not for Bmal1) are interesting and indicate that there may be a decoupling of Bmal1 transcript levels from the other clock gene phases. How do the authors interpret this? could it be related to altered chronotypes in the elderly?

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Schwarz et al. have presented a study aiming to investigate whether circulating factors in sera of subjects are able to synchronize depending on age, circadian rhythms of fibroblast. The authors used human serum taken from either old (age 70-76) or young (age 25-30) individuals to synchronise cultured fibroblasts containing a clock gene promoter driven luciferase reporter, followed by RNA sequencing to investigate whole gene expression.

This study has the potential to be very interesting, as evidence of circulating factors in sera that mediate peripheral rhythms has long been sought after. Moreover, the possibility that those factors are affected by age which could contribute to the weaken circadian rhythmicity observed with aging.

Here, the authors concluded that both old and young sera are equally competent at driving robust 24 hour oscillations, in particular for clock genes, although the cycling behaviour and nature of different genes is altered between the two groups, which is attributed to the age of the individuals. This conclusion could however be influenced by individual variabilities within and between the two age groups. The groups are relatively small, only four individual two females and two males, per group. And in addition, factors such as food intake and exercise prior to blood drawn, or/and chronotype, known to affect systemic signals, are not taken into consideration. As seen in figure 4, traces from different individuals vary heavily in terms of their patterns, which is not addressed in the text. Only analysing the summary average curve of the entire group may be masking the true data. More focus should be attributed to investigating the effects of serum from each individual and observing common patterns. Additionally, there are many potential causes of variability, instead or in addition to age, that may be contributing to the variation both, between the groups and between individuals within groups. All of this should be addressed by the authors and commented appropriately in the text.

The authors also note in the introduction that rhythms in different peripheral tissues vary in different ways with age, however the entire study is performed on only fibroblast, classified as peripheral tissue by the authors. It would be very interesting to investigate if the observed changes in fibroblast are extended or not to other cell lines from diverse organ origin. This could provide information about whether circulating circadian synchronising factors could exert their function systemically or on specific tissues. At the very least, this hypothesis should be addressed within the discussion.

In addition to the limitations indicated above I consider that the data of the study is an insufficiently analysis beyond the rhythmicity analysis. Results from the STRING and IPA analysis were merely descriptive and a more comprehensive bioinformatic analysis would provide additional information about potential molecular mechanism explaining the differential gene expression. For example, enrichment of transcription factors binding sites in those genes with different patters to pinpoint chromatin regulatory pathways.

Author Response

We thank the editors and the reviewers for their comments. In response, we plan to revise the manuscript in order to provide the details requested and include additional bioinformatic analysis of the data, along the lines suggested by the reviewers. We will also take into account individual variations among the subjects investigated in this study, and discuss the extent to which factors other than age might contribute to the results. And we will expand the discussion to consider how our results may apply to other cells/tissues and how they relate to other findings in the field.