Elevated DNA Damage without signs of aging in the short-sleeping Mexican Cavefish

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

Lloyd et al employ an evolutionary comparative approach to study how sleep deprivation affects DNA damage repair in Astyanax mexicanus, using the cave vs surface species evolution as a playground. The work shows, convincingly, that the cavefish population has evolved an impaired DNA damage response both following sleep deprivation or a classical paradigm of DNA damage (UV).

Strengths:

The study employs a thorough multidisciplinary approach. The experiments are well conducted and generally well presented.

Weaknesses:

Having a second experimental mean to induce DNA damage would strengthen and generalise the findings.

Overall, the study represents a very important addition to the field. The model employed underlines once more the importance of using an evolutionary approach to study sleep and provides context and caveats to statements that perhaps were taken a bit too much for granted before. At the same time, the paper manages to have an extremely constructive approach, presenting the platform as a clear useful tool to explore the molecular aspects behind sleep and cellular damage in general. The discussion is fair, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of the work and its implications.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

The manuscript investigates the relationship between sleep, DNA damage, and aging in the Mexican cavefish (Astyanax mexicanus), a species that exhibits significant differences in sleep patterns between surface-dwelling and cave-dwelling populations. The authors aim to understand whether these evolved sleep differences influence the DNA damage response (DDR) and oxidative stress levels in the brain and gut of the fish.

Summary of the Study:

The primary objective of the study is to determine if the reduced sleep observed in cave-dwelling populations is associated with increased DNA damage and altered DDR. The authors compared levels of DNA damage markers and oxidative stress in the brains and guts of surface and cavefish. They also analyzed the transcriptional response to UV-induced DNA damage and evaluated the DDR in embryonic fibroblast cell lines derived from both populations.

Strengths of the Study:

Comparative Approach:
The study leverages the unique evolutionary divergence between surface and cave populations of A. mexicanus to explore fundamental biological questions about sleep and DNA repair.

Multifaceted Methodology:
The authors employ a variety of methods, including immunohistochemistry, RNA sequencing, and in vitro cell line experiments, providing a comprehensive examination of DDR and oxidative stress.

Interesting Findings:

The study presents intriguing results showing elevated DNA damage markers in cavefish brains and increased oxidative stress in cavefish guts, alongside a reduced transcriptional response to UV-induced DNA damage.

Weaknesses of the Study:

Link to Sleep Physiology:
The evidence connecting the observed differences in DNA damage and DDR directly to sleep physiology is not convincingly established. While the study shows distinct DDR patterns, it does not robustly demonstrate that these are a direct result of sleep differences.

Causal Directionality:
The study fails to establish a clear causal relationship between sleep and DNA damage. It is possible that both sleep patterns and DDR responses are downstream effects of a common cause or independent adaptations to the cave environment.

Environmental Considerations:
The lab conditions may not fully replicate the natural environments of the cavefish, potentially influencing the results. The impact of these conditions on the study's findings needs further consideration.

Photoreactivity in Albino Fish:
The use of UV-induced DNA damage as a primary stressor may not be entirely appropriate for albino, blind cavefish. Alternative sources of genotoxic stress should be explored to validate the findings.

Assessment of the Study's Achievements:

The authors partially achieve their aims by demonstrating differences in DNA damage and DDR between surface and cavefish. However, the results do not conclusively support the claim that these differences are driven by or directly related to the evolved sleep patterns in cavefish. The study's primary claims are only partially supported by the data.

Impact and Utility:

The findings contribute valuable insights into the relationship between sleep and DNA repair mechanisms, highlighting potential areas of resilience to DNA damage in cavefish. While the direct link to sleep physiology remains unsubstantiated, the study's data and methods will be useful to researchers investigating evolutionary biology, stress resilience, and the molecular basis of sleep.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

Lloyd, Xia, et al. utilised the existence of surface-dwelling and cave-dwelling morphs of Astyanax mexicanus to explore a proposed link between DNA damage, aging, and the evolution of sleep. Key to this exploration is the behavioural and physiological differences between cavefish and surface fish, with cavefish having been previously shown to have low levels of sleep behaviour, along with metabolic alterations (for example chronically elevated blood glucose levels) in comparison to fish from surface populations. Sleep deprivation, metabolic dysfunction, and DNA damage are thought to be linked and to contribute to aging processes. Given that cavefish seem to show no apparent health consequences of low sleep levels, the authors suggest that they have evolved resilience to sleep loss. Furthermore, as extended wake and loss of sleep are associated with increased rates of damage to DNA (mainly double-strand breaks) and sleep is linked to repair of damaged DNA, the authors propose that changes in DNA damage and repair might underlie the reduced need for sleep in the cavefish morphs relative to their surface-dwelling conspecifics.

To fulfill their aim of exploring links between DNA damage, aging, and the evolution of sleep, the authors employ methods that are largely appropriate, and comparison of cavefish and surface fish morphs from the same species certainly provides a lens by which cellular, physiological and behavioural adaptations can be interrogated. Fluorescence and immunofluorescence are used to measure gut reactive oxygen species and markers of DNA damage and repair processes in the different fish morphs, and measurements of gene expression and protein levels are appropriately used. However, although the sleep tracking and quantification employed are quite well established, issues with the experimental design relate to attempts to link induced DNA damage to sleep regulation (outlined below). Moreover, although the methods used are appropriate for the study of the questions at hand, there are issues with the interpretation of the data and with these results being over-interpreted as evidence to support the paper's conclusions.

This study shows that a marker of DNA repair molecular machinery that is recruited to DNA double-strand breaks (γH2AX) is elevated in brain cells of the cavefish relative to the surface fish and that reactive oxygen species are higher in most areas of the digestive tract of the cavefish than in that of the surface fish. As sleep deprivation has been previously linked to increases in both these parameters in other organisms (both vertebrates and invertebrates), their elevation in the cavefish morph is taken to indicate that the cavefish show signs of the physiological effects of chronic sleep deprivation.

It has been suggested that induction of DNA damage can directly drive sleep behaviour, with a notable study describing both the induction of DNA damage and an increase in sleep/immobility in zebrafish (Danio rerio) larvae by exposure to UV radiation (Zada et al. 2021 doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2021.10.026). In the present study, an increase in sleep/immobility is induced in surface fish larvae by exposure to UV light, but there is no effect on behaviour in cavefish larvae. This finding is interpreted as representing a loss of a sleep-promoting response to DNA damage in the cavefish morph. However, induction of DNA damage is not measured in this experiment, so it is not certain if similar levels of DNA damage are induced in each group of intact larvae, nor how the amount of damage induced compares to the pre-existing levels of DNA damage in the cavefish versus the surface fish larvae. In both this study with A. mexicanus surface morphs and the previous experiments from Zada et al. in zebrafish, observed increases in immobility following UV radiation exposure are interpreted as following from UV-induced DNA damage. However, in interpreting these experiments it is important to note that the cavefish morphs are eyeless and blind. Intense UV radiation is aversive to fish, and it has previously been shown in zebrafish larvae that (at least some) behavioural responses to UV exposure depend on the presence of an intact retina and UV-sensitive cone photoreceptors (Guggiana-Nilo and Engert, 2016, doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2016.00160). It is premature to conclude that the lack of behavioural response to UV exposure in the cavefish is due to a different response to DNA damage, as their lack of eyes will likely inhibit a response to the UV stimulus. Indeed, were the equivalent zebrafish experiment from Zada et al. to be repeated with mutant larvae fish lacking the retinal basis for UV detection it might be found that in this case too, the effects of UV on behaviour are dependent on visual function. Such a finding should prompt a reappraisal of the interpretation that UV exposure's effects on fish sleep/locomotor behaviour are mediated by DNA damage. An additional note, relating to both Lloyd, Xia, et al., and Zada et al., is that though increases in immobility are induced following UV exposure, in neither study have assays of sensory responsiveness been performed during this period. As a decrease in sensory responsiveness is a key behavioural criterion for defining sleep, it is, therefore, unclear that this post-UV behaviour is genuinely increased sleep as opposed to a stress-linked suppression of locomotion due to the intensely aversive UV stimulus.

The effects of UV exposure, in terms of causing damage to DNA, inducing DNA damage response and repair mechanisms, and in causing broader changes in gene expression are assessed in both surface and cavefish larvae, as well as in cell lines derived from these different morphs. Differences in the suite of DNA damage response mechanisms that are upregulated are shown to exist between surface fish and cavefish larvae, though at least some of this difference is likely to be due to differences in gene expression that may exist even without UV exposure (this is discussed further below).

UV exposure induced DNA damage (as measured by levels of cyclobutene pyrimidine dimers) to a similar degree in cell lines derived from both surface fish and cave fish. However, γH2AX shows increased expression only in cells from the surface fish, suggesting induction of an increased DNA repair response in these surface morphs, corroborated by their cells' increased ability to repair damaged DNA constructs experimentally introduced to the cells in a subsequent experiment. This "host cell reactivation assay" is a very interesting assay for measuring DNA repair in cell lines, but the power of this approach might be enhanced by introducing these DNA constructs into larval neurons in vivo (perhaps by electroporation) and by tracking DNA repair in living animals. Indeed, in such a preparation, the relationship between DNA repair and sleep/wake state could be assayed.

Comparing gene expression in tissues from young (here 1 year) and older (here 7-8 years) fish from both cavefish and surface fish morphs, the authors found that there are significant differences in the transcriptional profiles in brain and gut between young and old surface fish, but that for cavefish being 1 year old versus being 7-8 years old did not have a major effect on transcriptional profile. The authors take this as suggesting that there is a reduced transcriptional change occurring during aging and that the transcriptome of the cavefish is resistant to age-linked changes. This seems to be only one of the equally plausible interpretations of the results; it could also be the case that alterations in metabolic cellular and molecular mechanisms, and particularly in responses to DNA damage, in the cavefish mean that these fish adopt their "aged" transcriptome within the first year of life.

A major weakness of the study in its current form is the absence of sleep deprivation experiments to assay the effects of sleep loss on the cellular and molecular parameters in question. Without such experiments, the supposed link of sleep to the molecular, cellular, and "aging" phenotypes remains tenuous. Although the argument might be made that the cavefish represent a naturally "sleep-deprived" population, the cavefish in this study are not sleep-deprived, rather they are adapted to a condition of reduced sleep relative to fish from surface populations. Comparing the effects of depriving fish from each morph on markers of DNA damage and repair, gut reactive oxygen species, and gene expression will be necessary to solidify any proposed link of these phenotypes to sleep.

A second important aspect that limits the interpretability and impact of this study is the absence of information about circadian variations in the parameters measured. A relationship between circadian phase, light exposure, and DNA damage/repair mechanisms is known to exist in A. mexicanus and other teleosts, and differences exist between the cave and surface morphs in their phenomena (Beale et al. 2013, doi: 10.1038/ncomms3769). Although the present study mentions that their experiments do not align with these previous findings, they do not perform the appropriate experiments to determine if such a misalignment is genuine. Specifically, Beale et al. 2013 showed that white light exposure drove enhanced expression of DNA repair genes (including cpdp which is prominent in the current study) in both surface fish and cavefish morphs, but that the magnitude of this change was less in the cave fish because they maintained an elevated expression of these genes in the dark, whereas the darkness suppressed the expression of these genes in the surface fish. If such a phenomenon is present in the setting of the current study, this would likely be a significant confound for the UV-induced gene expression experiments in intact larvae, and undermine the interpretation of the results derived from these experiments: as samples are collected 90 minutes after the dark-light transition (ZT 1.5) it would be expected that both cavefish and surface fish larvae should have a clear induction of DNA repair genes (including cpdp) regardless of 90s of UV exposure. The data in Supplementary Figure 3 is not sufficient to discount this potentially serious confound, as for larvae there is only gene expression data for time points from ZT2 to ZT 14, with all of these time points being in the light phase and not capturing any dynamics that would occur at the most important timepoints from ZT0-ZT1.5, in the relevant period after dark-light transition. Indeed, an appropriate control for this experiment would involve frequent sampling at least across 48 hours to assess light-linked and developmentally-related changes in gene expression that would occur in 5-6dpf larvae of each morph independently of the exposure to UV.

On a broader point, given the effects of both circadian rhythm and lighting conditions that are thought to exist in A. mexicanus (e.g. Beale et al. 2013) experiments involving measurements of DNA damage and repair, gene expression, and reactive oxygen species, etc. at multiple times across >1 24 hour cycle, in both light-dark and constant illumination conditions (e.g. constant dark) would be needed to substantiate the authors' interpretation that their findings indicate consistently altered levels of these parameters in the cavefish relative to the surface fish. Most of the data in this study is taken at only single time points.

In summary, the authors show that there are differences in gene expression, activity of DNA damage response and repair pathways, response to UV radiation, and gut reactive oxygen species between the Pachón cavefish morph and the surface morph of Astyanax mexicanus. However, the data presented does not make the precise nature of these differences very clear, and the interpretation of the results appears to be overly strong. Furthermore, the evidence of a link between these morph-specific differences and sleep is unconvincing.