4.6 Article

Endurance exercise modifies the circadian clock in zebrafish (Danio rerio) temperature independently

期刊

ACTA PHYSIOLOGICA
卷 205, 期 1, 页码 167-176

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-1716.2011.02382.x

关键词

circadian clock; gene transcription; temperature; training; zebrafish; zeitgeber

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: Several rodent and human studies revealed that physical exercise acts as a non-photic zeitgeber for the circadian clock. The intrinsic entraining mechanism is still unknown, although it was assumed that the exercise-mediated increase in core temperature could be the underlying zeitgeber. As the homoeostatic control of mammalian core temperature interferes strongly with the investigation of this hypothesis, the present study used the poikilotherm zebrafish to answer this question. Methods: Gene transcription levels of the two circadian core clock genes period1 and clock1 were quantified using real-time qPCR of whole animal zebrafish larvae. Results: Long-term endurance exercise of zebrafish larvae aged 9-15 days post-fertilization (dpf) or 21-32 dpf at a constant water temperature of 25 degrees C caused significantly altered transcription levels of the circadian genes period1 and clock1. Cosinor analysis of diurnal transcription profiles obtained after 3 days of swim training revealed significant differences regarding acrophase, mesor and amplitude of period1, resulting in a phase delay of the gene oscillation. After termination of the exercise bout, at 15 dpf, oscillation amplitudes of both circadian genes were significantly reduced. Conclusion: The results showed that physical exercise is able to affect the transcription of circadian genes in developing zebrafish larvae. Considering the poikilothermy of zebrafish, an exercise-mediated change in body core temperature could be excluded as the underlying intrinsic zeitgeber. However, the day-active zebrafish arises as a useful model to address the synchronizing effect of exercise on the circadian clock.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据