ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2022
Input integration by the circadian clock exhibits nonadditivity and fold-change detection.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of continuous light and skeleton photoperiods on photosynthesis and circadian rhythm in celery.Biotechnology letters · 2026Article
- Steroid hormone receptors through Cry2 are key players in the circadian clock response to serum.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Parameterized resetting model captures dose-dependent entrainment of the mouse circadian clock.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Circadian regulation of liver function: from molecular mechanisms to disease pathophysiology.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2023Review
- Timing Matters: The Interplay between Early Mealtime, Circadian Rhythms, Gene Expression, Circadian Hormones, and Metabolism-A Narrative Review.Clocks & sleep · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Circadian clocks are synchronized by external timing cues to align with one another and the environment. Various signaling pathways have been shown to independently reset the phase of the clock. However, in the body, circadian clocks are exposed to a multitude of potential timing cues with complex temporal dynamics, raising the question of how clocks integrate information in response to multiple signals. To investigate different modes of signal integration by the circadian clock, we used Circa-SCOPE, a method we recently developed for high-throughput phase resetting analysis. We found that simultaneous exposure to different combinations of known pharmacological resetting agents elicits a diverse range of responses. Often, the response was nonadditive and could not be readily predicted by the response to the individual signals. For instance, we observed that dexamethasone is dominant over other tested inputs. In the case of signals administered sequentially, the background levels of a signal attenuated subsequent resetting by the same signal, but not by signals acting through a different pathway. This led us to examine whether the circadian clock is sensitive to relative rather than absolute levels of the signal. Importantly, our analysis revealed the involvement of a signal-specific fold-change detection mechanism in the clock response. This mechanism likely stems from properties of the signaling pathway that are upstream to the clock. Overall, our findings elucidate modes of input integration by the circadian clock, with potential relevance to clock resetting under both physiological and pathological conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.