|
| ||
|
|
||
Central Oscillator (central + oscillator)
Selected AbstractsOrthostatic tremor arises from an oscillator in the posterior fossaMOVEMENT DISORDERS, Issue 2 2001Y.R. Wu MD Abstract We tested the hypotheses that orthostatic tremor is generated by a central oscillator and that the tremor is expressed through spinal Ib interneurons. Six patients with orthostatic tremor were examined. The tremor was reset by electrical stimulation over the posterior fossa at intensities that were below the threshold for a motor evoked potential (MEP) but was not reset by transcranial magnetic stimulation over the motor cortex that did produce an MEP. It is argued that the oscillator involves the cerebellum or brainstem. The inhibition of voluntary EMG produced by stimulation over tendons, which has been attributed to effects from Golgi tendon organs (GTO), was not modulated in synchrony with the tremor. We were unable to demonstrate, therefore, that the tremor is expressed through GTO interneurons with this method. © 2001 Movement Disorder Society. [source] Circadian rhythms in plants: a millennial viewPHYSIOLOGIA PLANTARUM, Issue 4 2000C. Robertson McClung Circadian rhythms are endogenous rhythms with periods of approximately 24 h. These rhythms are widespread both within any given organism and among diverse taxa. As genetic and molecular biological studies, primarily in a subset of model organisms, have begun to identify the components of circadian systems, there is optimism that we will soon achieve a detailed molecular understanding of circadian timing mechanisms. Although plants have provided many examples of rhythmic outputs, and our understanding of photoreceptors of circadian input pathways is well-advanced, plants have lagged behind other groups of organisms in the identification of components of the central circadian oscillator. However, there are now a number of promising candidates for components of plant circadian clocks, and it seems probable that we will soon know the details of a plant central oscillator. Moreover, there is also accumulating evidence that plants and other organisms house multiple circadian clocks, both in different tissues and, quite probably, within individual cells. This provides an unanticipated level of complexity with the potential for interaction among these multiple oscillators. [source] RFI2, a RING-domain zinc finger protein, negatively regulates CONSTANS expression and photoperiodic floweringTHE PLANT JOURNAL, Issue 5 2006Mingjie Chen Summary The red and far-red light-absorbing phytochromes interact with the circadian clock, a central oscillator that sustains a 24-h period, to measure accurately seasonal changes in day-length and regulate the expression of several key flowering genes. The interactions and subsequent signalling steps upstream of the flowering genes such as CONSTANS (CO) and FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) remain largely unknown. We report here that a photomorphogenic mutant, red and far-red insensitive 2-1 ( rfi2-1), flowered early particularly under long days. The rfi2-1 mutation also enhanced the expression of CO and FT under day/night cycles or constant light. Both co-2 and gigantea-2 (gi-2) were epistatic to rfi2-1 in their flowering responses. The gi-2 mutation was also epistatic to the rfi2-1 mutation in the expression of CO and hypocotyl elongation. However, the rfi2-1 mutation did not affect the expression of GI, a gene that mediates between the circadian clock and the expression of CO. Like many other flowering genes, the expression of RFI2 oscillated under day/night cycles and was rhythmic under constant light. The amplitude of the rhythmic expression of RFI2 was significantly reduced in phyB-9 or lhy-20 plants, and was also affected by the gi-2 mutation. As previously reported, the gi-2 mutation affects the period length and amplitude of CCA1 and LHY expression, and GI may act through a feedback loop to maintain a proper circadian function. We propose a regulatory step in which RFI2 represses the expression of CO, whereas GI may maintain the proper expression of RFI2 through its positive action on the circadian clock. The regulatory step serves to tune the circadian outputs that control the expression of CO and photoperiodic flowering. [source] ELF4 is a phytochrome-regulated component of a negative-feedback loop involving the central oscillator components CCA1 and LHYTHE PLANT JOURNAL, Issue 2 2005Elise A. Kikis Summary Evidence has been presented that a negative transcriptional feedback loop formed by the genes CIRCADIAN CLOCK ASSOCIATED (CCA1), LATE ELONGATED HYPOCOTYL (LHY) and TIMING OF CAB (TOC1) constitutes the core of the central oscillator of the circadian clock in Arabidopsis. Here we show that these genes are expressed at constant, basal levels in dark-grown seedlings. Transfer to constant red light (Rc) rapidly induces a biphasic pattern of CCA1 and LHY expression, and a reciprocal TOC1 expression pattern over the first 24 h, consistent with initial induction of this synchronous oscillation by the light signal. We have used this assay with wild-type and mutant seedlings to examine the role of these oscillator components, and to determine the function of ELF3 and ELF4 in their light-regulated expression. The data show that whereas TOC1 is necessary for light-induced CCA1/LHY expression, the combined absence of CCA1 and LHY has little effect on the pattern of light-induced TOC1 expression, indicating that the negative regulatory arm of the proposed oscillator is not fully functional during initial seedling de-etiolation. By contrast, ELF4 is necessary for light-induced expression of both CCA1 and LHY, and conversely, CCA1 and LHY act negatively on light-induced ELF4 expression. Together with the observation that the temporal light-induced expression profile of ELF4 is counter-phased to that of CCA1 and LHY and parallels that of TOC1, these data are consistent with a previously unrecognized negative-feedback loop formed by CCA1/LHY and ELF4 in a manner analogous to the proposed CCA1/LHY/TOC1 oscillator. ELF3 is also necessary for light-induced CCA1/LHY expression, but it is neither light-induced nor clock-regulated during de-etiolation. Taken together, the data suggest (a) that ELF3, ELF4, and TOC1 all function in the primary, phytochrome-mediated light-input pathway to the circadian oscillator in Arabidopsis; and (b) that this oscillator consists of two or more interlocking transcriptional feedback loops that may be differentially operative during initial light induction and under steady-state circadian conditions in entrained green plants. [source] | ||||||||||