SUMMARY Diurnal variation in nitrogen homeostasis is observed across phylogeny. But whether these are endogenous rhythms, and if so, molecular mechanisms that link nitrogen homeostasis to the circadian clock remain unknown. Here, we provide evidence that a clock-dependent peripheral oscillator, Krüppel-like factor15 transcriptionally coordinates rhythmic expression of multiple enzymes involved in mammalian nitrogen homeostasis. In particular, Krüppel-like factor15-deficient mice exhibit no discernable amino acid rhythm, and the rhythmicity of ammonia to urea detoxification is impaired. Of the external cues, feeding plays a dominant role in modulating Krüppel-like factor15 rhythm and nitrogen homeostasis. Further, when all behavioral, environmental and dietary cues were controlled in humans, nitrogen homeostasis still expressed endogenous circadian rhythmicity. Thus, in mammals, nitrogen homeostasis exhibits circadian rhythmicity, and is orchestrated by Krüppel-like factor15.

No abstract

Although there is substantial evidence that glutamate mimics the effects of light on the mammalian circadian clock in vitro, it has been reported that microinjection of glutamate into the suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus (SCN) region in vivo does not result in a pattern of phase shifts that mimic those caused by light pulses. The present study was designed to test the hypothesis that microinjection of NMDA into the SCN would induce light-like phase shifts of the circadian clock through activation of the NMDA receptor. Hamsters housed in constant darkness received microinjections of NMDA through guide cannulas aimed at the SCN region at various times throughout the circadian cycle. Wheel running was monitored as a measure of circadian phase. Microinjection of NMDA resulted in circadian phase shifts, the size and direction of which were dependent on the time of injection. The resulting phase-response curve closely resembled that of light. The circadian response showed a clear dose-dependence at circadian time (CT) 13.5 but not at CT19. Both phase delays and advances induced by NMDA were blocked by coinjection of the NMDA antagonist 2-amino-5-phosphopentanoic acid but were slightly attenuated by the non-NMDA antagonist 6-nitro-7-sulfamoylbenzo[f]quinoxaline-2,3-dione disodium. The ability of NMDA to induce phase shifts was not altered by coinjection with tetrodotoxin. These data are consistent with the hypothesis that activation of NMDA receptors is a critical step in the transmission of photic information to the SCN.

No abstract

BackgroundThe prostate gland represents a multifaceted system in which prostate epithelia and stroma have distinct physiological roles. To understand the interaction between stroma and glandular epithelia, it is essential to delineate the gene expression profiles of these two tissue types in prostate cancer. Most studies have compared tumor and normal samples by performing global expression analysis using a mixture of cell populations. This report presents the first study of prostate tumor tissue that examines patterns of differential expression between specific cell types using laser capture microdissection (LCM).MethodsLCM was used to isolate distinct cell-type populations and identify their gene expression differences using oligonucleotide microarrays. Ten differentially expressed genes were then analyzed in paired tumor and non-neoplastic prostate tissues by quantitative real-time PCR. Expression patterns of the transcription factors, WT1 and EGR1, were further compared in established prostate cell lines. WT1 protein expression was also examined in prostate tissue microarrays using immunohistochemistry.ResultsThe two-step method of laser capture and microarray analysis identified nearly 500 genes whose expression levels were significantly different in prostate epithelial versus stromal tissues. Several genes expressed in epithelial cells (WT1, GATA2, and FGFR-3) were more highly expressed in neoplastic than in non-neoplastic tissues; conversely several genes expressed in stromal cells (CCL5, CXCL13, IGF-1, FGF-2, and IGFBP3) were more highly expressed in non-neoplastic than in neoplastic tissues. Notably, EGR1 was also differentially expressed between epithelial and stromal tissues. Expression of WT1 and EGR1 in cell lines was consistent with these patterns of differential expression. Importantly, WT1 protein expression was demonstrated in tumor tissues and was absent in normal and benign tissues.ConclusionsThe prostate represents a complex mix of cell types and there is a need to analyze distinct cell populations to better understand their potential interactions. In the present study, LCM and microarray analysis were used to identify novel gene expression patterns in prostate cell populations, including identification of WT1 expression in epithelial cells. The relevance of WT1 expression in prostate cancer was confirmed by analysis of tumor tissue and cell lines, suggesting a potential role for WT1 in prostate tumorigenesis.