This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Majoy, S. B. Articles by Heideman, P. D. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Majoy, S. B. Articles by Heideman, P. D. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Tau Differences between Short-Day Responsive and Short-Day Nonresponsive White-Footed Mice (Peromyscus leucopus) Do Not Affect Reproductive Photoresponsiveness

Paul D. Heideman

Biology Department, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA 23187-8795, USA

In laboratory-bred rodent populations, intraspecific variation in circadian system organization is a known cause of individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness. The authors sought to determine whether circadian system variation accounted for individual variation in reproductive photoresponsiveness in a single, highly genetically variable population of Peromyscus leucopusrecently derived from the wild. Running-wheel activity patterns of male and female mice, aged 70 to 90 days, from artificially selected lines of reproductively photoresponsive (R) and nonresponsive (NR) lines were monitored under short-day photoperiod (8 h light, 16 h dark), long-day photoperiod (16 h light, 8 h dark), and constant darkness (DD). NR mice displayed a significantly longer mean free-running period (24.08 h) in DD compared with R mice (23.75 h), due in large part to a difference between NR and R females (24.25 h vs. 23.74 h, respectively). All other entrainment characteristics (alpha, phase angle of activity) under short days, long days, and DD were similar between R and NR mice. Variation in free- running period and entrainment characteristics has been shown to affect photoresponsiveness in other rodent species by altering the manner in which the circadian system interprets short days. To determine whether variation in photoresponsiveness in P. leucopus is due to differences in free-running period instead of variation downstream from the central circadian clock in the pathway controlling photoresponsiveness, the authors exposed young R and NR mice to DD and measured the effect on reproductive organ development. If variation in free-running period affected how the circadian system of mice interpreted short days, then both R and NR mice exposed to DD should have exhibited a delay in gonadal development. Only R mice exhibited pubertal delay in DD. NR mice exhibited large paired testes, paired seminal vesicles, paired ovaries, and uterine weight typical of mice nonresponsive to short days, whereas R mice exhibited reproductive organ weight typical of mice responsive to short days. These data suggest that despite significant differences in free-running period between R and NR mice, individual variation in photoresponsiveness is not due to differences in how the circadian systems of R and NR mice interpret the LD cycle.

Key Words: Peromyscus leucopus • circadian rhythm • photoresponsiveness • free-running period • individual variation • seasonal reproduction

Journal of Biological Rhythms, Vol. 15, No. 6, 500-512 (2000)
DOI: 10.1177/074873040001500607


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. D. Heideman and J. T. Pittman Microevolution of neuroendocrine mechanisms regulating reproductive timing in Peromyscus leucopus Integr. Comp. Biol., November 1, 2009; 49(5): 550 - 562. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Avigdor, S. D. Sullivan, and P. D. Heideman Response to selection for photoperiod responsiveness on the density and location of mature GnRH-releasing neurons Am J Physiol Regulatory Integrative Comp Physiol, May 1, 2005; 288(5): R1226 - R1236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]