The organization of biological activities into daily cycles is universal in organisms as diverse as cyanobacteria, fungi, algae, plants, flies, birds and man. Comparisons of circadian clocks in unicellular and multicellular organisms using molecular genetics and genomics have provided new insights into the mechanisms and complexity of clock systems. Whereas unicellular organisms require stand-alone clocks that can generate 24-hour rhythms for diverse processes, organisms with differentiated tissues can partition clock function to generate and coordinate different rhythms. In both cases, the temporal coordination of a multi-oscillator system is essential for producing robust circadian rhythms of gene expression and biological activity.The temporal coordination of internal biological processes, both among these processes and with external environmental cycles, is crucial to the health and survival of diverse organisms, from bacteria to humans. Central to this coordination is an internal CLOCK that controls CIRCADIAN RHYTHMS of gene expression and the resulting biological activity (BOX 1). Despite disparate phylogenetic origins and vast differences in complexity among the species that show circadian rhythmicity, at the core of all circadian clocks is at least one internal autonomous circadian OSCILLATOR. These oscillators contain positive and negative elements that form autoregulatory feedback loops, and in many cases these loops are used to generate 24-hour timing circuits 1, 2 . Components of these loops can directly or indirectly receive environmental input to allow ENTRAINMENT of the clock to environmental time and transfer temporal information through output Competing interests statementThe authors declare no competing financial interests. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptNat Rev Genet. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2009 September 1. Published in final edited form as:Nat Rev Genet. 2005 July ; 6(7): 544-556. doi:10.1038/nrg1633. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript pathways to regulate rhythmic clock-controlled gene (CCG) expression and rhythmic biological activity.Whereas a self-contained clock in single-celled organisms programmes 24-hour rhythms in diverse processes, multicellular organisms with differentiated tissues can partition clock function among different cell types to coordinate tissue-specific rhythms and maintain precision. Now that individual molecular circadian oscillators have been sufficiently described, it has become possible to go beyond single oscillators to try and understand how multiple oscillators are integrated into circadian systems. Evidence accumulated in recent years indicates that the intracellular oscillator systems of single-celled organisms might be more complex than those of higher eukaryotes, whereas the complexity of circadian outputs in multicellular organisms is an emergent property of intercellular interactions. In this review, we discuss the complexity of the circadian clocks on the basis of molecular genetic and geno...

Cyanobacteria are the simplest organisms known to have a circadian clock. A circadian clock gene cluster kaiABC was cloned from the cyanobacterium Synechococcus. Nineteen clock mutations were mapped to the three kai genes. Promoter activities upstream of the kaiA and kaiB genes showed circadian rhythms of expression, and both kaiA and kaiBC messenger RNAs displayed circadian cycling. Inactivation of any single kai gene abolished these rhythms and reduced kaiBC-promoter activity. Continuous kaiC overexpression repressed the kaiBC promoter, whereas kaiA overexpression enhanced it. Temporal kaiC overexpression reset the phase of the rhythms. Thus, a negative feedback control of kaiC expression by KaiC generates a circadian oscillation in cyanobacteria, and KaiA sustains the oscillation by enhancing kaiC expression.

In some organisms longevity, growth, and developmental rate are improved when they are maintained on a light/dark cycle, the period of which "resonates" optimally with the period of the endogenous circadian clock. However, to our knowledge no studies have demonstrated that reproductive fitness per se is improved by resonance between the endogenous clock and the environmental cycle. We tested the adaptive significance of circadian programming by measuring the relative fitness under competition between various strains of cyanobacteria expressing different circadian periods. Strains that had a circadian period similar to that of the light/dark cycle were favored under competition in a manner that indicates the action of soft selection.

We have used a luciferase reporter gene and continuous automated monitoring of bioluminescence to demonstrate unequivocally that cyanobacteria exhibit circadian behaviors that are fundamentally the same as circadian rhythms of eukaryotes. We also show that these rhythms can be studied by molecular methods in Synechococcus sp. PCC7942, a strain for which genetic transformation is well established. A promoterless segment of the Vibrio harveyi luciferase structural genes (luxAB) was introduced downstream of the promoter for the Synechococcus psbAI gene, which encodes a photosystem H protein. This reporter construction was recombined into the Synechococcus chromosome, and bioluminescence was monitored under conditions of constant illumination following entrainment to light and dark cycles. The reporter strain, AMC149, expressed a rhythm of bioluminescence which satisfies the criteria of circadian rhythms: persistence in constant conditions, phase resetting by light/dark signals, and temperature compensation of the period. Rhythmic changes in levels of the native psbAl message following light/dark entrainment supported the reporter data.The behavior of this prokaryote disproves the dogma that circadian mechanisms must be based on eukaryotic cellular organization. Moreover, the cyanobacterial strain described here provides an efficient experimental system for molecular analysis of the circadian clock.Despite decades of study, the biochemical mechanism of circadian clocks remains a mystery. Circadian rhythms have been found in a wide spectrum of organisms (1) but, until recently, only in eukaryotes (2, 3). In the last few years circadian rhythms have been reported in the prokaryotic cyanobacteria (4-7). Unfortunately, these studies employed genetically intractable cyanobacterial strains and laborious assays to detect the rhythms. These difficulties have impeded the demonstration that the prokaryotic rhythms are equivalent to the circadian rhythms of eukaryotes.Proof that prokaryotes have circadian pacemakers has threefold significance. (i) With regard to the evolutionary emergence of circadian behavior: Can the simpler organization of prokaryotes support a circadian mechanism? Is circadian behavior adaptive for prokaryotic niches as well as for eukaryotic niches? (ii) The previous failure of attempts to discover circadian clocks in prokaryotes has led to a "eukaryotes-only" dogma which limited the types ofmodels that have been considered for the underlying clock mechanism (3). Now that prokaryotic cellular organization appears to be fully competent to generate circadian oscillations, a broader range of mechanisms can be seriously evaluated as candidates for the circadian pacemaker. (iii) The realization thatThe publication costs of this article were defrayed in part by page charge payment. This article must therefore be hereby marked "advertisement" in accordance with 18 U.S.C. §1734 solely to indicate this fact.prokaryotes express circadian behavior is significant from the perspective of designing an optimal s...