Photic Sensitivity for Circadian Response to Light Varies with Photoperiod
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The response of the circadian system to light varies markedly depending on photic history. Under short day lengths, hamsters exhibit larger maximal light-induced phase shifts as compared with those under longer photoperiods. However, effects of photoperiod length on sensitivity to subsaturating light remain unknown. Here, Syrian hamsters were entrained to long or short photoperiods and subsequently exposed to a 15-min light pulse across a range of irradiances (0-68.03 µW/cm(2)) to phase shift activity rhythms. Phase advances exhibited a dose response, with increasing irradiances eliciting greater phase resetting in both conditions. Photic sensitivity, as measured by the half-saturation constant, was increased 40-fold in the short photoperiod condition. In addition, irradiances that generated similar phase advances under short and long days produced equivalent phase delays, and equal photon doses produced larger delays in the short photoperiod condition. Mechanistically, equivalent light exposure induced greater pERK, PER1, and cFOS immunoreactivity in the suprachiasmatic nuclei of animals under shorter days. Patterns of immunoreactivity in all 3 proteins were related to the size of the phase shift rather than the intensity of the photic stimulus, suggesting that photoperiod modulation of light sensitivity lies upstream of these events within the signal transduction cascade. This modulation of light sensitivity by photoperiod means that considerably less light is necessary to elicit a circadian response under the relatively shorter days of winter, extending upon the known seasonal changes in sensitivity of sensory systems. Further characterizing the mechanisms by which photoperiod alters photic response may provide a potent tool for optimizing light treatment for circadian and affective disorders in humans.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".