Sleep–wake-driven and circadian contributions to daily rhythms in gene expression and chromatin accessibility in the murine cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The timing and duration of sleep results from the interaction between a homeostatic sleep–wake-driven process and a periodic circadian process, and involves changes in gene regulation and expression. Unraveling the contributions of both processes and their interaction to transcriptional and epigenomic regulatory dynamics requires sampling over time under conditions of unperturbed and perturbed sleep. We profiled mRNA expression and chromatin accessibility in the cerebral cortex of mice over a 3-d period, including a 6-h sleep deprivation (SD) on day 2. We used mathematical modeling to integrate time series of mRNA expression data with sleep–wake history, which established that a large proportion of rhythmic genes are governed by the homeostatic process with varying degrees of interaction with the circadian process, sometimes working in opposition. Remarkably, SD caused long-term effects on gene-expression dynamics, outlasting phenotypic recovery, most strikingly illustrated by a damped oscillation of most core clock genes, including Arntl / Bmal1 , suggesting that enforced wakefulness directly impacts the molecular clock machinery. Chromatin accessibility proved highly plastic and dynamically affected by SD. Dynamics in distal regions, rather than promoters, correlated with mRNA expression, implying that changes in expression result from constitutively accessible promoters under the influence of enhancers or repressors. Serum response factor (SRF) was predicted as a transcriptional regulator driving immediate response, suggesting that SRF activity mirrors the build-up and release of sleep pressure. Our results demonstrate that a single, short SD has long-term aftereffects at the genomic regulatory level and highlights the importance of the sleep–wake distribution to diurnal rhythmicity and circadian processes.
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) | 0.000 | 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".