Circadian Responses to Light in the BTBR Mouse
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Animals with altered freerunning periods are valuable in understanding properties of the circadian clock. Understanding the relationship between endogenous clock properties, entrainment, and influence of light in terms of parametric and non-parametric models can help us better understand how different populations adapt to external light cycles. Many clinical populations often show significant changes in circadian properties that in turn cause sleep and circadian problems, possibly exacerbating their underlying clinical condition. BTBR T + Itpr3 tf /J (BTBR) mice are a model commonly used for the study of autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Adults and adolescents with ASD frequently exhibit profound sleep and circadian disruptions, including increased latency to sleep, insomnia, advanced and delayed sleep phase disorders, and sleep fragmentation. Here, we investigated the circadian phenotype of BTBR mice in freerunning and light-entrained conditions and found that this strain of mice showed noticeably short freerunning periods (~22.75 h). In addition, when compared to C57BL/6J controls, BTBR mice also showed higher levels of activity even though this activity was compressed into a shorter active phase. Phase delays and phase advances to light were significantly larger in BTBR mice. Despite the short freerunning period, BTBR mice exhibited normal entrainment in light-dark cycles and accelerated entrainment to both advanced and delayed light cycles. Their ability to entrain to skeleton photoperiods of 1 min suggests that this entrainment cannot be attributed to masking. Period differences were also correlated with differences in the number of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide–expressing cells in the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN). Overall, the BTBR model, with their unique freerunning and entrainment properties, makes an interesting model to understand the underlying circadian clock.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".