Brian J. Prendergast

The effect of circadian rhythm (CR) disruption on immune function depends on the method by which CRs are disrupted. Behavioral and thermoregulatory responses induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) treatment were assessed in female Siberian hamsters in which circadian locomotor activity (LMA) rhythms were eliminated by exposure to a disruptive phase-shifting protocol (DPS) that sustains arrhythmicity even when hamsters are housed in a light-dark cycle. This noninvasive treatment avoids genome manipulations and neurological damage associated with other models of CR disruption. Circadian rhythmic (RHYTH) and arrhythmic (ARR) hamsters housed in a 16L:8D photocycle were injected with bacterial LPS near the onset of the light (zeitgeber time 1; ZT1) or dark (ZT16) phase. LPS injections at ZT16 and ZT1 elicited febrile responses in both RHYTH and ARR hamsters, but the effect was attenuated in the arrhythmic females. In ZT16, LPS inhibited LMA in the dark phase immediately after injection but not on subsequent nights in both chronotypes; in contrast, LPS at ZT1 elicited more enduring (~4 day) locomotor hypoactivity in ARR than in RHYTH hamsters. Power and period of dark-phase ultradian rhythms (URs) in LMA and T_b were markedly altered by LPS treatment, as was the power in the circadian waveform. Disrupted circadian rhythms in this model system attenuated responses to LPS in a trait- and ZT-specific manner; changes in UR period and power are novel components of the acute-phase response to infection that may affect energy conservation.

Three experiments addressed whether pronounced alterations in the circadian system yielded concomitant changes in ultradian timing. Female Siberian hamsters were housed in a 16L:8D photoperiod after being subjected to a disruptive phase-shifting protocol that produced 3 distinct permanent circadian phenotypes: some hamsters entrained their circadian rhythms (CRs) with predominantly nocturnal locomotor activity (ENTR), others displayed free-running CRs (FR), and a third cohort was circadian arrhythmic (ARR). The period of the ultradian locomotor rhythm (UR) did not differ among the 3 circadian phenotypes; neuroendocrine generation of URs remains viable in the absence of coherent circadian organization and appears to be mediated by substrates functionally and anatomically distinct from those that generate CRs. Pronounced light-dark differences in several UR characteristics in ENTR hamsters were completely absent in circadian arrhythmic hamsters. The disruptive phase-shifting protocol may compromise direct visual input to ultradian oscillators but more likely indirectly affects URs by interrupting visual afference to the circadian system. Additional experiments documented that deuterium oxide and constant light, each of which substantially lengthened the period of free-running CRs, failed to change the period of concurrently monitored URs. The resistance of URs to deuteration contrasts with the slowing of virtually all other biological timing processes, including CRs. Considered together, the present results point to the existence of separable control mechanisms for generation of circadian and ultradian rhythms.