What the title says.

For instance in Drosophila melanogaster and Mus musculus (see Patke et al. 2020) the CLOCK, CYCLE/BMAL, CRYPTOCHROME, PERIOD setup seems to be conserved. But other components also appear to be orthologs, and can be considered conserved (e.g., VRILLE from D. melanogaster and NFIL3 from M. musculus).

So in this case, what constitutes the "core" clock?

  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "the core clock"? Perhaps researching non-genetic evidence for circadian clocks might help. $\endgroup$
    – Armand
    Jul 11, 2021 at 18:10
  • $\begingroup$ Most eukaryotic circadian clocks--as far as I know--consist of interlocking transcriptional-translational feedback loops (TTFLs) and some adjacent machinery. All of this taken together would typically comprise of a number of genes and gene products. Some of these genes are conserved across eukaryota (as an example) and some aren't. My question basically resolves to which of the conserved genes (and which non-conserved genes, if any) would constitute the "beating heart" of the circadian clock in that this would represent the bare minimum necessary to be called a circadian clock. $\endgroup$
    – Dunois
    Jul 11, 2021 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ Apologies for this being long-winded, @Armand. $\endgroup$
    – Dunois
    Jul 11, 2021 at 20:14
  • $\begingroup$ And what makes you assume such a common core exists? Nature, unfortunately, doesn’t always play according to our rules. $\endgroup$
    – David
    Jul 13, 2021 at 22:18
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not assuming there is such a "core". That was precisely my question: whether or not some subset of the transcription factors and whatnot involved in the various circadian clocks across species could be considered to constitute a "core" based on persistent involvement in the clock despite speciation and other evolutionary processes. Once again, I apologize for framing my question poorly. $\endgroup$
    – Dunois
    Jul 15, 2021 at 7:35


You must log in to answer this question.