Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0343991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343991

Temporal dynamics and functional annotation of transcriptome rhythmicity in HEK293T cells

Yuling Sun 1,#, Huiyu Dong 2,#, Fei Ge 3,#, Ying Zhao 1, Shuhan Yang 1, Yidong Ding 2, Min Dong 3, Liming Wang 3,*, Tao Zhang 1,*
Editor: Nicholas S Foulkes4
PMCID: PMC12944709  PMID: 41746989

Abstract

The endogenous circadian clock drives rhythmic processes in nearly all human cells; however, the temporal organization of the transcriptome in HEK293T cells, a widely used cell line, remains incompletely defined. We synchronized HEK293T cells and performed RNA sequencing at thirteen time points across a 48-hour cycle to map their transcriptome dynamics. Across the time course, principal component analysis revealed clear time point dependent separation of the global transcriptomes; however, coefficient of variation analyses indicated substantially increased divergence among biological replicates starting at T28. In addition, canonical core clock genes showed no detectable circadian rhythmicity when the analysis window extended beyond 28 hours. Genome-wide, only 785 expressed genes displayed rhythmic expression. These rhythmic genes were enriched for cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments, cytoskeletal and membrane related structures, and molecular functions including GTPase activator activity and metal ion binding. Further analysis of expression patterns among arrhythmic genes revealed that only 645 arrhythmic genes displayed time-dependent expression; notably, these genes were enriched in biologically important pathways, including G alpha signaling and structural constituents of chromatin. Together, these results indicate that HEK293T cells exhibit weak intrinsic circadian transcriptome rhythmicity, with most transcripts remaining time independent across the sampled window. This dataset provides a time resolved reference framework to distinguish time-dependent from time-independent gene regulation in HEK293T cells, informing time aware experimental design and interpretation.

Introduction

The endogenous circadian clock, an evolutionary adaptation to daily environmental cycles, orchestrates rhythmic biological processes. These rhythms arise from cell-autonomous molecular machinery composed of interlocking transcription-translation feedback loops involving core clock genes expressed in nearly all human cells [1]. In mammals, the transcriptional activators CLOCK and BMAL1 form heterodimers that bind E-box elements and drive the transcription of core repressors, including PER1, PER2, PER3, CRY1, and CRY2, as well as additional target genes [2]. PER/CRY heterodimers then translocate to the nucleus, inhibiting CLOCK:BMAL1-mediated transcription of their own genes and other circadian target genes [3,4]. Auxiliary loops further stabilize this clockwork. CLOCK:BMAL1 activates transcription of REV-ERBs (α, β) and RORs (α, β, γ) [5], which exert opposing effects on BMAL1 transcription: REV-ERBs repress while RORs activate, creating a critical stabilizing feedback loop [6,7]. Beyond the core network, clock-controlled genes (CCGs), such as DBP, fine-tune core loop dynamics and influence oscillatory behavior [8,9].

In mammals, approximately 43% of protein-coding genes exhibit rhythmic expression, with peak times that coordinate diverse biological functions [10]. This temporal regulation operates across multiple layers. At the chromatin level, core clock transcription factors modulate local accessibility and recruit RNA polymerase II, generating genome-wide waves of transcription that follow daily cycles [11,12]. Post-transcriptional mechanisms further refine these rhythms, particularly in RNA processing, where alternative splicing events are temporally regulated by the clock [13,14]. At the translational level, ribosome profiling reveals daily waves of protein synthesis, including increased translation of nuclear-encoded genes that control mitochondrial activity, thereby linking nutrient signals and circadian timing to the liver translatome [2,15].

This temporal orchestration is evident in the regulation of ATP binding proteins, where the circadian clock drives the oscillations of transporters and kinases to synchronize cellular energy expenditure with metabolic demand [16]. Furthermore, the clock modulates GTPase activator activity, providing a mechanism for the time-dependent gating of intracellular signaling cascades and vesicular trafficking essential for cellular homeostasis [17]. Additionally, the rhythmic control of metal ion binding proteins ensures the homeostatic regulation of essential cofactors, such as Mg2+ and Zn2+, which are critical for both the structural integrity of transcription factors and the enzymatic efficiency of the core molecular oscillator itself [18]. These circadian programs make the timing of experiments a critical factor, as molecular and physiological outcomes vary across the day.

Experiments performed at different circadian phases can produce divergent results. For instance, chromatin immunoprecipitation and related assays capture the time-specific binding of core clock factors and RNA polymerase II recruitment; therefore, ChIP-based measurements depend heavily on the sampling time [19]. Quantitative proteomics reveals daily fluctuations in protein phosphorylation, suggesting that Western blot detection of phosphorylated proteins or kinase activity assays may vary depending on the time of day [20]. Enzymatic assays of nucleotide excision repair also oscillate throughout the day, meaning measurements of repair capacity vary with collection time [21,22]. Additionally, the circadian control of alternative splicing and translational efficiency suggests that RT-PCR splicing analyses, ribosome profiling, or protein synthesis assays may yield non-concordant results if performed at different time points [23]. These findings highlight the importance of considering circadian timing in experimental design to ensure reproducible and interpretable results.

HEK293T cells originate from human embryonic kidney tissue [24]. The kidney harbors an intrinsic circadian clock that regulates renal solute transport, metabolism, and systemic homeostasis, and it also shapes time-dependent pharmacology [2527]. In the laboratory, HEK293T cells serve as a versatile platform for molecular and biochemical research. Their high transfection efficiency allows rapid gene overexpression for mechanistic studies and supports the production of correctly folded human proteins for biochemical characterization and structural analysis [28,29]. The line is also widely used for mapping protein interactions via coimmunoprecipitation and affinity purification coupled to mass spectrometry, generating extensive interaction networks [30]. Combined with straightforward culture requirements and robust growth, HEK293T cells provide an ideal system for reporter assays, receptor and signaling studies, as well as other functional cell-based analyses. Despite their widespread use, a comprehensive assessment of circadian transcriptional rhythms in HEK293T cells has been lacking. Establishing the full rhythmic transcriptomic landscape would improve experimental design and enhance the interpretation of temporal data.

In this study, we generated a time-resolved RNA-seq atlas of DEX synchronized HEK293T cells and systematically quantified both circadian and non-circadian transcripts. Despite clear time point dependent separation of global transcriptomes, canonical core clock genes showed no detectable rhythmicity across the T0-T28 window. Using a stringent BH-adjusted Q value threshold (BH.Q < 0.05), we identified circadian rhythmicity in only 4.7% of expressed genes, indicating weak transcriptome-wide oscillation in this model. Extending beyond rhythmicity, we further dissected the arrhythmic transcriptome by adjacent time-point DEG comparisons and found that the vast majority of genes (95.3%) exhibited time-independent expression, consistent with stable baseline transcriptional programs. Notably, the small subset of time-dependent but arrhythmic genes was selectively enriched in biologically important pathways, including G alpha signaling and structure of chromatin. Highlighting these findings, our work provides a practical framework to distinguish time-independent from time-dependent regulation in HEK293T cells, enabling more time-aware experimental design and interpretation.

Materials and methods

Cell culture and sample collection

The human embryonic kidney 293T (HEK293T) cell line used in this study was obtained from the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC). Cells were cultured in Dulbecco’s Modified Eagle Medium (DMEM) with high glucose, supplemented with 10% fetal bovine serum (FBS), 50 U/mL penicillin, and 50 mg/mL streptomycin, and maintained at 37 °C in 5% CO₂. For synchronization, cells were plated in 6-well plates and treated with 200 nM dexamethasone (DEX, Sigma-Aldrich, MO, USA) in PBS for 0.5 hours. Samples were harvested at 4-hour intervals across a 48-hour time course, starting 24 hours after DEX synchronization, yielding a total of 13 time points.

Transcriptome sequence

Cell pellets were snap frozen and stored at −80 °C. Total RNA was extracted using the TRIzol protocol (Thermo Fisher Scientific). RNA quality and concentration were assessed by RNA electrophoresis, NanoDrop spectrophotometry, and an Agilent 2200 TapeStation. Libraries were prepared and sequenced at the BGI Genome Center (Shenzhen, China) using an Illumina MiSeq platform, which produced paired-end 150 bp reads.

We processed the raw sequencing reads to obtain high-quality clean reads by removing sequencing adapters, short reads (<36 bp), and low-quality reads using Fastp v0.23.2 with non-default parameters (−3 --cut_tail_window_size 4 --cut_tail_mean_quality 20 --detect_adapter_for_pe -l 36). We then assessed read quality with FastQC (default parameters) to confirm data integrity. Clean reads were aligned to the human reference genome (assembly GRCh38) using HISAT2 v2.1.0 with non-default parameters (--rna-strandness RF --dta).

We quantified gene expression as fragments per kilobase of exon per million mapped fragments (FPKM) using StringTie v1.3.4d with non-default parameters (-e --rf). Differential gene expression was analyzed using the edgeR v3.24.2 R package. We applied the false discovery rate (FDR) method to adjust P-values for multiple testing and to determine statistical significance. Only genes with an adjusted P-value < 0.05 and |log₂FC| > 1 were included in subsequent analyses.

Rhythmicity assessment and Phase Set Enrichment Analysis (PSEA)

To examine circadian oscillation patterns in transcriptional profiles, we performed rhythmicity analysis using the meta2d algorithm (MetaCycle R package, v1.2.0, R Scripts S1 File) [31]. Transcripts with BH.Q < 0.05 were identified as significantly rhythmic; their peak phases were subsequently estimated via sine wave-based least squares fitting (Python Scripts S2 File). We identified peak phases of annotated pathways using Phase Set Enrichment Analysis (PSEA) software [32], which took as input a file containing rhythmic gene names. We obtained updated Gene Ontology (GO) pathway annotations from the Molecular Signatures Database (MSigDB, c5.go.v2024.1.Hs.symbols.gmt) and defined GO terms with Kuiper q-value < 0.05 as significantly enriched (S3 File).

Functional enrichment analysis

We conducted GO, Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG), and Reactome pathway enrichment analyses using the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (DAVID) v6.8. Pathways or terms were considered significantly enriched at an FDR < 0.05.

Statistics analysis

To compare the distributions of two continuous datasets, we applied a two-sided Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test. All statistical analyses were conducted using the SciPy library (v1.10.0) in Python, with a significance threshold of 0.05.

Results

HEK293T transcriptome profile over 48 hours across 13 time points

To characterize time-of-day effects on the HEK293T transcriptome, we synchronized cultures with dexamethasone for 0.5 h and collected samples every 4h for 24h, starting 24h after synchronization, with three biological replicates per time point. We then performed whole-transcriptome sequencing followed by comprehensive bioinformatic analysis (Fig 1A). We first examined whether time of day shapes global transcriptome organization, principal component analysis (PCA) of transcriptomic profiles across 13 time points revealed clear temporal separation (Fig 1B). Samples progressed sequentially along PC1 and PC2, forming distinct clusters corresponding to successive time points, which reflected the dynamic reorganization of the transcriptome over the circadian cycle, with increased within time point dispersion emerging from T28 onward. Thus, we computed the probability distributions of the FPKM coefficient of variation (CV) within each time point, which showed a pronounced rightward shift toward higher CV values after T28 (Fig 1C). We next used MetaCycle to assess gene expression rhythmicity across different analysis window lengths and found that, whether using nominal P values or the more stringent BH-adjusted Q values, the number of rhythmic genes dropped sharply once the time window was extended to 32 h (Fig 1D).

Fig 1. Experimental design and global identification of rhythmic transcripts.

Fig 1

(A) Time course RNA sequencing profiles and analyses across 28 hours from T0 to T28 at 4-hour intervals, initiated 24 hours after DEX synchronization. (B) Principal component analysis (PCA) of RNA-seq samples. Points are colored by time. Axes display PC1 and PC2 with the percentage of variance explained. (C) The distribution of the coefficient of variation (CV) of gene expression across three biological replicates at each time point, and the red line indicates the mean CV at T0. Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test P < 0.001 (T0 v.s. T28, T32, T36, T40, T44, T48). (D) The number of rhythmic genes identified across different analysis window lengths using the meta2d algorithm, based on thresholds of P value < 0.05 or BH-adjusted Q value < 0.05.

Taken together, the HEK293T transcriptome exhibited clear time point dependent differences, suggesting potential circadian regulation. Balancing the need for a time window longer than 24 h with reproducibility across biological replicates, we therefore selected T0 to T28 as the analysis window and applied the more stringent BH. Q value to define rhythmic transcripts for subsequent analyses.

Temporal expression patterns of core circadian genes from T0 to T28

Because core clock oscillations primarily determinant of transcriptome-wide rhythmicity, we first characterized the temporal expression patterns of core clock genes across the T0 to T28 period (Fig 2A). Fig 2 summarizes the expression of ten core circadian clock genes and two clock output genes over 28 hours. When rhythmicity was assessed using the data between T0 and T24, BMAL1 exhibited detectable circadian rhythmicity, whereas no significant rhythmicity was detected for the remaining genes. In contrast, analysis of the full 28 hours failed to identify significant rhythmicity for any of the ten core clock genes. PER1, CRY1, NR1D1, and RORA displayed a progressive upward trend, whereas CLOCK and PER2 showed a gradual decline. In contrast, BMAL1, PER3, and CRY2 remained comparatively stable with limited temporal variation. NR1D2 exhibited a pronounced peak at T20, which may reflect an asymmetric expression trajectory, yet it still did not reach significance for circadian rhythmicity. Among the two clock output genes, DBP showed modest undulations superimposed on an otherwise steady baseline, while CIART remained largely constant across the time course.

Fig 2. Core clock gene expression in HEK293T cells across the T0-T28.

Fig 2

(A) Time-series expression profiles of 10 core clock genes in HEK293T cells. Expression values represent mean FPKM±SD, n = 3. The BH. Q values calculated from the 24 h and 28 h datasets using the meta2d algorithm are annotated in each panel.

Overall, core clock genes did not exhibit significant circadian rhythmicity across the 28h time course, suggesting that transcriptome wide oscillations are weak in HEK293T cells under these conditions. Consistently, PCA of the transcriptomic profiles showed that samples post T24 remained markedly separated from earlier time points rather than progressively converging toward the cluster of T0 to T20, further supporting attenuated global rhythmicity.

Time of day structures the HEK293T transcriptome

Given that none of the core clock genes exhibited detectable circadian rhythmicity in HEK293T cells, we next extended our analysis to the transcriptome level to systematically assess rhythmicity across the HEK293T transcriptome. Circadian rhythm analysis using MetaCycle identified that 785 rhythmic genes (4.7%), whereas the remaining 16,064 genes (95.3%) were classified as arrhythmic (Fig 3A). To characterize the expression phase of these rhythmic genes, we estimated their phases using a sine wave based least squares fitting approach. Fig 3B illustrates that the phases of these rhythmic genes were predominantly concentrated between T2 and T16, with a smaller subset showing clustered expression at the anti phase window of T0 to T5. To determine which pathways these rhythmic genes are associated with and what biological processes they may regulate, we performed GO, KEGG, and Reactome enrichment analyses on the 785 rhythmic genes. The enrichment results (Fig 3C) showed that these rhythmic genes were mainly associated with cytoplasmic and nuclear compartments (cytoplasm, nucleoplasm, cytosol), cytoskeletal and cellular structural components (cytoskeleton, cell projection, endomembrane system), and junction or membrane related terms (anchoring junction, basement membrane, transport vesicle membrane). In terms of molecular function, prominent categories included protein binding and nucleotide binding, notably ATP binding, GTPase activator activity, and metal ion binding (including zinc ion binding). KEGG and REACTOME analyses further highlighted aldosterone synthesis and secretion, IgSF CAM signaling, and cholesterol biosynthesis. Within the GTPase activator activity pathway, the representative genes ACAP2 and DOCK1 exhibited expression peaks at T14.69 and T12.94, respectively, whereas RANGAP1 displayed a trough around T12. Similarly, the representative genes MICU1, CETN3, and COX5B in the zinc ion binding pathway showed a comparable temporal pattern (Fig 3D).

Fig 3. Circadian features of the HEK293T cell transcriptome.

Fig 3

(A) Proportion of rhythmic and arrhythmic genes among all detected genes. Counts and percentages are shown. (B) Heatmaps displaying rhythmic genes HEK293T cells. Genes are ordered by peak phase in the rhythmic condition. (C) Phase distribution of rhythmic genes across the 24-hour cycle. (D) GO, KEGG and REACTOME pathway enrichment analyses of rhythmic genes. (E) Representative GTPase activator and metal ion binding genes. Expression values represent mean FPKM±SD, n = 3. BH.Q are calculated using the meta2d algorithm, Phases were estimated using sine wave–based least-squares fitting. (F) Pathway terms consistent between PSEA and pathway enrichment analysis.

To define biologically coherent gene sets with temporally coordinated expression in HEK293T cells, we applied PSEA to the phase distribution of rhythmically expressed genes (S4 File). Because the peak phases of rhythmic gene expression were relatively clustered, the PSEA results encompassed a broad range of significantly enriched pathway terms, with phases largely concentrated between T12 and T14, including basement membrane and transport vesicle membrane (Fig 3E).

Overall, these analyses indicate that only a small fraction of the expressed genes in HEK293T cells exhibit circadian rhythmicity, with peak expression of rhythmic transcripts largely clustered between T12 and T16, and that the rhythmic genes are primarily enriched in pathways and functions such as GTPase activator activity and metal ion binding.

Time-dependent and time-independent expression patterns revealed by DEG analysis of arrhythmic genes

In the analyses described above, only 4.7% of expressed genes in HEK293T cells exhibited detectable circadian rhythmicity. However, incorporating time as an experimental variable revealed that transcriptional dynamics are not limited to rhythmic oscillations alone. To further characterize temporal regulation among arrhythmic genes, we classified genes based on their differential expression behavior between adjacent time points from T0 to T2. Genes that showed no differential expression in any pairwise comparison between adjacent time points were defined as time-independent, whereas genes that were differentially expressed in at least one adjacent time-point comparison were classified as time-dependent, despite lacking detectable rhythmicity (Fig 4A). Based on this criterion, we performed pairwise DEG analyses between all neighboring time points across the T0 to T28 interval, focusing exclusively on arrhythmic genes.

Fig 4. Classification of time-dependent and time-independent expression patterns among arrhythmic genes.

Fig 4

(A) Schematic overview of the analytical framework used to classify arrhythmic genes into time-independent and time-dependent categories based on differential expression between adjacent time points from T0 to T28. (B) Heatmaps displaying time independent genes HEK293T cells. (C) GO, KEGG and REACTOME pathway enrichment analyses of time independent genes. (D) The number of overlapping genes between DEG sets. (E) Pathway enrichment analyses of time dependent genes in three DEG group: T0 v.s. T4, T8 v.s. T12, T12 v.s. T16.

Using this approach, we identified 15,419 time-independent genes whose expression levels remained stable across all adjacent time-point comparisons (Fig 4B). Functional enrichment analysis revealed that these genes were predominantly associated with fundamental cellular processes, including mitotic spindle assembly checkpoint signaling and protein targeting to mitochondrion (BP), components of the U2-type precatalytic spliceosome and the U12-type spliceosomal complex (CC), as well as molecular functions such as histone H3 methyltransferase activity and single-stranded DNA helicase activity (MF). In addition, pathway-level annotations highlighted RNA polymerase and autophagy (KEGG), together with vesicular trafficking–related processes such as the Endosomal Sorting Complex Required For Transport (ESCRT) and budding and maturation of HIV virion (Reactome) (Fig 4C).

In contrast, we identified 645 time-dependent but arrhythmic genes, which exhibited differential expression in at least one adjacent time-point comparison (Fig 4D). Notably, the overlap of DEGs between different adjacent time point comparisons was minimal, indicating that time dependent expression changes were highly specific to individual temporal transitions rather than shared across multiple intervals. This observation suggests that these genes respond to discrete time associated regulatory cues rather than sustained or oscillatory regulation.

Due to the relatively small number of DEGs detected in each adjacent time-point comparison, pathway enrichment analysis yielded statistically significant results (FDR < 0.05) in only three DEG sets, namely Neuroactive ligand-receptor interaction (T0 vs. T4), G alpha (s) signaling events (T8 vs. T12), and structural constituent of chromatin (T12 vs. T16) (Fig 4E).

Collectively, these results suggest that the majority of genes in HEK293T cells are expressed in a time-independent manner and are enriched in a broad spectrum of essential biological processes.

Discussion

We profiled the temporal transcriptome of dexamethasone-synchronized HEK293T cells and found clear time-dependent expression changes but weak circadian rhythmicity. Core clock genes lacked robust oscillation beyond 28 h, and only a small gene subset showed rhythmic expression, enriched in GTPase activator activity and metal ion binding, peaking mainly between T12 and T16. Beyond rhythmic transcripts, we further stratified the arrhythmic transcriptome by adjacent time-point differential expression and found that most genes were time independent, whereas a small subset of time-dependent but arrhythmic genes was enriched in key pathways, including G alpha signaling events and structural constituents of chromatin. Collectively, these data indicate that most genes in HEK293T cells are expressed in a largely time independent manner over the sampled window, while a small, pathway focused subset shows discrete time-dependent regulation that should be considered when designing and interpreting HEK293T-based experiments.

While our findings highlight the potential importance of time of day in HEK293T cell experiments, we acknowledge that under normal conditions, cells are not as strictly synchronized as they would be with dexamethasone treatment or serum shock. For many experimental contexts, such synchronization may not be feasible or desirable. Although circadian rhythmicity is weak at the transcriptome-wide level in HEK293T cells, time-dependent gene expression patterns are still significant, suggesting that time of day should be considered in experimental design even without strict phase control.

In consideration of acute DEX-induced transcriptional bursts, we initiated collection 24 hours post-synchronization, covering the 48 hours period. This 24-hour delay is crucial as it allows the transient, GR-mediated transcriptional burst, typically characterized by immediate early gene induction. By focusing on the 48-hour interval, the observed mRNA fluctuations are more likely to reflect stabilized, clock-driven endogenous rhythms rather than acute pharmacological responses to the initial DEX stimulus. To more rigorously decouple these effects, future studies should include a non-synchronizing control or utilize inhibitors of GR signaling to isolate clock-dependent outputs. Furthermore, our 4-hour resolution across this stabilized second and third cycle provides a more rigorous basis for calculating phase and amplitude. This temporal separation effectively decouples the acute chemical signaling from the circadian output, addressing the ambiguity inherent in early-cycle sampling.

Previous investigations into HEK293T cells observed that while PER2 exhibited moderate oscillations 24 hours post-DEX synchronization, CLOCK failed to show a discernible rhythmic pattern, and both lacked robust statistical support [33]. In contrast, our data demonstrate significantly reduced variance among biological replicates within the 24–48-hour window, thereby enhancing the statistical power and reliability of our conclusions. We propose that these divergent expression patterns are a result of our optimized synchronization protocol; by shortening the DEX exposure from 2 hours to 0.5 hours, we effectively minimized exogenous interference, allowing for a more accurate reflection of endogenous circadian dynamics.

Overall, these data provide a framework for time-aware experimentation while also exposing gaps in sampling, modality, and causality that future studies should address. Bulk RNA-seq cannot resolve cell-state heterogeneity or post-transcriptional regulation; integrating ribosome profiling, quantitative proteomics, and phosphoproteomics will be crucial in determining whether phase-ordered transcriptomes extend to translation and signaling. Finally, generalization beyond HEK293T requires testing additional human cell types and primary cells under physiologically relevant zeitgebers.

Future studies should extend these findings across multiple circadian cycles and integrate multi-omics approaches to track how phase information propagates from chromatin to proteins. Implementing live reporters and CRISPR-based perturbations of core clock components will be essential to establish causal links between circadian phase and pathway activity. Additionally, real-time monitoring of membrane trafficking and ciliary function will help connect temporal transcriptional programs to cellular behaviors. These insights can be translated into practical guidance for experiments in HEK293T cells by defining fixed sampling windows, verifying phase using reporters, and incorporating circadian phase as a covariate in all analyses.

Conclusion

We generated a time-resolved RNA-seq atlas of DEX-synchronized HEK293T cells and observed clear time point dependent transcriptome separation, with reduced reproducibility after T28 supporting a T0-T28 focus. Core clock genes showed limited rhythmicity, and only 785 genes (4.7%) were rhythmic, with phases largely clustered at T12–T16 and enrichment in GTPase activator and metal ion binding functions. Among arrhythmic genes, most were time independent, whereas 645 were time dependent and enriched in Gα signaling and chromatin-related processes. This resource supports time-aware experimental design in HEK293T cells.

Supporting information

S1 File. R scripts for MetaCycle rhythmicity analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0343991.s001.docx (14.1KB, docx)
S2 File. Python scripts for sine-wave-based estimation.

(DOCX)

pone.0343991.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)
S3 File. PSEA analysis.

(DOCX)

pone.0343991.s003.docx (117.7KB, docx)
S4 File. PSEA results.

(XLSX)

pone.0343991.s004.xlsx (348KB, xlsx)
S5 File. The numerical data and summary statistics.

(XLSX)

pone.0343991.s005.xlsx (6.3MB, xlsx)

Acknowledgments

We thank Songbai Liu from Suzhou Vocational Health College for providing cell materials and offering constructive suggestions.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and S5 File The numerical data and summary statistics..All RNA sequencing data files are available from the NCBI GEO database (accession number #GSE315903, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE315903).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by grants from the Jiangsu Province Engineering Research Center of Development and Translation of Key Technologies for Chronic Disease Prevention and Control (CDSGK12025011, CDSGK12025012), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (32100931 to TZ), the Science and Technology Project of Suzhou (SYWD2024244 to TZ, SYW2025087 to YZ), the General Research Project (Natural Science Project) of Suzhou Vocational Health College (SZWZY202410 to FG). The sponsors or funders play no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Schrader LA, Ronnekleiv-Kelly SM, Hogenesch JB, Bradfield CA, Malecki KM. Circadian disruption, clock genes, and metabolic health. J Clin Invest. 2024;134(14):e170998. doi: 10.1172/JCI170998 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gekakis N, Staknis D, Nguyen HB, Davis FC, Wilsbacher LD, King DP, et al. Role of the CLOCK protein in the mammalian circadian mechanism. Science. 1998;280(5369):1564–9. doi: 10.1126/science.280.5369.1564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cox KH, Takahashi JS. Circadian clock genes and the transcriptional architecture of the clock mechanism. J Mol Endocrinol. 2019;63(4):R93–102. doi: 10.1530/JME-19-0153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Cao X, Yang Y, Selby CP, Liu Z, Sancar A. Molecular mechanism of the repressive phase of the mammalian circadian clock. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(2):e2021174118. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2021174118 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Adlanmerini M, Lazar MA. The REV-ERB Nuclear Receptors: Timekeepers for the Core Clock Period and Metabolism. Endocrinology. 2023;164(6):bqad069. doi: 10.1210/endocr/bqad069 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Liu Y, Sancar A. Biochemical mechanism of the mammalian circadian clock. FEBS Lett. 2025. doi: 10.1002/1873-3468.70150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Preitner N, Damiola F, Lopez-Molina L, Zakany J, Duboule D, Albrecht U, et al. The orphan nuclear receptor REV-ERBalpha controls circadian transcription within the positive limb of the mammalian circadian oscillator. Cell. 2002;110(2):251–60. doi: 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00825-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Stratmann M, Suter DM, Molina N, Naef F, Schibler U. Circadian Dbp transcription relies on highly dynamic BMAL1-CLOCK interaction with E boxes and requires the proteasome. Mol Cell. 2012;48(2):277–87. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.08.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ripperger JA, Schibler U. Rhythmic CLOCK-BMAL1 binding to multiple E-box motifs drives circadian Dbp transcription and chromatin transitions. Nat Genet. 2006;38(3):369–74. doi: 10.1038/ng1738 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Zhang R, Lahens NF, Ballance HI, Hughes ME, Hogenesch JB. A circadian gene expression atlas in mammals: implications for biology and medicine. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2014;111(45):16219–24. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1408886111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Tartour K, Padmanabhan K. The Clock Takes Shape—24 h Dynamics in Genome Topology. Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology. 2022;9:799971. doi: 10.3389/fcell.2021.799971 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Koike N, Yoo S-H, Huang H-C, Kumar V, Lee C, Kim T-K, et al. Transcriptional architecture and chromatin landscape of the core circadian clock in mammals. Science. 2012;338(6105):349–54. doi: 10.1126/science.1226339 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Hurni C, Weger BD, Gobet C, Naef F. Comprehensive analysis of the circadian nuclear and cytoplasmic transcriptome in mouse liver. PLoS Genet. 2022;18(8):e1009903. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009903 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.McGlincy NJ, Valomon A, Chesham JE, Maywood ES, Hastings MH, Ule J. Regulation of alternative splicing by the circadian clock and food related cues. Genome Biol. 2012;13(6):R54. doi: 10.1186/gb-2012-13-6-r54 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Lyu J, Zhuang Y, Lin Y. Circadian regulation of translation. RNA Biol. 2024;21(1):14–24. doi: 10.1080/15476286.2024.2408524 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kim M, Keep RF, Zhang SL. Circadian Rhythms of the Blood-Brain Barrier and Drug Delivery. Circ Res. 2024;134(6):727–47. doi: 10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.123.323521 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Petsakou A, Sapsis TP, Blau J. Circadian Rhythms in Rho1 Activity Regulate Neuronal Plasticity and Network Hierarchy. Cell. 2015;162(4):823–35. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.07.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Stangherlin A. Ion dynamics and the regulation of circadian cellular physiology. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol. 2023;324(3):C632–43. doi: 10.1152/ajpcell.00378.2022 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Yuan Y, Chen Q, Brovkina M, Clowney EJ, Yadlapalli S. Clock-dependent chromatin accessibility rhythms regulate circadian transcription. PLoS Genet. 2024;20(5):e1011278. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1011278 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Robles MS, Humphrey SJ, Mann M. Phosphorylation Is a Central Mechanism for Circadian Control of Metabolism and Physiology. Cell Metab. 2017;25(1):118–27. doi: 10.1016/j.cmet.2016.10.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Peng L, Xiang S, Wang T, Yang M, Duan Y, Ma X, et al. The hepatic clock synergizes with HIF-1α to regulate nucleotide availability during liver damage repair. Nat Metab. 2025;7(1):148–65. doi: 10.1038/s42255-024-01184-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Kong D, Liu Y, Zhang M. Expression of the Circadian Clock Gene ARNTL associated with DNA repair gene and prognosis of patient with osteosarcoma. Mutat Res. 2022;825:111801. doi: 10.1016/j.mrfmmm.2022.111801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Marasco LE, Kornblihtt AR. The physiology of alternative splicing. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2023;24(4):242–54. doi: 10.1038/s41580-022-00545-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Graham FL, Smiley J, Russell WC, Nairn R. Characteristics of a human cell line transformed by DNA from human adenovirus type 5. J Gen Virol. 1977;36(1):59–74. doi: 10.1099/0022-1317-36-1-59 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Costello HM, Johnston JG, Juffre A, Crislip GR, Gumz ML. Circadian clocks of the kidney: function, mechanism, and regulation. Physiol Rev. 2022;102(4):1669–701. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00045.2021 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Benjamin JI, Pollock DM. Current perspective on circadian function of the kidney. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2024;326(3):F438–59. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00247.2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Juffre A, Gumz ML. Recent advances in understanding the kidney circadian clock mechanism. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2024;326(3):F382–93. doi: 10.1152/ajprenal.00214.2023 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Tan E, Chin CSH, Lim ZFS, Ng SK. HEK293 Cell Line as a Platform to Produce Recombinant Proteins and Viral Vectors. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:796991. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2021.796991 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Malm M, Saghaleyni R, Lundqvist M, Giudici M, Chotteau V, Field R, et al. Evolution from adherent to suspension: systems biology of HEK293 cell line development. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):18996. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-76137-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Huttlin EL, Ting L, Bruckner RJ, Gebreab F, Gygi MP, Szpyt J, et al. The BioPlex Network: A Systematic Exploration of the Human Interactome. Cell. 2015;162(2):425–40. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.06.043 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Wu G, Anafi RC, Hughes ME, Kornacker K, Hogenesch JB. MetaCycle: an integrated R package to evaluate periodicity in large scale data. Bioinformatics. 2016;32(21):3351–3. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw405 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Zhang R, Podtelezhnikov AA, Hogenesch JB, Anafi RC. Discovering Biology in Periodic Data through Phase Set Enrichment Analysis (PSEA). J Biol Rhythms. 2016;31(3):244–57. doi: 10.1177/0748730416631895 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Beta RA, Arsenopoulou ZV, Kanoura A, Dalkidis D, Avraamidou R, Balatsos NA. Core clock regulators in dexamethasone-treated HEK 293T cells at 4 h intervals. BMC Res Notes. 2022;15(1):23. doi: 10.1186/s13104-021-05871-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Nicholas S Foulkes

8 Dec 2025

Dear Dr. Zhang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

It is particularly important to address the concern that relates to the experimental design used for this study. Sampling was performed over a 24 hours period and was initiated immediately following the proposed clock synchronisation treatment. Therefore, it is currently not possible to conclude that the observed dynamic changes in gene expression relate to a rhythmic output of the circadian clock. It cannot be excluded that these changes reflect acute responses to the cell culture treatment. This point needs to be resolved by a longer sampling period that is delayed (by 24 hours) relative to the Dex treatment. Other critical points raised by both reviewers also need to be addressed.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 22 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Nicholas S. Foulkes, D.Phil

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that PLOS One has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

3. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

4. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: “All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.All RNA sequencing data files are available from the NCBI GEO database (accession number #GSE308811, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE308811).”

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

5. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments:

Major revision is required, in particular in order to support the conclusion that these rhythmic elements of the transcriptome reflect circadian clock functionality. Currently the sampling period is too short (24 hours) and the sampling starts immediate following Dex treatment. For this reason it is not possible to assess whether the observed changes reflect the consequences of the acute exposure to Dex exposure or whether they are clock regulated. The other comments made by both reviewers also need to be addressed in full.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English??>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: In their manuscript “Temporal dynamics and functional annotation of transcriptome rhythmicity in HEK293T cells”, the authors examine RNA expression patterns at six time points across 24 hours after synchronization of the cells by dexamethasone treatment. They identify enrichment of certain functions, such as mitochondrial translation and RNA splicing, in genes clustered into distinct phases, and observe that gene expression peaks progress from genes related to transcriptional control to those related to translation across the 24 h time period. When looking at differentially expressed genes between antiphase time points, they notice that most genes underlying these differences are rhythmically expressed based on MetaCycle analysis, and show enriched pathway functions such as vesicle trafficking or fatty acid metabolism.

Data quality and analysis are sound, and the conclusions taken by the authors are valid. However, I have a few points that should be addressed prior to publication.

Major points:

A) The authors follow gene expression over 24 h only, thus only one circadian cycle. This means that their gene set will contain genes rhythmically expressed after DEX treatment, but also genes acutely induced by the treatment, especially in the first few hours after the treatment. For a more stringent identification of oscillating genes, the authors would have to follow expression over at least two cycles or 48 hours. The discussion section devoted to these issues (acute DEX-mediated induction of expression vs. rhythmic expression in response to core clock synchronization) should be expanded (Currently only: “Our 4-hour resolution sampling across 24 hours captures one cycle; extending to multiple cycles with denser sampling would refine phase and amplitude estimates and increase sensitivity for low-amplitude rhythms.” It would also help to distinguish acute effects of the DEX treatment from those brought about by synchronization of the clock, for example).

B) The RNA sequencing data should be deposited in GEO (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) or a similar public repository supporting MIAME-compliant data submissions. Please provide an accession number upon revision.

Minor points:

1) “In mammals, approximately 43% of protein-coding genes exhibit rhythmic expression…”: The cited reference (No. 6) does not contain this information. Please provide a reference for this statement.

2) “CLOCK peaked 32–36 hours after dexamethasone synchronization, in agreement with previous reports (25).” This statement is in contradiction with the rest of the manuscript, where expression was followed only for 24 h after DEX treatment.

3) Figure 2 A: were there only two samples for CT12, or is there a close overlap of two samples?

4) “…and translation-related enzymes (MFMT, QRSL1) (Fig. 2E).” This should refer to panel 2F.

5) “…peaked between CT10 and CT12 (Fig. 2F),…” This should refer to panel 2G.

6) “Collectively, these findings establish time of day as a critical experimental variable in HEK293T cells and highlight the need for either strict phase control or phase-aware analyses to ensure reproducibility and accurate interpretation.” This is correct; however, under general culture conditions, cells will not be as strictly synchronized as upon DEX treatment or serum shock. It is thus not easy to establish phase control or phase awareness in praxis (unless one wants to always synchronize cells by DEX/serum shock, which represents a relatively harsh treatment in itself that may not be compatible with many other treatments). The authors should expand the discussion here a bit to reflect on these practical problems.

7) “At CT16, vesicular transport genes were strongly induced, including DNM1 (clathrin-mediated endocytosis), GBF1 (ARF1 activation and Golgi–ER recycling), SEC24A (COPII cargo selection), and HGS/VPS36 (ESCRT sorting), suggesting circadian control of membrane trafficking and receptor signaling capacity, such as glucocorticoid signaling (45).” As the glucocorticoid receptor is a nuclear receptor and not a membrane receptor, this statement is a bit confusing. Also, the cited reference only comments on membrane vesicles in the context of adrenocortical cells and increased release of steroids from these cells under stress, which is not applicable to the HEK239T cells. Please clarify and/or change references.

Reviewer #2: The study by Zhang and colleagues addressed an important question regarding how HEK293 endogenous rhythms function. The authors highlighted the consequences of not considering time in experiments, which is highly relevant to the field. However, upon careful review of the methods, the current rhythm analyses are underpowered and susceptible to a high rate of false positives. The authors used uncorrected p-values to determine rhythmicity, resulting in a large number of rhythmic genes—close to half of the transcriptome. Based on this data, they also performed phase set enrichment analyses (PSEA), which similarly used uncorrected p-values. Overall, the manuscript’s conclusions are not supported by robust statistical analysis. Although the manuscript is well-written and presents a good idea, the conclusions drawn are insufficient. The authors should reanalyze their data while accounting for false discovery rates, consider using sine-wave-based methods to accurately estimate phase, and then perform PSEA. Additionally, they could use DEG analyses to identify truly arrhythmic processes, providing a balanced view of major processes that are either under temporal control or not. This could become a valuable resource for the scientific community. I also provide some other comments below.

Introduction

Add original studies to support the claims. For instance, reference 6 is a review. The authors should cite the original paper.

M&M

Usually, after dexamethasone synchronization, one should wait 24 hours to avoid the immediate GR-induced effects. In this setup, the authors proceed immediately after synchronization, which should be disclosed as a limitation. Additionally, the authors could select a few relevant genes and repeat the experiments, this time waiting 24 hours, to show that the induced effect is clock-mediated rather than GR-induced.

The authors used only the metacycle package to estimate rhythmicity, which includes ARSER, JTK_Cycle, Lomb-Scargle, and meta2d. In this setup, it is likely that Meta2D incorporated JTK_Cycle and Lomb-Scargle methods. An important limitation of this approach is that these methods are not sine-wave based, making phase and amplitude estimation difficult. Specifically, the authors used the calculated phase for PSEA analysis. Importantly, using a sine-wave method in addition could help obtain high-resolution phase estimates, although the overlap between detection methods is often quite limited.

In addition, all analyses were based on a standard p-value < 0.05, which, considering RNAseq data, could inflate the rhythm detection. In this case, a false-discovery rate is necessary. Since some of these methods have low statistical power, using a p-value < 0.01 could help reduce false positives. Not surprisingly, the authors report almost half of the transcriptome as rhythmic, which is likely due to the accumulation of false positives.

The same issue applies to the PSEA analysis, as the authors used a p-value < 0.05. Here, a q-value should be used instead of < 0.05 to reduce false positives. Data processing for PSEA is unclear and not reproducible. This method produces a large number of biological processes, often overlapping. How was the merging or grouping of similar processes done? Based on the data shown in fig. 2I, this reviewer cannot replicate these findings with the information provided by the authors. Importantly, PSEA data is not included in the materials; this must be provided.

Results

The authors should consider using a sine-wave baseline method for the clock genes to better assess the classic anti-phase relationship. Surprisingly, DBP, a high-amplitude gene, is not rhythmic.

The phase shown in D could be better represented with a rose plot.

The results from Fig. 2J need to be reanalyzed, accounting for false discoveries as described above.

It is confusing to evaluate rhythmicity using a combination of methods and then perform DEG analyses, which is not suitable for circadian studies. In this current format, I believe this type of analysis does not contribute the story and instead introduces additional confusion. Although the authors attempted to evaluate the potential overlap between PSEA and DEG analyses, it remains unclear how similar or different the outcomes are. An important aspect missing from this paper is focusing on the arrhythmic portion. For example, the authors could assess rhythmicity—now accounting for false discovery rates—and perform DEG analysis specifically within the arrhythmic part of the transcriptome. This approach would identify the main genes and pathways that are time-independent. Subsequently, they could conduct rhythm analysis to identify genes and pathways that are time-dependent. Comparing these results would allow the authors to suggest a list of processes that are either time-dependent or time-independent.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Feb 26;21(2):e0343991. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0343991.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


3 Feb 2026

Dear Foulkes,

Thank you very much for your reply and for giving us chance to revise our manuscript according to the reviewers’ and your constructive comments. We are pleased that you and the reviewers consider our study of sufficient interest for possible publication in PLOS ONE. We have taken the comments on board to improve and clarify the manuscript. Please find below a detailed point-by-point response to all comments (academic editor and reviewers’ comments in blue, our responses in black).

Academic editor

Major revision is required, in particular in order to support the conclusion that these rhythmic elements of the transcriptome reflect circadian clock functionality. Currently the sampling period is too short (24 hours) and the sampling starts immediately following Dex treatment. For this reason, it is not possible to assess whether the observed changes reflect the consequences of the acute exposure to Dex exposure or whether they are clock regulated. The other comments made by both reviewers also need to be addressed in full.

Response: We thank the editor for pointing this out and apologize for the experimental design mistake. We redesigned the experiment as follows: HEK293T cells were synchronized with dexamethasone for 0.5 h, washed with PBS, and replenished with fresh dexamethasone-free complete medium. Starting 24h after synchronization, samples were collected every 4h over a 48h window, with three biological replicates at each time point (Line 132-136). The process of sample collection and data annlysis is shown in Fig 1A. Collected samples were subjected to RNA sequencing the raw data have already been uploaded to GEO. The GEO accession is GSE315903 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE315903). If needed, it can be accessed using the token qzibekaajlqbxan.

Fig 1A

Reviewer #1:

In their manuscript “Temporal dynamics and functional annotation of transcriptome rhythmicity in HEK293T cells”, the authors examine RNA expression patterns at six time points across 24 hours after synchronization of the cells by dexamethasone treatment. They identify enrichment of certain functions, such as mitochondrial translation and RNA splicing, in genes clustered into distinct phases, and observe that gene expression peaks progress from genes related to transcriptional control to those related to translation across the 24 h time period. When looking at differentially expressed genes between antiphase time points, they notice that most genes underlying these differences are rhythmically expressed based on MetaCycle analysis, and show enriched pathway functions such as vesicle trafficking or fatty acid metabolism.

Data quality and analysis are sound, and the conclusions taken by the authors are valid. However, I have a few points that should be addressed prior to publication.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive evaluation and constructive comments, which have greatly contributed to the refinement of our study.

Major points:

A) The authors follow gene expression over 24 h only, thus only one circadian cycle. This means that their gene set will contain genes rhythmically expressed after DEX treatment, but also genes acutely induced by the treatment, especially in the first few hours after the treatment. For a more stringent identification of oscillating genes, the authors would have to follow expression over at least two cycles or 48 hours.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and apologize for the experimental design mistake. As both the Editor and the Reviewer #2 also pointed out, we have redesigned the experiment to provide a more comprehensive temporal analysis. Specifically, we collected samples at 13 time points over a 48-hour period, with sampling initiated 24 hours after DEX synchronization (Line 132-136). The process of sample collection and data analysis is shown in Fig 1A.

The discussion section devoted to these issues (acute DEX-mediated induction of expression vs. rhythmic expression in response to core clock synchronization) should be expanded (Currently only: “Our 4-hour resolution sampling across 24 hours captures one cycle; extending to multiple cycles with denser sampling would refine phase and amplitude estimates and increase sensitivity for low-amplitude rhythms.” It would also help to distinguish acute effects of the DEX treatment from those brought about by synchronization of the clock, for example).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We agree that distinguishing acute DEX-mediated induction from clock-driven rhythms is essential. Consequently, in our revised study, we have shifted the sampling window to start from 24 hours post-DEX treatment. We have incorporated a detailed discussion regarding the superposition of acute DEX effects and circadian oscillations, clarifying how our sampling strategy (24–72 h post-treatment) effectively isolates the latter (Line 327-339).

B) The RNA sequencing data should be deposited in GEO (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) or a similar public repository supporting MIAME-compliant data submissions. Please provide an accession number upon revision.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this. The raw data of RNA sequencing have already been uploaded to GEO. The GEO accession is GSE315903 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE315903). If needed, it can be accessed using the token qzibekaajlqbxan.

Minor points:

1) “In mammals, approximately 43% of protein-coding genes exhibit rhythmic expression…”: The cited reference (No. 6) does not contain this information. Please provide a reference for this statement.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer for raising the question and sorry for not citing corresponding reference. We have incorporated the appropriate reference in the revised manuscript.

2) “CLOCK peaked 32–36 hours after dexamethasone synchronization, in agreement with previous reports (25).” This statement is in contradiction with the rest of the manuscript, where expression was followed only for 24 h after DEX treatment.

Response: The reviewer is quite right. In the revised manuscript, we redesigned the experiments and collected new samples. The current results indicate that the expression of CLOCK exhibits a progressive downward trend rather than a distinct circadian rhythm. Consequently, the original statement has been removed. We have addressed the difference between our observed expression patterns and those reported in previous studies in the Discussion section.

3) Figure 2 A: were there only two samples for CT12, or is there a close overlap of two samples?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation. It is indeed a close overlap of two samples at CT12 in the initial version of Fig 2A. A similar situation occurs in the revised Figure 1. To ensure full transparency and clarity, we have summarized the raw data and summary statistics for all figures in S5 File, which has been uploaded as Supplementary Material.

4) “…and translation-related enzymes (MFMT, QRSL1) (Fig. 2E).” This should refer to panel 2F.

Response: Due to the new experimental design and updated analytical results, this specific result and the corresponding figure have been removed in the revised manuscript.

5) “…peaked between CT10 and CT12 (Fig. 2F),…” This should refer to panel 2G.

Response: Due to the new experimental design and updated analytical results, this specific result and the corresponding figure have been removed in the revised manuscript.

6) “Collectively, these findings establish time of day as a critical experimental variable in HEK293T cells and highlight the need for either strict phase control or phase-aware analyses to ensure reproducibility and accurate interpretation.” This is correct; however, under general culture conditions, cells will not be as strictly synchronized as upon DEX treatment or serum shock. It is thus not easy to establish phase control or phase awareness in praxis (unless one wants to always synchronize cells by DEX/serum shock, which represents a relatively harsh treatment in itself that may not be compatible with many other treatments). The authors should expand the discussion here a bit to reflect on these practical problems.

Response: We thank the reviewer for the insightful comments. As suggested by the reviewer we have expanded our Discussion to address these practical issues (Line 319-326).

7) “At CT16, vesicular transport genes were strongly induced, including DNM1 (clathrin-mediated endocytosis), GBF1 (ARF1 activation and Golgi–ER recycling), SEC24A (COPII cargo selection), and HGS/VPS36 (ESCRT sorting), suggesting circadian control of membrane trafficking and receptor signaling capacity, such as glucocorticoid signaling (45).” As the glucocorticoid receptor is a nuclear receptor and not a membrane receptor, this statement is a bit confusing. Also, the cited reference only comments on membrane vesicles in the context of adrenocortical cells and increased release of steroids from these cells under stress, which is not applicable to the HEK239T cells. Please clarify and/or change references.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this insightful comment and fully agree with the point raised. However, following the implementation of a new experimental design and updated analytical methods, this specific result is no longer included in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer #2

The study by Zhang and colleagues addressed an important question regarding how HEK293 endogenous rhythms function. The authors highlighted the consequences of not considering time in experiments, which is highly relevant to the field. However, upon careful review of the methods, the current rhythm analyses are underpowered and susceptible to a high rate of false positives. The authors used uncorrected p-values to determine rhythmicity, resulting in a large number of rhythmic genes—close to half of the transcriptome. Based on this data, they also performed phase set enrichment analyses (PSEA), which similarly used uncorrected p-values. Overall, the manuscript’s conclusions are not supported by robust statistical analysis. Although the manuscript is well-written and presents a good idea, the conclusions drawn are insufficient. The authors should reanalyze their data while accounting for false discovery rates, consider using sine-wave-based methods to accurately estimate phase, and then perform PSEA. Additionally, they could use DEG analyses to identify truly arrhythmic processes, providing a balanced view of major processes that are either under temporal control or not. This could become a valuable resource for the scientific community. I also provide some other comments below.

Response: Thank you very much for your insightful and constructive comments regarding our manuscript. We have carefully revised the statistical analyses and updated our findings in accordance with your suggestions.

Introduction

Add original studies to support the claims. For instance, reference 6 is a review. The authors should cite the original paper.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this point. In the revised manuscript, we have cited the original papers. Specifically, Reference 6 has been replaced with the relevant article.

M&M

Usually, after dexamethasone synchronization, one should wait 24 hours to avoid the immediate GR-induced effects. In this setup, the authors proceed immediately after synchronization, which should be disclosed as a limitation. Additionally, the authors could select a few relevant genes and repeat the experiments, this time waiting 24 hours, to show that the induced effect is clock-mediated rather than GR-induced.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out and apologize for the experimental design mistake. As both the Editor and the Reviewer #1 also pointed out, we have redesigned the experiment to provide a more comprehensive temporal analysis. Specifically, we collected samples at 13 time points over a 48-hour period, with sampling initiated 24 hours after DEX synchronization (Line 132-136). The process of sample collection and data analysis is shown in Fig 1A.

The authors used only the metacycle package to estimate rhythmicity, which includes ARSER, JTK_Cycle, Lomb-Scargle, and meta2d. In this setup, it is likely that Meta2D incorporated JTK_Cycle and Lomb-Scargle methods. An important limitation of this approach is that these methods are not sine-wave based, making phase and amplitude estimation difficult. Specifically, the authors used the calculated phase for PSEA analysis. Importantly, using a sine-wave method in addition could help obtain high-resolution phase estimates, although the overlap between detection methods is often quite limited.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion regarding rhythmicity analysis. In the revised manuscript, while we use the MetaCycle package for initial rhythmicity estimation due to its effective integration of multiple algorithms, we have additionally employed a sine-wave-based least-squares method to estimate of phase and amplitude. The code used for this analysis has been provided in the S1 file and S2 file.

In addition, all analyses were based on a standard p-value < 0.05, which, considering RNAseq data, could inflate the rhythm detection. In this case, a false-discovery rate is necessary. Since some of these methods have low statistical power, using a p-value < 0.01 could help reduce false positives. Not surprisingly, the authors report almost half of the transcriptome as rhythmic, which is likely due to the accumulation of false positives.

Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing out this. To minimize false positives, we have implemented more stringent statistical criteria in the revised manuscript. Specifically, rhythmicity was determined using Benjamini-Hochberg adjusted p-values (BH.Q < 0.05) within the MetaCycle pipeline, which significantly reduced the number of identified rhythmic genes (Figure 1D). Furthermore, a false-discovery rate (FDR) was applied to the pathway enrichment analysis, and PSEA results were refined using the adjusted Kuiper q-value.

The same issue applies to the PSEA analysis, as the authors used a p-value < 0.05. Here, a q-value should be used instead of < 0.05 to reduce false positives. Data processing for PSEA is unclear and not reproducible. This method produces a large number of biological processes, often overlapping. How was the merging or grouping of similar processes done? Based on the data shown in fig. 2I, this reviewer cannot replicate these findings with the information provided by the authors. Importantly, PSEA data is not included in the materials; this must be provided.

Response: Thanks for bringing this point up. The Kuiper q-value was applied to the PSEA analysis to reduce false positives. We apologize that we have not yet identified a robust methodology for the merging or grouping of similar biological processes. We would be highly appreciative of any specific suggestions the reviewer might have and would be eager to implement them. In the revised manuscript, we observed that the phases of rhythmic genes are relatively concentrated. Consequently, the PSEA results revealed processes consistent with our pathway enrichment analysis, with these processes predominantly clustered between T12 and T14. The PSEA data have been included in the S5 File, which has been uploaded as Supplementary Material, and the detailed PSEA workflow is provided in the S3 File.

Results

The authors should consider using a sine-wave baseline method for the clock genes to better assess the classic anti-phase relationship. Surprisingly, DBP, a high-amplitude gene, is not rhythmic.

Response: In the revised manuscript, we integrated MetaCycle with a sine-wave-based least-squares method to analyze the rhythmicity data. Upon analyzing the 28-hour dataset using stringent Benjamini-Hochberg (BH) adjusted p-values (BH.Q < 0.05), we observed that several core clock genes, including DBP, did not exhibit significant rhythmicity in the current sample set.

The phase shown in D could be better represented with a rose plot.

Response: As the core clock genes lacked significant rhythmicity in the new dataset, we did not include their phase informa

Attachment

Submitted filename: response.docx

pone.0343991.s007.docx (5.6MB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Nicholas S Foulkes

16 Feb 2026

<p>Temporal dynamics and functional annotation of transcriptome rhythmicity in HEK293T cells

PONE-D-25-55405R1

Dear Dr. Zhang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Nicholas S. Foulkes, D.Phil

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Nicholas S Foulkes

PONE-D-25-55405R1

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Zhang,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Nicholas S. Foulkes

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. R scripts for MetaCycle rhythmicity analysis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0343991.s001.docx (14.1KB, docx)
    S2 File. Python scripts for sine-wave-based estimation.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0343991.s002.docx (14.4KB, docx)
    S3 File. PSEA analysis.

    (DOCX)

    pone.0343991.s003.docx (117.7KB, docx)
    S4 File. PSEA results.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343991.s004.xlsx (348KB, xlsx)
    S5 File. The numerical data and summary statistics.

    (XLSX)

    pone.0343991.s005.xlsx (6.3MB, xlsx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: response.docx

    pone.0343991.s007.docx (5.6MB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and S5 File The numerical data and summary statistics..All RNA sequencing data files are available from the NCBI GEO database (accession number #GSE315903, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE315903).


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES