Skip to main content
PLOS Biology logoLink to PLOS Biology
. 2020 Mar 13;18(3):e3000435. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000435

Single-cell in vivo imaging of cellular circadian oscillators in zebrafish

Haifang Wang 1,2,#, Zeyong Yang 3,4,5,#, Xingxing Li 6,#, Dengfeng Huang 1,2, Shuguang Yu 1,2, Jie He 1,2,*, Yuanhai Li 6,*, Jun Yan 1,2,7,*
Editor: Achim Kramer8
PMCID: PMC7069618  PMID: 32168317

Abstract

The circadian clock is a cell-autonomous time-keeping mechanism established gradually during embryonic development. Here, we generated a transgenic zebrafish line carrying a destabilized fluorescent protein driven by the promoter of a core clock gene, nr1d1, to report in vivo circadian rhythm at the single-cell level. By time-lapse imaging of this fish line and 3D reconstruction, we observed the sequential initiation of the reporter expression starting at photoreceptors in the pineal gland, then spreading to the cells in other brain regions at the single-cell level. Even within the pineal gland, we found heterogeneous onset of nr1d1 expression, in which each cell undergoes circadian oscillation superimposed over a cell type–specific developmental trajectory. Furthermore, we found that single-cell expression of nr1d1 showed synchronous circadian oscillation under a light–dark (LD) cycle. Remarkably, single-cell oscillations were dramatically dampened rather than desynchronized in animals raised under constant darkness, while the developmental trend still persists. It suggests that light exposure in early zebrafish embryos has significant effect on cellular circadian oscillations.


A transgenic zebrafish line, nr1d1-VNP, enables the monitoring of single-cell circadian rhythms in live zebrafish; using this fish line, the authors find that light exposure in early development initializes rather than synchronizes single-cell oscillators.

Introduction

Circadian rhythm evolves to align animal behaviors to periodic daily environmental changes. At the molecular level, the vertebrate circadian clock is mainly generated through transcriptional/translational feedback loops of core clock genes [1]. Among them, two transcription factors (TFs), BMAL1 (also known as ARNTL or MOP3) and CLOCK form heterodimers to bind to E-boxes in the promoters and initiate the transcription of their target genes [24], including Per family genes (Per1, Per2, and Per3) and Cry family genes (Cry1 and Cry2). The activation of these genes results in the formation of the PER/CRY complex and thereby inhibits CLOCK/BMAL1 transcriptional activity, forming a negative feedback loop [5]. Nuclear receptor, REV-ERBα (also known as NR1D1), represses the transcription of Bmal1 and itself is under the transcriptional regulation of BMAL1/CLOCK, giving rise to the second negative feedback loop of the circadian clock [6]. The genome-wide regulation by circadian TFs such as BMAL1/CLOCK and REV-ERBα typically leads to thousands of genes showing circadian expression in a given tissue. Although the basic network of core circadian genes is present in almost every cell, many of the circadian-controlled genes are tissue specific or cell type specific. Their circadian expression is a result of either tissue-specific binding of circadian TFs [7] or transcriptional cascade from tissue-specific TFs regulated by circadian TFs [8]. At the organismal level, the overt circadian rhythm is governed by an intricate network of circadian oscillators in which the master pacemaker, such as suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN) in mammals or the pineal gland in zebrafish, is believed to play a pivotal role [1,9]. Traditional in vivo or ex vivo studies of the cellular circadian clock have relied on luciferase reporter systems driven by core clock gene promoters [10,11]. But luciferase imaging can only achieve single-cell resolution in organotypic slices in culture with a high-resolution charge-coupled device (CCD) camera. Transgenic zebrafish lines carrying luciferase reporters driven by core clock gene promoters have been developed in larval zebrafish. But in vivo luciferase imaging of these fish lines lacked single-cell resolution and can only report the population-level circadian rhythm [10,12]. Genetically encoded calcium indicator (GCaMP) has been widely used to monitor in vivo single-cell calcium activity. In comparison, there is still a lack of zebrafish line to report the circadian expression at the single-cell level in vivo.

Circadian rhythm has to be established at molecular, cellular, tissue, and behavioral levels during animal development. Day-night rhythms in the fetal rat SCN are first detected between embryonic day E19 and E21 [13]. Rhythmic expression of circadian clock genes is not detected in both in vitro and in vivo mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) but only appears when ESCs differentiate into neural stem cells [14,15]. By ex vivo luciferase imaging of mouse fetal SCN, Carmona-Alcocer and colleagues showed that a few cells in SCN start circadian oscillations on E14.5, widespread synchronized oscillations were formed on E15.5, and then a dorsal-ventral phase wave was established at postnatal day P2 [16]. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) embryos that are in vitro fertilized and transparent provide an accessible model organism for in vivo live imaging, and thereby are being widely used in the study of animal development. A functional circadian clock, characterized by free-running activity, rhythmic cell cycle, and circadian gene expression, is established after hatching in zebrafish [17]. However, how single-cell circadian clocks were established during embryonic development is still unclear. It is well documented that early exposure to a light–dark (LD) cycle is required for the development of the circadian clock in zebrafish larva [10]. But it is still under debate whether the effect of light on clock development is a synchronization of already existing oscillators or an initiation of single-cell clocks. Questions like these can only be addressed by time-lapse in vivo imaging of single-cell circadian clock reporter.

Here, we report a transgenic zebrafish line using destabilized fluorescent protein, Venus-NLS-PEST (VNP), driven by the promoter of a key circadian clock gene, nr1d1. This system allows us to monitor the development of single-cell circadian rhythm in live zebrafish larva in a cell type–specific manner. We observed that VNP reporter expression undergoes stepwise onset starting at the photoreceptor cells in the pineal gland, then spreads to cells in other brain regions. Using single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq), we characterized the cell types expressing VNP in the whole brain. Within the pineal gland, we found that each cell undergoes circadian oscillation superimposed over cell type–specific developmental trajectories. Under LD cycle, cellular expression of VNP shows synchronous circadian oscillation. However, the circadian expression of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells was dramatically dampened rather than desynchronized, while the developmental trend was still present at the single-cell level in fish raised under constant darkness. Our result suggests that the early exposure of LD cycle is crucial for the ontogeny of functional single-cell oscillators.

Results

Screening for in vivo circadian reporters in zebrafish

To monitor circadian rhythm at the single-cell level in live animals, we have screened for in vivo circadian reporters among various combinations of destabilized fluorescent proteins driven by core clock gene promoters in larval zebrafish. We first tested peTurboGFP-dest1 (TGFPD1) encoding a destabilized variant of green fluorescent protein TurboGFP. The plasmids of bmal1a/bmal2/per2/nr1d1:TGFPD1 were constructed by homologous recombination. We observed that none of these plasmids were expressed in F1 embryos. We then tested the plasmids containing core clock gene promoters driven VNP, another form of destabilized fluorescent protein. We found that the plasmids of cry2b/bmal1a/per2:VNP were not expressed in F1 zebrafish embryos, while per1a:VNP has too low expression to be used for in vivo imaging. For nr1d1:VNP, it has been reported that zebrafish nr1d1 gene has two promoters, i.e., ZfP1 (distal) and ZfP2 (proximal). ZfP1 is conserved and functionally similar to mammalian Nr1d1 promoter [18]. We found that the F1 fish containing only the proximal nr1d1 promoter ZfP2 (1.5 kbp) failed to drive VNP expression. But nr1d1:VNP containing both ZfP1 and ZfP2 (6.2 kbp) showed robust expression in zebrafish embryos (Fig 1A and Table A in S2 Data). Therefore, we chose nr1d1:VNP containing ZfP1 and ZfP2 promoters as the circadian reporter and generated the transgenic fish line Tg(nr1d1:VNP) by the transposable element of Oryzias latipes (Tol) 2 system.

Fig 1. Construction of in vivo circadian reporter in zebrafish.

Fig 1

(a) The upper graph shows the schematic of nr1d1:VNP construct design. The lower graph shows a magnified view of the nr1d1 promoter sequence used for driving the circadian expression of VNP. The putative RRE (Nr1d1/2 binding site), E-box (Bmal1/Clock binding site), Crx, Otx5, and Crx/Otx5 binding sites were indicated by red oval, blue rectangle, light green oval, yellow rectangle, and dark green oval, respectively. (b) Plot of real-time PCR results of nr1d1 and Venus-pest expression. Each time point has 2 replicates, and each replicate is the pool of 7–10 fish. The dots show the original value, while the solid lines and the bars represent mean ± SEM. (c) Whole-brain two-photon image shows the spatial distribution of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in different brain regions at 7.5 dpf. (d) Experimental design to examine the developmental dynamics of nr1d1:VNP expression in the whole zebrafish brain. (e) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in the pineal gland (red), the optic tectum (green), and the cerebellum (blue) for one fish. The cells were tracked from 3.5 dpf in the pineal gland, 5.5 dpf in optic tectum, and 6.5 dpf in cerebellum, respectively. Each thin line represents one cell, while the thick line represents the mean value of cells in each brain region. (f) Illustration of the setup for time-lapse imaging. The fish were fixed in a chamber with circulating egg-water without anesthesia at temperature of 28 ± 0.5°C. (g) Single-cell tracing results of all 48 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells imaged at 1-hour resolution. The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. The numerical values for panels b, e, and g are in S1 Data. dpf, days postfertilization; PA, poly(A) site; Tol2, transposable element of Oryzias latipes 2; VNP, Venus-NLS-PEST.

The 6.2-kbp ZfP1 and ZfP2 promoter region to drive VNP expression includes the entire set of known cis-regulatory elements: E-box, RRE, Crx-, and Otx5-binding sites (Fig 1A). We measured the mRNA levels of endogenous nr1d1 and VNP expression in the Tg(nr1d1:VNP) transgenic fish from 3.5 days postfertilization (dpf) to 7.5 dpf under the 12-hour/12-hour LD cycles using real-time PCR. nr1d1 and VNP showed highly correlated expression patterns (Pearson’s r = 0.9) indicating that VNP expression faithfully reported the expression of nr1d1 at the mRNA level. In addition, both genes showed a higher expression level at the dawn than dusk over days (Fig 1B), which is consistent with our previous result that nr1d1 mRNA shows circadian expression peaking at ZT23 (Zeitgeber time) in larval zebrafish [8]. Previous studies have shown that the rhythmic period gene expression starts from the second day after birth [19,20]. We found that nr1d1 mRNA also starts oscillating from the second day of the development, as early as the per1b gene (S1A Fig). Therefore, nr1d1 reporter exhibits similar developmental profiles as per1b and can be used for studying when and how the cellular clock is developed.

We examined the spatial distribution of fluorescence-labeled cells in nr1d1:VNP at 7.5 dpf using an in vivo two-photon imaging system and found nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in many brain regions, including the pineal gland, the optic tectum, and the cerebellum (Fig 1C, S1 and S2 Movies). In particular, we observed that nr1d1:VNP-positive cells are most highly expressed in the pineal gland. We next monitored in vivo expression of nr1d1:VNP at the whole-brain scale from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf at ZT0 and ZT12 (Fig 1D) by time-lapse imaging. We aligned the time series of 3D images using CMTK toolkit (see Methods) so that we can trace each single cell in the same fish over time. In this way, we observed that the expression of nr1d1:VNP was sequentially turned on and underwent gradual increase in distinct brain regions during development, as early as 3.5 dpf in the pineal gland, followed by the optic tectum at 5.5 dpf, and other brain regions such as the cerebellum at later time points (Fig 1E, Table B in S2 Data, S1 and S2 Movies). In addition, single-cell tracing revealed that circadian oscillations of nr1d1:VNP expression appear to peak at ZT12 across brain regions (Fig 1E). The expression pattern of nr1d1:VNP closely resembled that of endogenous nr1d1 reported by Delaunay and colleagues [19]. Thus, nr1d1:VNP fish can be used as a reporter for both developmental expression and circadian expression of endogenous nr1d1 gene in zebrafish. To perform high temporal resolution imaging, we imaged the fish every hour for one day starting at 5 dpf (Fig 1F and 1G, S3 Movie, Table C in S2 Data) by a time-lapse imaging system, as illustrated in Fig 1F. The fishes were embedded in agarose gel and kept alive during the entire imaging process. We observed that 39 out of 48 traced cells in the pineal gland showed circadian oscillations using JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute oscillating amplitude >100 as the cutoff (Fig 1G and S1B and S1C Fig). This shows that nr1d1:VNP fish can report cellular circadian oscillations under continuous imaging.

Characterization of nr1d1:VNP-expressing cells

To identify the cell types expressing nr1d1:VNP in the whole brain, we conducted single-cell RNA-seq (scRNA-seq) of approximately 15,000 cells dissociated from the brain of Tg(nr1d1:VNP) larval fish at 6.5 dpf. Among them, 6,514 cells detected with more than 500 genes were used for the downstream analysis. In total, 26 cells clusters were classified from scRNA-seq. They were manually annotated by comparing the marker genes with those from whole-brain scRNA-seq data in adult zebrafish [21] (Fig 2A). Wilcoxon Rank Sum test implemented in Seurat package was applied to calculate the significance of enrichment of VNP signal in each brain region. Using adjusted P < 0.01 as the cutoff, we found that the mRNA of nr1d1:VNP was most highly enriched in cell clusters of photoreceptors in the pineal gland, which is consistent with the imaging data and leads us to focus on the pineal gland in the following analysis. The mRNA of nr1d1:VNP was also enriched in glutamatergic neurons in forebrain and hypothalamus, granule cells in cerebellum, dorsal habenula cells, as well as some non-neuron cells such as oligodendrocyte, retinal-pigment epithelium-like cells, and endothelial cells (Fig 2B).

Fig 2. Characterization of nr1d1:VNP expressing cells.

Fig 2

(a) t-SNE visualization of brain cell clusters. The clusters were annotated by comparing to the adult zebrafish scRNA-seq data. (b) Violin plot demonstrated the clusters with enriched expression of nr1d1:VNP. Y axis denotes the normalized expression value. Note the highest levels in the pineal gland. (c) Fluorescence images show the co-expression of nr1d1:VNP (nuclear signal) and aanat2:mRFP (cytoplasmic signal) in the zebrafish pineal gland. The left graph illustrates the 3D location of the pineal gland in zebrafish larva. (d) Three-dimensional reconstruction of a common zebrafish pineal gland by aligning and averaging of six fish. The gray sphere represents the boundary of the pineal gland and the green color represents the density distribution of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in the pineal gland. (e) Violin plot showed the expression of rod cell markers (rho, gnat1), cone markers (gnat2, gngt2a), and nr1d1:VNP in photoreceptor clusters. Y axis denotes the normalized expression value. (e) Fluorescence images showed the co-expression of nr1d1:VNP (nuclear signal) with the Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish line (cytoplasmic signal) and Tg(lws2:nfsB-mCherry) fish line (cytoplasmic signal) in the zebrafish pineal gland. The numerical values for panel b and e are in S1 Data. scRNA-seq, single-cell RNA-seq; t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding; VNP, Venus-NLS-PEST.

We next examined the expression of nr1d1:VNP in the pineal gland at the single-cell resolution. Fig 2C showed an example of 3D reconstruction of nr1d1:VNP signals in the pineal gland. At 4.5 dpf, each pineal gland contains about 60 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells. To better understand the cell type of these cells, we crossed Tg(nr1d1:VNP) with Tg(aanat2:mRFP) [12]. Averaged 3D cell density distribution of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells across six fish (Methods section) revealed that nr1d1:VNP-positive cells were mostly distributed around the lumen of the pineal gland, while the cell density was relatively low in the central part of the pineal gland (Fig 2D). We observed that nr1d1:VNP signals were highly overlapped with the aanat2:mRFP signals (94%) indicating that most nr1d1:VNP-positive cells were melatonin-synthesizing photoreceptor cells in the pineal gland (Fig 2C, S4 Movie). According to our scRNA-seq data, VNP is expressed in both rod-like photoreceptors and cone-like photoreceptors (Fig 2E). Indeed, we observed co-labeling of VNP with rod cell marker (xops) (10%) and cone cell marker (lws2) (21%) in the pineal gland by crossing the Tg(nr1d1:VNP) fish line with Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) and Tg(lws2:nfsB-mCherry) fish lines, respectively (Fig 2F). Our scRNA-seq data also suggested that nr1d1:VNP is expressed in proliferative cells. Indeed, when we crossed our VNP fish line with Tg(her4:DsRed) zebrafish marking proliferative cells [22], we found co-labeling of VNP and red fluorescent protein from Discosoma (DsRed) in the pineal at 5.5 dpf (26%) (S1D Fig). This result indicated that a small number of photoreceptors could be still proliferating at 5 dpf. The co-labeled cells may include a small number of glial cells, which also express high levels of her4, as scRNA-seq data suggested that nr1d1 is also expressed in non-photoreceptor cells such as glial cells.

Developmental dynamics of nr1d1:VNP expression within the pineal gland

To examine the development of circadian oscillations more closely in the pineal gland, we imaged nr1d1:VNP signals in the pineal gland from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf using two-photon imaging (Fig 3A and 3B, S5S10 Movies, Table D in S2 Data). The time series of 3D images were first aligned using CMTK toolkit. Then, the fluorescent intensities of each single cell in the aligned images were traced by Trackmate (a Fiji plug-in) [23] (details in Methods). The majority of cells already showed higher nr1d1:VNP signals in dusk than dawn when the signals first become detectable in the pineal gland (S2 Fig). This pattern does not change significantly during development (ANOVA P = 0.78) (S2 Fig). However, we found that VNP-positive cells within the pineal gland display heterogeneous temporal patterns of nr1d1:VNP expression over development (Fig 3C). Some cells showed rapid increase in the baseline level, while other cells showed more robust circadian oscillations. We then quantified the circadian and developmental components in each cell by fitting the time-series data with a regression model that combines a stepwise function of time, (B*(−1)(x+1)), denoting circadian oscillation, with a linear function of time, (Ax + C), denoting the developmental increase (Fig 3D). After fitting the model, we found that the regression coefficients of developmental effect (A) and circadian oscillation (B) both vary widely across cells, but there is a negative correlation between them (Fig 3E).

Fig 3. Developmental dynamics of nr1d1:VNP expression.

Fig 3

(a) Experimental design to examine the developmental dynamics of nr1d1:VNP expression. (b) Fluorescence images illustrate the tracing of one nr1d1:VNP cell during development from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. This cell was highlighted in green in Fig 3C. (c) Raw fluorescence intensity of the traced cells (six fish). (d) Regression model used to fit the fluorescence intensity (the cell is illustrated in Fig 3B and highlighted in Fig 3C). The dots represent the fluorescence intensity, while the line represents the fitting curve. (e) Scatterplot demonstrated the relationship between coefficients of developmental effect (A) and circadian oscillation (B). The histograms in orange and blue showed the distribution of coefficients of developmental effect (A) and the distribution of coefficients of circadian oscillations (B), respectively. ***Pearson’s correlation P < 0.001. (f) Raw fluorescence intensity of rod-like cells and non-rod-like cells (six fish). Each thin line represents one cell and each dot represents raw fluorescence intensity. The thick lines represent the loess-smoothed curves for all rod-like cells in red and non-rod-like cells in blue, respectively. The shaded areas show the 95% confidence level of the smoothed curve. (g) A comparison of baseline expression (C) between rod-like and non-rod-like cells. Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. **P < 0.01. The numerical values for panels c–g were in S1 Data. dpf, days postfertilization.

To reveal if the heterogeneity of single-cell temporal profiles within the pineal gland is due to the differences in cell type, we next conducted cell type–specific imaging by crossing nr1d1:VNP with the fish line, labeling rod-like cells in red fluorescent protein Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry). After imaging nr1d1:VNP signals in the rod-like and non-rod-like cells simultaneously in the same fish during development from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf (Table E in S2 Data, S11S16 Movies), we found that rod-like cells have higher level of baseline expression than non-rod-like cells (Fig 3F and 3G). Taken together, pineal photoreceptor cells of zebrafish larvae undergo circadian oscillations superimposed over cell type–specific developmental trajectories.

Single-cell circadian oscillations in the pineal gland

We next monitored the nr1d1:VNP signals in the pineal glands of live zebrafish larvae with temporal resolution every 2 hours at 5 dpf using two-photon imaging (Fig 4A, S17 and S18 Movies). We traced every nr1d1:VNP-positive cell at a different time of the day (Fig 4B, Table F in S2 Data). Fig 4C showed the trace plots of individual cells of two zebrafish throughout the day. JTKcycle was applied to calculate the circadian phase and amplitude of each cell. Using JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute oscillating amplitude >100 as the cutoff, we identified 99 cells showed circadian oscillations in a total of 117 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in the pineal gland. Their circadian phases were distributed around ZT12 within a narrow range (Fig 4D), with Kuramoto order parameter R = 0.86 indicating the phase coherence of single-cell circadian oscillators [24]. Clustering analysis of single-cell VNP traces identified two distinct clusters of cells that can be distinguished by their baseline fluorescence intensities (Fig 4E and 4G). Such difference in baseline level of expression at 5 dpf can be explained by the cell type–specific developmental trajectories that we observed above. We also observed that the cluster with higher baseline level (cluster 2) also showed lower relative amplitude of oscillation (Fig 4H). Similar negative correlation between mean transcriptional activity and relative amplitude of circadian oscillations has been reported in mouse [25]. However, there is no significant difference in circadian phase between the two clusters (S3 Fig). In short, circadian clocks in pineal photoreceptor cells are oscillating synchronously under LD in spite of the large difference in baseline level.

Fig 4. Circadian dynamics of the pineal gland at higher temporal resolution (two fish).

Fig 4

(a) Experimental design to examine the developmental dynamics of nr1d1:VNP expression at higher temporal resolution. (b) Fluorescence images illustrate the tracing of one nr1d1:VNP example cell every 2 hours. (c) Single-cell tracing results of all 117 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in two zebrafish pineal glands (two fish). The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. The example cell in (b) is highlighted by a green square. (d) Circadian phase distributions of the 117 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells. (e) t-SNE visualization of the clustering result of the 117 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells. (f) Raw fluorescence intensity traces of the two types of nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in (e). (g and h) The comparison of the baseline expression (g) and relative circadian amplitude (h) between the two types of cells. The colors of the boxes correspond to (e). Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. ***P < 0.001. (i and j) Scatterplot demonstrates the relationship between baseline intensity and relative oscillation amplitude for fish1 (i) and fish2 (j), respectively. ***Pearson’s correlation P < 0.001. The numerical values for panels c–j are in S1 Data. dpf, days postfertilization; t-SNE, t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

LD cycle is essential for cellular clocks

It is known that LD cycle is required for the development of the circadian clock in zebrafish [10]. However, it is unclear whether the role of LD cycle in clock ontogeny is a synchronization of individual oscillators or an initiation of oscillation. To address this question, we imaged nr1d1:VNP signals in zebrafish larvae raised under constant dark (DD) from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf using two-photon imaging (Fig 5A, S19S22 Movies, Table G in S2 Data). Examination of the expression patterns of all nr1d1:VNP-positive cells from four DD fish showed that, although the expression of nr1d1:VNP still increased during development, no obvious oscillations were observed in DD cells (Fig 5B). Indeed, regression analysis showed that the oscillation coefficients defined as the stepwise function of the majority of DD cells are not significantly different from zero (Fig 5C). However, DD cells have even higher developmental coefficients than LD cells (Fig 5D). In comparison, when we imaged the fish transferred into DD condition after six LD cycles (LD_DD cells) (Fig 5E–5G, Tables H–I in S2 Data, S23S28 Movies), we observed that LD_DD cells were still oscillating into two days of darkness (Fig 5F) and the amplitude of circadian oscillation showed no significant difference compared to the fish kept under LD condition (LD_LD cells) (Fig 5G). To further examine the circadian oscillation in dark-raised fish, we imaged nr1d1:VNP signals in the pineal gland every 2 hours at 5 dpf (Fig 5H, Table J in S2 Data, S29S31 Movies). JTKcycle (from MetaCycle package in R) was applied to calculate the circadian phase and amplitude of each cell. We found that DD cells showed much lower oscillating amplitudes than those in LD cells (Fig 4I and 4J). Using JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude >100 as the cutoff, only 3 out of 142 DD cells showed significant oscillations, compared to 99 out of 117 LD cells showing significant oscillations (Fig 5K). Cosine fitting with 24-hour period and shifting phases as described in our previously paper [26] was also applied to confirm this result, using cosine fitting P < 0.05 and relative oscillating amplitude >0.05 as the cutoff. Only 1 out of 142 DD cells showed significant oscillation, consistent with the JTKcycle result (S4A–S4C Fig). Time-lapse imaging in every hour at 5 dpf of DD cells further confirmed this result (S32 Movie, Table K in S2 Data). In fact, no oscillating cells were identified using JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude >100 as the cutoff (S4D–S4G Fig). Therefore, our result suggests that the cellular circadian oscillations in DD fish were severely dampened rather than desynchronized during the development.

Fig 5. LD cycle is essential for nr1d1 oscillation.

Fig 5

(a) Experimental design to investigate the effect of light on the onset of circadian clock development. (b) Expression patterns of all cells under DD condition during development (four fish). Each thin line represents one cell. Each thick line represents the loess-smoothed curve of all cells in each individual fish. The shaded area shows the 95% confidence level of the smoothed curve. (c) Comparison of oscillating coefficient (B) between LD (six fish) and DD (four fish) cells. Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. ***P < 0.001. (d) Comparison of developmental coefficient (A) between LD (six fish) and DD (four fish) cells. Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. ***P < 0.001. (e) Experimental design to examine the single-cell circadian clocks under DD after transferred from LD (LD_DD). (f) Expression patterns of LD_LD (three fish) and LD_DD cells (three fish) from 6.0 to 7.5 dpf. Each thin line represents one cell and each dot represents raw fluorescence intensity. Thick lines represent the loess-smoothed curves for all the LD_DD cells in red and LD_LD cells in blue, respectively. The shaded areas show the 95% confidence level of the smooth curve. (g) Log2-transformed dusk–dawn ratios of VNP fluorescence intensities of all the cells in (f). Each data point represents one cell and the colors correspond to different fish. The red dashed line represents y = 0. n.s. represents no significant difference in dusk–dawn ratios between different time points (two-tailed ANOVA test). (h) Experimental design to examine the expression pattern of DD cells at higher temporal resolution. (i) Expression patterns of LD (two fish) and DD cells (three fish) across one day at 2-hour resolution. Each thin line represents one cell and each dot represents raw fluorescence intensity. Thick lines represent the loess-smoothed curves for all the LD in blue and DD cells in red, respectively. The shaded areas show the 95% confidence level of the smooth curve. (j) Comparison of the absolute amplitudes of LD and DD cells in (i) from JTKcycle. The red dashed line represents y = 100. (k) Percentages of oscillating cells (JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude >100) in each LD and DD fish. The orange bars represent the percentage of oscillating cells, while the blue bars represent the percentage of non-oscillating cells. The numerical values for panels b, c, d, f, g, i, j, and k were in S1 Data. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark; VNP, Venus-NLS-PEST; ZT, Zeitgeber time.

Discussion

The mouse version of nr1d1:VNP was originally developed by Nagoshi and colleagues in NIH 3T3 cells. VNP was chosen for its high fluorescence intensity and high folding efficiency [27]. With this reporter, they were able to show that each NIH 3T3 fibroblast cell has a self-sustained circadian oscillator that can be entrained by serum shock. Also using this reporter, two independent studies have demonstrated the tight coupling between circadian rhythm and cell cycle in proliferating NIH 3T3 cells [28,29]. But the application of nr1d1:VNP in circadian research has so far been limited in cell lines. In our study, we constructed live zebrafish carrying nr1d1:VNP fluorescence reporter, and for the first time, we can monitor the circadian gene expression at the single-cell resolution in zebrafish larvae. Using this reporter fish, we revealed the interplays among circadian clock, cell type–specific development, and LD cycle. It is noted that caveats of using a transgenic technology rather than a site-specific knock-in strategy may exist, such as the position effects of the reporter insertion. As fluorescent, ubiquitination-based cell cycle indicator (FUCCI) lines to label different stages of cell cycle are available in zebrafish [30], one can cross nr1d1:VNP fish with cell-cycle reporter lines to examine the relationship between circadian clock and cell cycle in vivo. By crossing fish lines containing cell type–specific fluorescent markers with our nr1d1:VNP fish, one can conduct cell type–specific imaging of circadian rhythm, as we have demonstrated for rod-like cells in the pineal gland. Larval zebrafish has also been used in drug screening for chemical compounds affecting circadian rhythm and sleep [31]. Our nr1d1:VNP fish could be used to investigate the effect of selected drug targets on the synchronization of single-cell oscillators in vivo. With advanced microfluidic systems to capture and recapture larval zebrafish, one can conduct more intense imaging on the same fish to achieve higher temporal resolution while minimizing the perturbations to the fish [32]. Using a newly developed movable platform to track zebrafish larvae and a novel volume imaging system, live imaging of cellular circadian rhythm on free-moving zebrafish will become possible [33]. In summary, our single-cell circadian reporter zebrafish line will have broad applications in circadian research.

It has been shown that physiological and behavioral rhythms in zebrafish appear during the larval stages of zebrafish [3436]. In our study, the expression of nr1d1 appeared gradually in development and stepwise in different brain regions. As the major component of the second negative feedback loop in circadian clock, nr1d1 is directly regulated by BMAL1 and represses the expression of bmal1 [1]. The onset of nr1d1 expression may represent the maturation of a functional circadian clock during development. Our single-cell study revealed the developmental trajectory of nr1d1 expression varies greatly among individual cells, and the onset of circadian rhythm is dependent on early light exposure. Ziv and colleagues have shown that per2 expression can be induced by light and is necessary for light-dependent onset of circadian oscillation of aanat2 in the pineal gland [37]. In addition, otx5, a TF constantly expressed in circadian cycle, has been shown to regulate the expression of nr1d1 in the pineal gland [38]. It is likely that otx5/crx are responsible for cell type–specific developmental components of nr1d1 expression. Nagoshi and colleagues have suggested that the robust expression of Nr1d1:VNP in mouse NIH 3T3 cells is due to high transcriptional activity of Nr1d1 promoter in these cells, as Nr1d1 is more highly expressed in tissues such as liver compared to other core clock genes such as Bmal1 [27]. In our case, the presence of otx5 and crx binding sites in nr1d1:VNP promoter may have given rise to its robust expression in pineal photoreceptors and cells in other brain regions. Therefore, one can replace otx5 and crx binding sites by those of other cell type–specific TFs in nr1d1:VNP to report the circadian rhythm in cell types of interest. This will enable single-cell imaging of circadian clock in a broad range of cell types in live zebrafish.

Several studies have shown that, in the absence of light, the overall circadian oscillation of gene expression was absent in developing zebrafish embryos [10,20,37]. But it is unclear if this is due to the lack of initiation or synchronization of cellular clocks. By imaging per1-luc transgenic fish, Dekens and colleagues suggested that cells in the embryos kept under constant environmental conditions may undergo asynchronous oscillations [20]. Ziv and colleagues also proposed that the expression of aanat2 is asynchronous in individual pineal cells under constant darkness [37]. Carr and Whitmore showed that light-sensitive cells of the zebrafish DAP20 cell line kept under long-term darkness became desynchronized, and light can synchronize the clocks in these cells [11]. To our surprise, we did not observe asynchronous oscillations of nr1d1:VNP among individual cells in our reporter fish raised under constant darkness. In Dekens and colleagues’ study, separate zebrafish siblings fixed at circadian time (CT) 3 and CT15, respectively, under DD conditions have an intermediate number of cells expressing per1 at the RNA level [20]. Similarly, Ziv and colleagues observed an average level of aanat2 in the zebrafish embryos kept in constant darkness compared with the fish kept in LD cycle. However, these observations are not the direct evidence for asynchronous oscillations, as the gene expression was not traced over time in the same fish. Instead, they can be explained by the highly variable baseline gene expression between single cells within the same fish observed in our study. The difference between our study and Carr and Whitmore’s study may reflect the difference between in vivo versus in vitro systems. During our time of imaging, zebrafish embryos are undergoing rapid changes of cellular states through differentiation and proliferation, which may preclude the existence of a self-sustained cellular clock. The zebrafish cell line used by Carr and Whitmore is a stable transfected cell line and can harbor free-running autonomous clocks as demonstrated in some stable mammalian cell lines [39]. However, it has also been shown that mammalian induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) and ESCs are non-rhythmic [14,40], suggesting that the difference of cellular states plays an important role in the state of cellular clocks. Our study thus suggests that early light exposure in zebrafish larvae has a dramatic effect on the development of self-sustained cellular clocks, demonstrating the utility of the single-cell circadian zebrafish reporter. As nr1d1 is mainly involved in the second circadian feedback loop, one cannot rule out the possibility that the development of cellular circadian oscillations that we observed in this study is specific to this second loop. Therefore, it will be important to further investigate the single-cell expression of other circadian clock genes such as Per family genes during development in future studies.

Methods

Ethics statement

All experiments with zebrafish were done in accordance with protocols approved by the Animal Use Committee of Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences (permission number NA-045-2019).

Construction of the nr1d1:VNP (Venus-NLS-PEST) expression vector

The zebrafish nr1d1:VNP reporter plasmid was constructed as follows. The mouse Nr1d1:VNP reporter plasmid was generously provided by Emi Nagoshi [27] (Department of Genetics and Evolution, Sciences III, University of Geneva). The plasmid carries an intact VNP sequence. VNP is a nuclear fluorescent protein with a high folding efficiency and short half-life [28]. The zebrafish nr1d1:VNP plasmid was obtained by homologous recombination with four cassettes. The targeting cassette was generated by four-step PCR amplification. The first PCR step was performed to amplify the tol2-polyA-ampicillin gene with an additional 3′ sequence that is homologous to the 5′ end region of zebrafish nr1d1 promoter (template: 394-tcf-lef-TuboGFPdest1, forward primer: 5′-GCTTCTGCTAGGATCAATGTGTAG-3′, reverse primer: 5′-CCTATAGTGAGTCGTATTACCAACTT-3′). The second and third PCR steps were performed to amplify the promoter of zebrafish nr1d1 gene (6.2 kbp) (template sequences from zebrafish genome: second PCR forward primer: 5′- TACGACTCACTATAGGTTTTCCACCCGCTGGGCTGCCTCTCACGTG-3′, reverse primer: 5′-TATTCCTTGCTTCCGTCTGTAGTGCCCAAT-3′; third PCR forward primer: 5′-GGCAGACATCACGGGTTAAGACACAGTGTT-3′; reverse primer: 5′-CAGCAGGCTGAAGTTAGTAGCTCCGCTTCCTCCCGGAGGGGATGGTGGGAATGATGATCC-3′). The fourth PCR step was performed to amplify the cassette of VNP (template sequences from mouse Nr1d1:VNP reporter plasmid forward primer: 5′-ACTAACTTCAGCCTGCTGATGGTGAGCAAGGGCGAGGA-3′, reverse primer: 5′-CTACACATTGATCCTAGCAGGAGCACAG-3′). The 3′ arm of the first PCR was homologous to the 5′ arm of the second PCR, the 3′ arm of the second PCR was homologous to the 5′ arm of the third PCR, the 3′ arm of the third PCR was homologous to the 5′ arm of the fourth PCR, and the 3′ arm of the fourth PCR was homologous to the 5′ arm of the first PCR. The vector construct was verified by sequencing. Fig 1A shows the schematic of the nr1d1:VNP construct design. The structure of the 6.2-kbp nr1d1 promoter containing multiple E-box, RRE, and pineal-specific elements was also described.

Generation of transgenic Tg(nr1d1:VNP) zebrafish reporter line

Generation of transgenic fish using the Tol2 system was carried out according to the published protocol [41]. Constructs were injected together with capped RNA encoding transposase (10 ng/μL each of DNA and RNA) into fertilized eggs at the one-cell stage. The injected fish (F0 generation) were raised and screened for integration of the transgene into the germline. Isolation of transgene-positive progeny (F1) was carried out using EGFP imaging using fluorescence stereomicroscpe (Olymous, SZX16). For in vivo imaging, Tg(nr1d1:VNP) zebrafish was crossed with a pigmentation mutant strain (casper mutant), which is transparent in the whole brain except the eyes.

Generation of transgenic Tg(lws2:nfsB-mCherry) and Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) zebrafish reporter line

The 1.77-kbp lws2 and 1.38-kbp xops (Xenopus rhodopsin) promoter were amplified by PCR. Specific primers for the lws2 promoter: 5′-GGCCAGATGGGCCCTGTTGTGCACCAGATCTGAGT-3′ and 5′-TGGTCCAGCCTGCTTTTTGGAAACCCTGAAGATCA-3′. The xops promoter (1,370 bp) was amplified from pFIN-XOPS-tdTOMP (Semple-Rowland SL and colleagues, 2010, addgene #44359) using forward (5′-TATAGGGCGAATTGGGGCCGCAGATCTTTATACATTGC-3′) and reverse (5′-CCGGTGGATCCCAAACCCTCGAGATCCCTAGAAGCCTGTGAT-3′) primers containing homogenous recombination sites, respectively. The products were subcloned into pTol-uas:nfsB-mCherry plasmid to substitute the uas promoter by using homologous recombination kit (ClonExpress MultiS One Step Cloning Kit, C113; Vazyme, China). The pTol-lws2:nfsB-mCherry plasmid and pTol-xops:nfsB-mCherry were co-injected into AB embryos with Tol2 transposase mRNA at the one-cell stage. The mCherry signal was screened to identify F1.

Zebrafish husbandry

Adult zebrafish (NCBI taxonomy ID: 7955) were raised and maintained in fully automated zebrafish housing systems (Aquazone, Tzofit, Israel; temperature 28°C, pH 7.0, conductivity 300 mS) under 14-hour/10-hour LD cycles, and fed with paramecium twice a day. Larvae were fed twice a day starting from 5 dpf. For the experiments under normal LD condition, embryos were produced by natural spawning in the morning and raised in egg-water containing methylene blue (0.3 ppm) in a light-controlled incubator under 12-hour/12-hour LD cycles at 28°C. ZT0 is defined as the time when the lights are turned on (9 AM). For the experiments under DD condition, embryos were collected within 30 minutes after birth and put into a black box in a dark incubator at 28°C. All the experimental protocols were approved by the Animal Use Committee of Institute of Neuroscience, Chinese Academy of Sciences.

We use Tg(nr1d1:VNP), Tg(aanat2:mRFP), Tg(lws2:nfsB-mCherry), Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry), and Tg(her4:DsRed) zebrafish lines, which were maintained on an AB background. Sex includes male and female. We used the larva fish aged from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf.

In vivo imaging

Fish were randomly selected to be imaged under LD or DD. We were not blinded to LD and DD fish group allocation. For time-lapse imaging every two hours lasting for one day starting at ZT0 (Figs 1G, 4 and 5I–5K), 5.0 dpf zebrafish larvae were anesthetized with MS-222 (Sigma-Aldrich) (0.01%–0.02%) and mounted in low melting point agarose (1.3%–1.5%). The fish were maintained in a chamber with circulating egg-water without anesthesia at temperature of 28 ± 0.5°C. For imaging from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours at ZT0 and ZT12 (Figs 1E, 3 and 5A–5G) and single time point imaging (Fig 2C and 2F), the zebrafish larvae were anesthetized at each time point with MS-222 (sigma-Aldrich) (0.01%–0.02%) and embedded in low melting point agarose (0.8%–1.0%) before imaging. Three to four fish were imaged in each imaging session that lasts for one half to one hour. Fish were released immediately after the end of each imaging session and in a free-moving state between image sessions. All fish were imaged from dorsal view using two-photon microscope (Olympus) as described previously [42]. Imaging was performed using a 25× (numerical aperture [NA] = 1.05) water-immersion objective (Olympus). Excitation was provided by a Ti:Sapphire femtosecond pulsed laser system (Coherent) tuned to 900 nm, which allowed efficient simultaneous excitation of Venus fluorescent protein. Laser power was set to 33–35 mW for pineal imaging and 44.4 mW for whole-brain imaging. We used two-photon excitation microscopy for two reasons, as suggested by Carvalho and Heisenberg [43]. First, the near-infrared wavelength has undetectable effects on fish physiology and behavior. Second, as the two-photon excitation is only achieved near the focal plane, it minimizes photo bleaching and phototoxicity. The sample size estimate is based on our previous studies. Two fish under LD condition were imaged for the whole-brain imaging (Fig 1E). One fish under LD condition was imaged for one day every hour (Fig 1G). Two fish under LD condition and three fish under DD condition were imaged for one day every 2 hours (Figs 4 and 5I–5K). Six fish under LD condition and four fish under DD condition were imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (Figs 1E, 3A–3E and 5A–5G). Three fish under LD_LD condition and three fish under LD_DD condition were imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (Fig 5F). Six Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish (Fig 3F–3H) were imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours.

scRNA-seq and data analysis

Larval heads (6-dpf) were dissected on dissection medium (DMEF/F12 with 2% 100X penicillin-streptomycin) and pineal regions were enriched by pipetting the pineal with the whole brain into a tube placed on ice. Then the dissociated cells were obtained according to the protocol from Miguel A. Lopez-Ramirez and colleagues [44]. First, add 300 uL papain solution to the dissected tissue at 37°C in water heater for 15 minutes, with gentle pipetting during digestion. Then, stop the digestion by adding 1.2 mL of washing solution (650 μL gluose [45%], 500 μl HEPES [1 M], and 5 mL FBP were added into 93.85 mL DEBS 1X) and wash the cells twice using washing solution. In the end, sterilize the cells using a 40-um pore size filter. To count the living cells, we stained cells using trypan blue and counted the cells using a hemocytometer. The resulting single cell suspension was promptly loaded on the 10X Chromium system using Chromium Single Cell 3’ Reagents v2. The barcoded cDNA library was then sequenced on the Illumina NovaSeq 6000 system.

For data analysis, raw sequencing data were converted to matrices of expression counts using the cellranger software provided by 10X Chromium; zebrafish reference transcriptome (ENSEMBL Zv11, release 95) was used as reference genome. The gene expression matrix was then loaded into Seurat package [45] in R for the following analysis. Cells with less than 500 genes or a percentage of mitochondiral genes > 0.02 were excluded from the following analysis. The graph-based method from Seurat was used to cluster the left cells (6,514 cells). The PCA was selected as the dimensional reduction technique in the construction of the shared nearest-neighbor (SNN) graph. The first 50 PCs were then used in an SSN clustering, with the resolution equal to 1. A t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding (t-SNE) clustering was performed on the scaled matrix (with highly variable genes only) to obtain a 2D representation of the cell states. Finally, 26 clusters were identified. They were manually annotated by comparing the marker genes with those from whole-brain scRNA-seq data in adult zebrafish [21].

Image analysis

The image data were first converted to ‘nrrd’ format using a customer Fiji [46] macro code for downstream analysis. Time series of 3D images in ‘nrrd’ format for each fish were then aligned by CMTK toolkit (parameters: -awr 01 -l fa -g -T 8 -X 10 -C 1 -G 20 -R 2 -E 1 -A '—accuracy 5—dofs 12' -W '—accuracy 5' for the alignment of the pineal gland; -ar 01 -l a -A '—exploration 50—accuracy 5—dofs 12' for the alignment of whole brain) to facilitate the single cell tracing. TrackMate [23], an open source Fiji [46] plug-in, was applied to perform the single-cell nucleus identification and tracing on 3D images over time. Briefly, Laplacian of Gaussian (LoG) filter with a sigma suited to the estimated blob diameter (5.5 μm) was applied to detect the single-cell nuclei in each 3D image. Then HyperStack Displayer was applied to visualize the identified spots, which allows manual editing afterwards. A nearest-neighbor algorithm (parameter: maximal linking distance 5.5 μm) was applied to trace each single cell. After the automatic processing, the identification and tracing of each cell were manually curated using the manual tracking tools of TrackMate [23]. Combining the automated and manual tracking approaches can significantly increase the detection accuracy of single cells. In the end, the cell position and mean image intensities were exported for the following statistical analysis. For the whole-brain data, the pineal gland, the optic tectum, and the cerebellum were first manually extracted, then single cells were traced using manual tracking tools of TrackMate [23], and mean intensities of each brain region were used for the following analysis. The cell position and mean intensities for all the fish analyzed were listed in Tables B–J in S2 Data.

Three-dimensional reconstruction of zebrafish pineal gland

To systematically analyze the 3D distribution of the nr1d1:VNP-positive cells, a common 3D pineal gland structure was reconstructed by averaging six zebrafish pineal glands at 5.5 dpf. First, we manually reconstructed the 3D pineal structure of six individual 5.5 dpf zebrafish pineal glands, taking advantage of the clear pineal gland boundary in two-photon imaging. Secondly, all 3D pineal gland structures from different fish were aligned using rigid transformation using CMTK (parameters: -ar 01 -l a -A '—accuracy 5—dofs 12'). Thirdly, the signals from aligned 3D pineal glands were added and smoothed by Gaussian blur (Sigma = 30) using Fiji package [46]. In the end, a common 3D pineal gland structure was obtained by implementing Li’s minimum cross entropy thresholding method using Fiji package [46].

The cells of each pineal gland were then registered to the common 3D pineal gland using the same transform matrix for the alignment of the 3D pineal gland structure. The ‘ks’ package in R (https://www.R-project.org/) was applied to calculate the cell density distribution. The common zebrafish pineal structure and nr1d1:VNP cell density distribution were visualized by NeuTube software [47] (Fig 2D).

Statistical analysis

All the statistical analysis was performed using the computing environment R (https://www.R-project.org/). The fluorescence intensities were log2-tranformed before fitting. Relative amplitude was defined as absolute amplitudes divided by means. For the time-lapse imaging data from 5.0 dpf to 6.0 dpf every half hour, both JTKcycle (from MetaCycle package in R) and cosine fitting were applied to analysze the data. JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude >100 were used as the cutoff to define rhythmic cells. The circadian phase and amplitude of each cell were also calculated by fitting the mean intensity of each cell to cosine functions with a 24-hour period and shifting phases as described previously [26]. R package ‘circular’ was applied to calculate the average circadian peak (mean.circular) and Kuramoto’s order parameter R (Rho.circular). For the imaging data of developmental time course from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf, the fluorescence intensities were first normalized by dividing the mean intensity. A regression model combining a stepwise function denoting the circadian effect and a linear function denoting the developmental trend were used to fit the data. Namely, F(x) = Ax+ B*(−1)(x+1) + C, A denotes the slope of developmental trend, B denotes the amplitude of circadian oscillation, and C denotes the baseline level of fluorescence intensity. Nonlinear least squares (nls) were applied to determine these three parameters and the level of significance of each coefficient. R package ‘Seurat’ was applied to perform t-SNE analysis and visualization of clusters. To classify LD cells imaged every 2 hours, all the 12 principle components were used and resolution was set to 0.4.

Real-time qPCR

For each time point, A total of 15 to 20 fish were separated into 2 tubes equally. Here, the sample size estimate is based on our previous studies. Trizol (Invitrogen) was immediately added to each tube. Then, total RNA was isolated from zebrafish larvae by Trizol (Invitrogen) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Total RNA quantities were measured by a Nanodrop spectrometer (Nanodrop 2000). Five hundred nanograms of total RNA was reverse transcribed using HiScript II Q RT SuperMix for qPCR (+gDNA wiper) (vazyme) according to the manufacturer's protocol. Two microliters of RT product (1:10 diluted) and 10 μL of SYBR Green Master Mix (vazyme) were used in qPCR on an ABI StepOne Plus System (Thermo Fisher) according to the manufacturer's protocol. The specificity of PCR was checked by melting curve analysis. In every qPCR assay, eef1a1 was used as the control gene for any significant bias of starting materials across samples. Primers used in this study were listed in Table L in S2 Data.

Supporting information

S1 Fig

(a) Plot of real-time PCR results of nr1d1 and per1b during early development (from 26 hpf to 68 hpf). Each time point is the pool of 10–20 fish. (b) Raw fluorescence values of all the traced nr1d1:VNP cells at 1-hour intervals for one day. (c) Circadian phase distributions of the 48 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in b. (d) Fluorescence images show the co-expression of nr1d1:VNP (nuclear signal) and her4:DsRed (cytoplasmic signal) in the zebrafish pineal gland. hpf, hours post fertilization.

(EPS)

S2 Fig. Log2-transformed dusk–dawn ratios of VNP fluorescence intensities at different time points during development (i.e., 4.5 dpf/4.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf/5.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf/6.0 dpf).

(a) Each data point represents one cell and the colors correspond to different fish. The red dashed line represents y = 0. n.s. represents no significant difference in dusk–dawn ratios between different time points (two-tailed ANOVA test). (b) Barplot shows the number of cells with dusk > dawn (blue color, i.e., the number of cells above the red dash line in b) or dusk < dawn (red color, i.e., the number of cells below the red dash line in b). dpf, days postfertilization; VNP, Venus-NLS-PEST.

(EPS)

S3 Fig

The comparison of the circadian phase between the two types of cells in Fig 4E: (a) fish1, (b) fish2. The color of the boxes corresponds to Fig 4E. Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. n.s. represents P > 0.05.

(EPS)

S4 Fig. LD cycle is essential for nr1d1 oscillation.

(a) Comparison of the relative amplitudes of LD and DD cells in Fig 5I from cosine fitting. The red dashed line represents y = 0.05. (b) Percentages of oscillating cells (cosine fitting P < 0.05 and relative amplitude > 0.05) in each LD and DD fish. The orange bars represent the percentage of oscillating cells, while the blue bars represent the percentage of non-oscillating cells. (c) Single-cell tracing results of all 142 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in three zebrafish pineal glands raised under DD condition. The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. (d) Expression patterns of LD (1 fish) and DD cells (1 fish) across one day at 1-hour resolution. Each thin line represents one cell and each dot represents raw fluorescence intensity. Thick lines represent the loess-smoothed curves for all the LD in blue and DD cells in red, respectively. The shaded areas show the 95% confidence level of the smooth curve. (e) Comparison of the absolute amplitudes of LD and DD cells from JTKcycle (1-hour resolution). The red dashed line represents y = 100. (f) Percentages of oscillating cells (JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude > 100) in each LD and DD fish (1-hour resolution). The orange bars represent the percentage of oscillating cells, while the blue bars represent the percentage of non-oscillating cells. (g) Single-cell tracing results of all 24 nr1d1:VNP-positive DD cells imaged at 1-hour resolution. The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. DD, constant dark; LD, light–dark.

(EPS)

S1 Data.  Excel spreadsheet containing data values plotted in all main and supporting figures.

(XLSX)

S2 Data. Tables A–L.

(A) Promoter sequences (in Fastq format) used in this study to screen the circadian reporters in zebrafish. (B) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland, the optical tectum, and the cerebellum during development based on the whole-brain two-photon imaging under LD condition. The cells were tracked starting at 3.5 dpf in pineal gland, 5.5 dpf in optical tectum, and 6.5 dpf in cerebellum, respectively. Fish were imaged every 12 hours until 7.5 dpf. (C) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every hour under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (D) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland during development under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (E) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland of Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf under LD condition. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (F) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every 2 hours under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (G) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland during development under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (H) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf. Those are the control cells for Table I. (I) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf under LD_DD condition (fish were transferred to DD at 5.5 dpf) based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were raised under LD from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and transferred to DD at 5.5dpf. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf. (J) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every 2 hours under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging in the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (K) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every hour under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging in the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (L) Primers sequences used in RT-PCR experiment. In Tables A–K, TrackIDs are the identifiers unique for each individual fish. PositionX/Y/Z.* and Intensity.* are the x/y/z position and mean fluorescence intensity of the cell in each time point. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark; RT-PCR, real-time PCR.

(XLSX)

S1 Movie. The combined image stacks of the whole brain using two-photon imaging (whole brain fish 1).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (9 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, top to bottom, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S2 Movie. The combined image stacks of the whole brain using two-photon imaging (whole brain fish 2).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (9 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, top to bottom, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S3 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 8).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every hour (24 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S4 Movie. Confocal 3D reconstructions of zebrafish pineal gland.

Zebrafish larvae were co-labeled with nr1d1:VNP (blue) and aanat2:mRFP (red).

(AVI)

S5 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 1).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S6 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 2).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S7 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 3).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S8 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 4).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S9 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 5).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S10 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 6).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S11 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 1).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S12 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 2).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S13 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 3).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S14 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 4).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S15 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 5).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S16 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 6).

This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S17 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 7).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S18 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 8).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S19 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 1).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S20 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 2).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S21 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 3).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S22 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 4).

The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S23 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 1).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S24 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 2).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S25 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 3).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S26 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 1).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S27 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 2).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S28 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 3).

The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

(AVI)

S29 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 5).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S30 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 6).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S31 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 7).

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

S32 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging.

The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf every hour (22 stacks, CT3–CT24). The fish was raised under DD condition. CT, circadian time DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

(AVI)

Acknowledgments

We thank Prof. Emi Nagoshi (Department of Genetics and Evolution, Sciences III, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland) for the mouse Nr1d1:VNP reporter plasmid and Prof. Yoav Gothilf (Department of Neurobiology, The George S. Wise Faculty of Life Sciences and The Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel-Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel) for aanat2:mRFP transgenic zebrafish.

Abbreviations

CCD

charge-coupled device

CT

circadian time

DD

constant dark

dpf

days postfertilization

DsRed

red fluorescent protein from Discosoma

E

embryonic day

ESC

embryonic stem cell

FUCCI

fluorescent, ubiquitination-based cell cycle indicator

GCaMP

genetically encoded calcium indicator

iPSC

induced pluripotent stem cell

LD

light–dark

LoG

Laplacian of Gaussian

NA

numerical aperture

P

postnatal day

PA

poly(A) site

SCN

suprachiasmatic nucleus

scRNA-seq

single-cell RNA-seq

SNN

shared nearest-neighbor

t-SNE

t-distributed stochastic neighbor embedding

TF

transcription factor

TGFPD1

peTurboGFP-dest1

Tol

transposable element of Oryzias latipes

VNP

Venus-NLS-PEST

ZT

Zeitgeber time

Data Availability

All the imaging data were included in the supplementary data files S1, S2 Data and S1S32 Movies; the single-cell RNA-seq data have been deposited on GEO (GSE134288).

Funding Statement

This work was supported by National Science Foundation for Young Scientists of China grant (No. 31701029) and Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai grant (16ZR1448800) to HW; NSFC-ISF Joint Scientific Research Program grants (31861143035) to JY; and Natural Science Foundation of China grants (No. 31571209 to JY and No. 81401279 to ZY). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Takahashi JS, Hong HK, Ko CH, Mcdearmon EL. The genetics of mammalian circadian order and disorder: implications for physiology and disease. Nat Rev Genet. 2008;9: 764–775. 10.1038/nrg2430 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gekakis N, Staknis D, Nguyen HB, Davis FC, Wilsbacner LD, King DP, et al. Role of the CLOCK protein in the mammalian circadian mechanism. Science. 1998; 280:1564–1569 10.1126/science.280.5369.1564 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Yoo S-H, Ko CH, Lowrey PL, Buhr ED, Song E -j., Chang S, et al. A noncanonical E-box enhancer drives mouse Period2 circadian oscillations in vivo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2005; February 15; 102(7): 2608–2613. 10.1073/pnas.0409763102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ohno T, Onishi Y, Ishida N. A novel E4BP4 element drives circadian expression of mPeriod2. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007; 35(2): 648–655. 10.1093/nar/gkl868 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Buhr ED, Takahashi JS. Molecular components of the mammalian circadian clock. Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2013; 217:3–27 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Preitner N, Damiola F, Zakany J, Duboule D, Albrecht U, Schibler U. The Orphan Nuclear Receptor REV-ERB Controls Circadian Transcription within the Positive Limb of the Mammalian Circadian Oscillator. Cell. 2002;110: 251–260. 10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00825-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Perelis M, Marcheva B, Ramsey KM, Schipma MJ, Hutchison AL, Taguchi A, et al. Pancreatic β cell enhancers regulate rhythmic transcription of genes controlling insulin secretion. Science. 2015;350: aac4250 10.1126/science.aac4250 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Li Y, Li G, Wang H, Du J, Yan J. Analysis of a Gene Regulatory Cascade Mediating Circadian Rhythm in Zebrafish. PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(2): e1002940 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Ben-moshe Z, Foulkes NS, Gothilf Y. Functional Development of the Circadian Clock in the Zebrafish Pineal Gland. Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014: 1–8. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kaneko M, Cahill GM. Light-Dependent Development of Circadian Gene Expression in Transgenic Zebrafish. PLoS Biol. 2005;3(2): e34 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030034 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Carr A-JF, Whitmore D. Imaging of single light-responsive clock cells reveals fluctuating free-running periods. Nat Cell Biol. 2005;7: 319–321. 10.1038/ncb1232 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Vatine G, Vallone D, Appelbaum L, Mracek P, Ben-Moshe Z, Lahiri K, et al. Light directs zebrafish period2 expression via conserved D and E boxes. PLoS Biol. 2009;7(10): e1000223 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000223 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Sladek M, Sumova A, Kovacikova Z, Bendova Z, Kristyna L, Illnerova H. Insight into molecular core clock mechanism of embryonic and early postnatal rat suprachiasmatic nucleus. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2004;101: 6231–6236. 10.1073/pnas.0401149101 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yagita K, Horie K, Koinuma S, Nakamura W, Yamanaka I, Urasaki A. Development of the circadian oscillator during differentiation of mouse embryonic stem cells in vitro. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2010;107: 3846–3851. 10.1073/pnas.0913256107 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Umemura Y, Koike N, Matsumoto T, Yoo S-H, Chen Z, Yasuhara N, et al. Transcriptional program of Kpna2/Importin-α2 regulates cellular differentiation-coupled circadian clock development in mammalian cells. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111: E5039–5048. 10.1073/pnas.1419272111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Carmona-Alcocer V, Abel JH, Sun TC, Petzold LR, Doyle FJ, Simms CL, et al. Ontogeny of Circadian Rhythms and Synchrony in the Suprachiasmatic Nucleus. J Neurosci. 2018; 38(6):1326–1334. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2006-17.2017 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Vallone D, Lahiri K, Dickmeis T, Foulkes NS. Start the Clock! Circadian Rhythms and Development. Dev Dyn. 2007;236: 142–155. 10.1002/dvdy.20998 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Kakizawa T, Nishio SI, Triqueneaux G, Bertrand S, Rambaud J, Laudet V. Two differentially active alternative promoters control the expression of the zebrafish orphan nuclear receptor gene Rev-erba. J Mol Endocrinol. 2007;38: 555–568. 10.1677/JME-06-0063 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Delaunay F, Thisse C, Marchand O, Laudet V, Thisse B. An inherited functional circadian clock in zebrafish embryos. Science. 2000;289: 297–300. 10.1126/science.289.5477.297 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Dekens MPS, Whitmore D. Autonomous onset of the circadian clock in the zebrafish embryo. EMBO J. 2008;27: 2757–2765. 10.1038/emboj.2008.183 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Raj B, Wagner DE, McKenna A, Pandey S, Klein AM, Shendure J, et al. Simultaneous single-cell profiling of lineages and cell types in the vertebrate brain. Nat Biotechnol. 2018; 36:442–450 10.1038/nbt.4103 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Yeo SY, Kim MJ, Kim HS, Huh TL, Chitnis AB. Fluorescent protein expression driven by her4 regulatory elements reveals the spatiotemporal pattern of Notch signaling in the nervous system of zebrafish embryos. Dev Biol. 2007; 301(2): 555–567 10.1016/j.ydbio.2006.10.020 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Tinevez JY, Perry N, Schindelin J, Hoopes GM, Reynolds GD, Laplantine E, et al. TrackMate: An open and extensible platform for single-particle tracking. Methods. 2017;115: 80–90. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2016.09.016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kuramoto Y. Self-entrainment of a population of coupled non-linear oscillators. In: Araki H, editor. Mathematical Problems in Theoretical Physics. 1975. pp. 420–422. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Westermark PO. Linking Core Promoter Classes to Circadian Transcription. PLoS Genet. 2016;12: 1–32. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Yan J, Wang H, Liu Y, Shao C. Analysis of gene regulatory networks in the mammalian circadian rhythm. PLoS Comput Biol. 2008;4: e1000193 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000193 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Nagoshi E, Saini C, Bauer C, Laroche T, Naef F, Schibler U. Circadian gene expression in individual fibroblasts: Cell-autonomous and self-sustained oscillators pass time to daughter cells. Cell. 2004;119: 693–705. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Bieler J, Cannavo R, Gustafson K, Gobet C, Gatfield D, Naef F. Robust synchronization of coupled circadian and cell cycle oscillators in single mammalian cells. Mol Syst Biol. 2014;10: 739–739. 10.15252/msb.20145218 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Feillet C, Krusche P, Tamanini F, Janssens RC, Downey MJ, Martin P, et al. Phase locking and multiple oscillating attractors for the coupled mammalian clock and cell cycle. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111: 9828–9833. 10.1073/pnas.1320474111 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Sugiyama M, Sakaue-Sawano A, Iimura T, Fukami K, Kitaguchi T, Kawakami K, et al. Illuminating cell-cycle progression in the developing zebrafish embryo. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009; 106(49): 20812–20817. 10.1073/pnas.0906464106 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Rihel J, Prober DA, Arvanites A, Lam K, Zimmerman S, Jang S, et al. Zebrafish behavioral profiling links drugs to biological targets and rest/wake regulation. Science. 2010; 327(5963): 348–351. 10.1126/science.1183090 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Yang F, Gao C, Wang P, Zhang GJ, Chen Z. Fish-on-a-chip: Microfluidics for zebrafish research. Lab on a Chip. 2016; 16:1106–1125 10.1039/c6lc00044d [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Cong L, Wang Z, Chai Y, Hang W, Shang C, Yang W, et al. Rapid whole brain imaging of neural activity in freely behaving larval zebrafish (Danio rerio). Elife. 2017; 6:e28158 10.7554/eLife.28158 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Prober DA, Rihel J, Onah AA, Sung R, Schier AF. Hypocretin / Orexin Overexpression Induces An Insomnia-Like Phenotype in Zebrafish. J Neurosci. 2006;26: 13400–13410. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4332-06.2006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Cahill GM. Automated Video Image Analysis of Larval Zebrafish Locomotor Rhythms Circadian Rhythms: Methods and Protocols. Totowa, NJ: Humana Press; 2007. pp. 83–94. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Zhdanova I V, Wang SY, Leclair OU, Danilova NP. Melatonin promotes sleep-like state in zebrafish. Brain Res. 2001;903: 263–268. 10.1016/s0006-8993(01)02444-1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Ziv L, Levkovitz S, Toyama R, Falcon J, Gothilf Y. Functional development of the zebrafish pineal gland: Light-induced expression of period2 is required for onset of the circadian clock. J Neuroendocrinol. 2005;17: 314–320. 10.1111/j.1365-2826.2005.01315.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Gamse JT, Shen YC, Thisse C, Thisse B, Raymond PA, Halpern ME, et al. Otx5 regulates genes that show circadian expression in the zebrafish pineal complex. Nat Genet; 2002;30: 117–121. 10.1038/ng793 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Nagoshi E, Brown SA, Dibner C, Kornmann B, Schibler U. Circadian Gene Expression in Cultured Cells. Methods in Enzymol; 2005. pp. 543–557. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Inada Y, Uchida H, Umemura Y, Nakamura W, Sakai T, Koike N, et al. Cell and tissue-autonomous development of the circadian clock in mouse embryos. FEBS Lett. 2014;588: 459–465. 10.1016/j.febslet.2013.12.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Kawakami K, Takeda H, Kawakami N, Kobayashi M, Matsuda N, Mishina M. A transposon-mediated gene trap approach identifies developmentally regulated genes in zebrafish. Dev Cell. 2004;7: 133–144. 10.1016/j.devcel.2004.06.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Appelbaum L, Wang G, Yokogawa T, Skariah GM, Smith J, Mourrain P, et al. Circadian and Homeostatic Regulation of Structural Synaptic Plasticity in Hypocretin Neurons Lior. Neuron. 2011;68: 87–98. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Carvalho L, Heisenberg C. Imaging Zebrafish Embryos by Two-Photon Excitation Time-Lapse Microscopy. Zebrafish, Methods in Molecular Biology. 2009. pp. 273–287. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Lopez-Ramirez MA, Calvo C-F, Ristori E, Thomas J-L, Nicoli S. Isolation and Culture of Adult Zebrafish Brain-derived Neurospheres. J Vis Exp. 2016; 10.3791/53617 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Butler A, Hoffman P, Smibert P, Papalexi E, Satija R. Integrating single-cell transcriptomic data across different conditions, technologies, and species. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36: 411–420 10.1038/nbt.4096 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Schindelin J, Arganda-Carreras I, Frise E, Kaynig V, Longair M, Pietzsch T, et al. Fiji: An open source platform for biological image analysis. Nat Methods. 2012;9: 676–682. 10.1038/nmeth.2019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Feng L, Zhao T, Kim J. neuTube 1.0: A New Design for Efficient Neuron Reconstruction Software Based on the SWC Format. eNeuro. 2007;27: 9247–51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Hashi Wijayatilake

22 Jul 2019

Dear Jun,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Single-cell in vivo imaging reveals light-initiated circadian oscillators in zebrafish" for consideration as a Methods and Resources by PLOS Biology.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editorial staff as well as by an Academic Editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

**Important**: Please also see below for further information regarding completing the MDAR reporting checklist. The checklist can be accessed here: https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

Please re-submit your manuscript and the checklist, within two working days, i.e. by Jul 24 2019 11:59PM.

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology

During resubmission, you will be invited to opt-in to posting your pre-review manuscript as a bioRxiv preprint. Visit http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/preprints for full details. If you consent to posting your current manuscript as a preprint, please upload a single Preprint PDF when you re-submit.

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosbiology@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

==================

INFORMATION REGARDING THE REPORTING CHECKLIST:

PLOS Biology is pleased to support the "minimum reporting standards in the life sciences" initiative (https://osf.io/preprints/metaarxiv/9sm4x/). This effort brings together a number of leading journals and reproducibility experts to develop minimum expectations for reporting information about Materials (including data and code), Design, Analysis and Reporting (MDAR) in published papers. We believe broad alignment on these standards will be to the benefit of authors, reviewers, journals and the wider research community and will help drive better practise in publishing reproducible research.

We are therefore participating in a community pilot involving a small number of life science journals to test the MDAR checklist. The checklist is intended to help authors, reviewers and editors adopt and implement the minimum reporting framework.

IMPORTANT: We have chosen your manuscript to participate in this trial. The relevant documents can be located here:

MDAR reporting checklist (to be filled in by you): https://plos.io/MDARChecklist

**We strongly encourage you to complete the MDAR reporting checklist and return it to us with your full submission, as described above. We would also be very grateful if you could complete this author survey:

https://forms.gle/seEgCrDtM6GLKFGQA

Additional background information:

Interpreting the MDAR Framework: https://plos.io/MDARFramework

Please note that your completed checklist and survey will be shared with the minimum reporting standards working group. However, the working group will not be provided with access to the manuscript or any other confidential information including author identities, manuscript titles or abstracts. Feedback from this process will be used to consider next steps, which might include revisions to the content of the checklist. Data and materials from this initial trial will be publicly shared in September 2019. Data will only be provided in aggregate form and will not be parsed by individual article or by journal, so as to respect the confidentiality of responses.

Please treat the checklist and elaboration as confidential as public release is planned for September 2019.

We would be grateful for any feedback you may have.

Decision Letter 1

Hashi Wijayatilake

22 Aug 2019

Dear Dr Yan,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Single-cell in vivo imaging reveals light-initiated circadian oscillators in zebrafish" for consideration as a Methods and Resources article at PLOS Biology. Your manuscript has been evaluated by the PLOS Biology editors, an Academic Editor with relevant expertise, and by several independent reviewers.

As you will see from the reviews (appended below), the reviewers are generally enthusiastic about the method. However, it is also clear that some additional work is needed to fully support the main conclusions, including the title conclusion, and better address the biological question. We have discussed the reviews with the Academic Editor and would strongly encourage you to better leverage this method to its full potential (e.g. Rev. 2 and 3 have requests for better time point resolution and imaging individual identified cells). We acknowledge that this is a Methods paper, so comprehensively answering the biological question is less critical as long as the results are not over-interpreted, but please do make sure the method is fully utilized in addressing this question of circadian developmental dynamics.

Overall, in light of the reviews, we will not be able to accept the current version of the manuscript, but we would welcome resubmission of a revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments. We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent for further evaluation by the reviewers.

Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. Please submit a file detailing your responses to the editorial requests and a point-by-point response to all of the reviewers' comments that indicates the changes you have made to the manuscript. In addition to a clean copy of the manuscript, please upload a 'track-changes' version of your manuscript that specifies the edits made. This should be uploaded as a "Related" file type. You should also cite any additional relevant literature that has been published since the original submission and mention any additional citations in your response.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

Before you revise your manuscript, please review the following PLOS policy and formatting requirements checklist PDF: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/file?id=9411/plos-biology-formatting-checklist.pdf. It is helpful if you format your revision according to our requirements - should your paper subsequently be accepted, this will save time at the acceptance stage.

Please note that as a condition of publication PLOS' data policy (http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability) requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions arrived at in your manuscript. If you have not already done so, you must include any data used in your manuscript either in appropriate repositories, within the body of the manuscript, or as supporting information (N.B. this includes any numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.). For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare them now, if you have not already uploaded them. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements.

Upon resubmission, the editors will assess your revision and if the editors and Academic Editor feel that the revised manuscript remains appropriate for the journal, we will send the manuscript for re-review. We aim to consult the same Academic Editor and reviewers for revised manuscripts but may consult others if needed.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two months. Please email us (plosbiology@plos.org) to discuss this if you have any questions or concerns, or would like to request an extension. At this stage, your manuscript remains formally under active consideration at our journal; please notify us by email if you do not wish to submit a revision and instead wish to pursue publication elsewhere, so that we may end consideration of the manuscript at PLOS Biology.

When you are ready to submit a revised version of your manuscript, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' where you will find your submission record.

Thank you again for your submission to our journal. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive thus far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

*****************************************************

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1:

The study is novel in terms of approach and in term of findings. A new tool has been developed, using an established clock reporter, to monitor circadian clock function at a single-cell level in an intact animal (the zebrafish larvae) and to study the ontogeny of the circadian clock. The new finding is that the cellular clocks require light exposure in order to start ticking and this is different than what was previously thought. In addition to these main finding a description of the sequential development of the clock in the brain (starting in the pineal gland) and the two different types of photoreceptor cells with differential clock functions are new and important.

In spite of a very complex subject and complex methodology the manuscript is clear and easy to follow.

Major comments

1. The main finding that light is required for the initiation of cellular clocks is different from what has been previously described and suggested. The groups of Whitmore and Foulkes have shown, in zebrafish cell lines, that a pulse of light synchronizes the period of unsynchronized cellular oscillators. The group of Gothilf, suggested that the same thing may occur in the pineal gland, but have not directly shown this. In fact in the reference used here (ref. 30) is it stated that "It is unknown whether onset reflects the initiation of the oscillator or the synchronization of many, already free running, cellular oscillators. The data presented in this study cannot entirely support or contradict either of these two alternatives." It seems that the current study solves this question for the pineal cells. Therefore, I would like to speculate that the differences between the current study and the studies in cell lines reflect cell-type differences. There could be other reasons for this contradiction. In any case, I think it is very important that the authors discuss the reasons for the differences between their findings and earlier studies.

2. The authors show that pineal cells with high basal levels of expression have low amplitude rhythms. Could this reflect a technical problem? If fluorescence has reached saturation, it would be impossible to detect rhythms in cells that express high fluorescence levels (rod-like cells in this case). I may be wrong but such saturation appears to occur in some individual traces in figure 4c. Please make sure that these individual cells that reach saturation (if indeed exist) do not affect your results and conclusion regarding the two-cell theory.

3. nr1d1 is a clock gene and also a light induced gene (Ben Moshe et al., 2014). Is it reflected in the results? Is it being considered?

4. I may have missed this. In the in vivo imaging that was done every 12 hours,

larvae were anesthetized and embedded at each time point. How was it possible to detect the same cell each time?

Minor comments:

Given the main point of the paper is the cellular clocks, consider adding 'cellular' to the title: "Single-cell in vivo imaging reveals light-initiated cellular circadian oscillators in zebrafish"

Results, ' Characterization of nr1d1:VNP expressing cells'. It is important to emphasize the high levels of nr1d1 mRNA in the pineal cells (fig 2b). It strgenthens the finding using the transgene (fig 1c and fig 1e).

Results, second paragraph. It is stated that "both genes showed higher expression level at the dawn than dusk over days (Fig. 1b)" but in figure 1b it seems that the samples were taken in mid-day and mid night.

The use of 'rod' and 'cone' cells is confusing because rods and cones are retinal cells. I suggest naming them 'rod-like' and 'cone-like'. Also, the term 'rod fish', although clear to me, is not appropriate.

What is the rod marker xops? I cannot find the primers used for xops (materials and methods) in the zf genome nor in frog genomes

Discussion 2nd paragraph, "It was believed that physiological and behavioral rhythms in zebrafish appear during the early stages of zebrafish development [8]." This is a vague sentence. It is not clear what is 'early stages', I guess it refers to larval stages because behavioral rhythms are not seen in early stages of embryogenesis. If indeed the meaning is larval stages than the frase 'it is belived' is not accurate – it was shown. I suggest to change this sentence to " It has been shown that physiological and behavioral rhythms in zebrafish appear during the larval stages of zebrafish" Also, maybe a better reference than no. 8.

Results, first paragraph. Please indicate how were the plasmids of bmal1a/bmal2/per2/nr1d1:TGFPD1 screened. Was that performed by stable or transient expression? If stable, in which generation?

Results, second paragraph. The presence of CRX/OTX binding sites is probably the reason for the enhanced pineal expression. Please mention this.

Results, second paragraph, " scRNA-seq data also suggested that nr1d1:VNP is expressed in proliferative cells". Please emphasize that this is in the pineal gland, and at what age? This is important because it means that photoreceptors are still proliferating.

Minor editorial points

Page 6, 2nd paragraph, epidemis should be epidermis.

Page 7. The word 'the' is missing: "…we found that VNP positive cells within the pineal gland display"

Page 8, bottom "We also observed that the cluster with higher baseline level (cluster 1) also showed". I think there is a confusion and this should be cluster 2. Please check.

Page 9, "signals in zebrafish larvae raised under the constant…" remove 'the'.

Figure 2c and 2d should be separated. Its confusing

Methods, 'in vivo imaging', bottom. Starting with "Two fish under light-dark (LD)….". It will be informative to add figure numbers.

Methods, Single cell RNA-seq and data analysis. This is written like someone's protocol.

Figure 1c. need orientation

Figure 1 legends, "The putative RRE (Nr1d1/2 binding site), E-box (Bmal1/Clock

binding site), Crx, Otx5 and Crx/Otx5 binding sites were indicated in blue rectangle,

red oval, green oval, yellow rectangle, and dark green oval respectively". There is a mistake in the order. And there are two oval greens.

Figure 2 legends, (a) should be "t-SNE visualization of brain cell clusters…"

Figure 2 legends, (b). please add: "note the highest levels in the pineal gland"

--

Reviewer #2:

The paper by Wang et al., addresses the question of whether cellular clocks exist and function spontaneously from the initial cell divisions of embryogenesis or alternatively whether they are initialised/activated by an environmental signal (light) during development. To address this question Wang et al., have developed a reporter line nr1d1:VNP in transgenic zebrafish to report single cell dynamics of a clock driven reporter. The authors use this clock reporter line to measure single cell dynamics in all cells of the embryonic zebrafish brain/pineal from 3.5 to 6.5 dpf. They try to separate circadian and developmental dynamics.

The authors are correct in that zebrafish are the perfect preparation to address this question. In addition, this issue has been debated greatly in the literature, with some groups promoting the spontaneous and synchronous start of the clock to those that suggest a spontaneous beginning to oscillations, but with a need for an entrainment stimulus (light) to synchronize cells. The authors are correct in that the only way to approach this problem is by single cell imaging of clock function in the living embryo, and they have generated a superb tool to test this hypothesis.

My main problem is that I don’t feel they have succeeded in answering this question yet by the nature in which they have performed their imaging experiments.

The authors performed imaging experiments at set intervals rather than performing continuous (or relatively continuous) imaging on identified cells. Initially only looking at two time points per day, but then every two hours over one cycle in constant darkness. Two time points is not sufficient resolution to look for possible phase differences between oscillators. And the way that the imaging is performed is akin or similar to typical molecular sampling or performing in situ hybridization experiments.

There are two possible options in the DD experiment. a) either the clock is not oscillating in each cell, which will produce a “flat-line” in expression as seen or b) the cells are oscillating in DD but with completely different and dispersed phases, which by sampling in this way would also produce a “flat” data set, but with significant error bars, reflecting the diverse phases of the cells. Both biological states give the same apparent outcome.

In these imaging experiments, it is essential that identified cells are followed dynamically, such that one can follow the changes in expression within an individual “known” cell. In this way, either the expression levels will be flat in a given cell or may oscillate, but with random phases in the population. One cannot randomly pool the data from the population imaging.

A less important, but significant point. When does the rhythm in nr1d1 begin in development, at a global level on an LD cycle? Multiple papers have shown that the period gene rhythm is apparent globally somewhere on the second day of development – 24 hour or so onwards. The imaging data in this study is from day 3.5 onwards, when it is known that the clock is running. If the nr1di rhythm starts latter in development, i.e. the second clock loop develops more slowly than the primary loop, then sadly this reporter is not optimal for studying when or how the clock begins. A simple in situ or qPCR data set would be very useful to address this.

There are number of other minor comments to make. However, until the imaging is repeated with identified cells, these are of little significance. The authors have made a very powerful circadian tool and I am sure they will use it to generate a great deal of new, insightful data. However, at this point I do not think that they are quite there yet. Though many of their results are interesting.

Regarding the tissue specific nature of their reporter. This makes this a powerful tool to study the pineal gland, and the establishment of rhythms later in other brain regions, but perhaps by using a more ubiquitous promoter they might be able to follow oscillations is earlier stages of development.

--

Reviewer #3:

In this study, Wang et al., examined whether circadian oscillation of the pineal gland in zebrafish is stopped or desynchronized during development without LD cycles. They generated a transgenic zebrafish line carrying a destabilized fluorescent protein to monitor one of clock genes, nr1d1, at the single cell level using a two photon microscope. Since single cell time-lapse imaging of clock gene expression in vivo have never been performed, it still unclear how clock gene expression occurs under DD in zebrafish. By using this method, they confirmed Nr1d1 expression rhythms in the pineal gland and other areas under LD cycle. They found two different populations in the pineal gland. One showed rapid increase in the baseline level while the other showed robust circadian oscillations, which were corresponding to rod and non-rod cells, respectively. Importantly they found that nr1d1 expression in the pineal gland did not show circadian oscillations under constant darkness. From these results, they concluded that light exposure in early clock development initialized cellular clocks. The hypothesis is interesting and optical imaging of single cells in vivo is fascinating. However, they have not shown enough data and analysis to support their conclusion. There are some concerns for the authors to address.

Major concerns

1. The authors concluded that cellular circadian oscillations were not initiated without environmental stimuli (also the title of the manuscript). This is too strong a statement from the results. Previous studies suggested that circadian rhythms (per expression) were desynchronized in the embryos under DD. The discrepancy between these reports and the present study might be due to different clock genes. There are multiple circadian feedback loops, such as Per/Cry loop and Bmal1/Clock/Reverb-a loop. The author measured only nr1d1 expression, but if they measure per expression in single cells, circadian rhythms might be detected under DD. Without this data, it is difficult to conclude that “circadian oscillations” were not initiated under DD. In addition, the authors need to deeply discuss discrepancy between previous studies (Denkens et al. 2008; Carr et al. 2005) and the present study.

2. The authors measured nr1d1 expression every two hours from 5.0 to 6.0 dpf under DD and concluded that circadian rhythms were not detected at the single cell level (Figure 5i and k). Please clearly describe how the significance of circadian rhythms was analyzed. Cosiner method was used for rhythm analysis or other methods? This is a very important point in this paper, because low amplitude oscillation and no rhythmicity are totally different. The authors need to evaluate circadian rhythmicity in single cells by using several methods. In addition, low resolution time point data might result in false negative. The authors also need to discuss this point.

Minor concerns

1. The authors used cosine function with 24 hours period to determine circadian phase and amplitude (p18). Since circadian period and trend is different cell by cell, they should add two more parameters “period” and “trend” to precisely determine phase and amplitude.

2. In this research, analysis of circadian rhythms in single cell level is critical. Please show nr1d1 expression data of individual cells under DD with cosine fitting data in Figure 5i similar to Figure 4c. Also it is better to show raw fluorescence data in Figure 5i to be able to directly compare LD and DD conditions.

3. The author found two clusters in the pineal gland (Figure 4e-h). These two clusters were observed under constant darkness? It seems not to be observed two clusters under DD (Figure 5i). If not, these clusters were driven by light dark cycles? Furthermore, please discuss physiological roles of these two populations in the pineal gland.

4. P5, 2nd para. The authors mentioned “both genes showed higher expression level at the dawn than dusk over days (Fig. 1b)”. But they measured these gene expression rhythms during middle of day and night, so dawn and dusk is not appropriate here.

5. P7, 1st para. The authors compared nr1d1:VNP and aanat2:mRFP, xops:nfsB-mCherry, lws2:nfsB-mCherry, or her4:Dsred reporter. Some VNP positive neurons seem not to express mRFP in Figure 2c. Please indicate the number of cells, percentage of overlap, and the number of fish. Especially, xops:nfsB-mCherry data is important because they separated rod and non-rod cells using the reporter in Figure 3.

6. Figure 3e and d; p7-8. The authors used fitting analysis for the data obtained from 3.5 to 6.5 dpf. They mentioned that “rod cells have a faster rate of developmental increase in nr1d1:VNP signals (A) but lower amplitude of circadian oscillation (B) than non-rod cells (Fig. 3f-h)”. If the data is lineally increased, (A) can be indicated as a developmental increase. But in the case of rod cells, the data seem not linear, so (A) can not simply reflect a developmental increase. They also described (B) as amplitude of circadian rhythms. However, the data were obtained from two points per day. If the circadian phase is shifted, it is plausible that (B) became small value.

7. P9, 2nd para. It is difficult to say “the circadian expression had been absent in DD cells” from two points per day data.

8. P11, 2nd para. Dekens et al. did not use per1-luc imaging.

9. P15, 1st para. Laser power should be described like “W/mm2” not “%”.

10. P15, 1st para. Please indicate number of fish they used in figure legends to easily understand.

11. P15, 1st para. “Three fish under LD_LD condition and Three fish under LD_DD condition were….”. Second “three” should not be capital.

12. Figure 2b and e. What is the y axis?

13. Figure 3b. There is no information about green circles in the pictures.

14. P18. Please describe t-SNE analysis in detail.

--

Reviewer #4:

Summary: The manuscript authored by Wang et al described beautiful recordings on how the circadian clock kicks off during the development and how it maintains after the maturation in the pineal gland, a master organ of the zebra fish clock. Backed with a state-of-the-art technology of single cell-sequencing, the authors believed that this reporter fish line can be used in a variety of stimulation conditions where the cellular clock can be real-timely monitored in vivo. This reviewer support its publication after the revision.

Major concerns:

1. The reporter line was generated by a transgenic technology rather than a site-specific knockin strategy. Even though the authors spent quite a bit space of the ms to explain/ratify the faithfulness of the reporter with the endogenous gene expression, the conclusion of each single experiment ought to be drawn in cautious. For example, the data of tracing the dynamics of nr1d1 (i.e. the clock) in each particular cell are more convincing than the comparison of among them. You can never rule out the position effects of the reporter insertion. After all, the authors, and probably people in the fish clock field, do not know how the ZfP2 regulates nr1d1 expression while nevertheless it still sits in the transgene to keep the function of ZfP1 intact (Fig1a). The populational comparison of reporter signal vs gene expression cannot be extended to single cell level. Of course this reviewer doesn't mean to assert that the reporter is useless or wrong, but it may just like the Per1-luc transgenic vs PER2::LUC knockin reporters in mammalian clock field, the limitation of this reporter should be addressed in the discussion.

2. A second major concern is that the Fig4 and 5 seem to be separated, and neither were fully investigated. This reviewer possesses a feeling that the authors has raised some interesting questions based on their observations, but stop short of answering them. However, if this is the "Methods and Resource" section of the journal designed for, I'm OK with that.

3. The authors summarized in the abstract that "light exposure in early clock development initializes cellular clocks rather than synchronizes existing individual oscillators". While in the main text and figure legend, they claimed that "Light-Dark cycle is essential to synchronous onset of nr1d1 oscillation". Please reconcile them.

Minor concerns:

There are a few typos/mispresentations in the ms. For instances: Fig1b, are the blue/red lines in right phase with x-axis? Figure legends Fig3, there are two (g) (page27).

--------------------

Decision Letter 2

Hashi Wijayatilake

20 Dec 2019

Dear Dr Yan,

Thank you for submitting your revised Methods and Resources article entitled "Single-cell in vivo imaging of cellular circadian oscillators in zebrafish" for publication in PLOS Biology. I have now obtained advice from the original reviewers and have discussed their comments with the Academic Editor. As you can see, three of the reviewers are satisfied with the revision. Reviewer 3 has some remaining requests for adding more data - I've discussed these with the Academic Editor and we encourage you to add single cell rhythms for per in DD and the other data requested if you have this data available. Otherwise please textually discuss the issues raised by Reviewer 3 in the manuscript. Overall, based on the reviews, we will probably accept this manuscript for publication, assuming that you will modify the manuscript to address the remaining points raised by the reviewers. Please also make sure to address the data and other policy-related requests noted at the end of this email.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within two weeks. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer. In addition to the remaining revisions and before we will be able to formally accept your manuscript and consider it "in press", we also need to ensure that your article conforms to our guidelines. A member of our team will be in touch shortly with a set of requests. As we can't proceed until these requirements are met, your swift response will help prevent delays to publication.

*Copyediting*

Upon acceptance of your article, your final files will be copyedited and typeset into the final PDF. While you will have an opportunity to review these files as proofs, PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling or significant scientific errors. Therefore, please take this final revision time to assess and make any remaining major changes to your manuscript.

NOTE: If Supporting Information files are included with your article, note that these are not copyedited and will be published as they are submitted. Please ensure that these files are legible and of high quality (at least 300 dpi) in an easily accessible file format. For this reason, please be aware that any references listed in an SI file will not be indexed. For more information, see our Supporting Information guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/supporting-information

*Published Peer Review History*

Please note that you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out. Please see here for more details:

https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2019/05/plos-journals-now-open-for-published-peer-review/

*Early Version*

Please note that an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you opted out when submitting your manuscript. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online, uncheck the box. Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us as soon as possible if you or your institution is planning to press release the article.

*Protocols deposition*

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/submission-guidelines#loc-materials-and-methods

*Submitting Your Revision*

To submit your revision, please go to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pbiology/ and log in as an Author. Click the link labelled 'Submissions Needing Revision' to find your submission record. Your revised submission must include a cover letter, a Response to Reviewers file that provides a detailed response to the reviewers' comments (if applicable), and a track-changes file indicating any changes that you have made to the manuscript.

Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Hashi Wijayatilake, PhD,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

------------------------------------------------------------------------

ETHICS STATEMENT:

The Ethics Statements in the submission form and Methods section of your manuscript should match verbatim. Please ensure that any changes are made to both versions.

-- Please include the full name of the IACUC/ethics committee that reviewed and approved the animal care and use protocol/permit/project license. **Please also include an approval number.**

-- Please include the specific national or international regulations/guidelines to which your animal care and use protocol adhered. Please note that institutional or accreditation organization guidelines (such as AAALAC) do not meet this requirement.

-- Please include information about the form of consent (written/oral) given for research involving human participants. All research involving human participants must have been approved by the authors' Institutional Review Board (IRB) or an equivalent committee, and all clinical investigation must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATA POLICY:

You may be aware of the PLOS Data Policy, which requires that all data be made available without restriction: http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/data-availability. For more information, please also see this editorial: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001797

Note that we do not require all raw data. Rather, we ask that all individual quantitative observations that underlie the data summarized in the figures and results of your paper be made available in one of the following forms:

1) Supplementary files (e.g., excel). Please ensure that all data files are uploaded as 'Supporting Information' and are invariably referred to (in the manuscript, figure legends, and the Description field when uploading your files) using the following format verbatim: S1 Data, S2 Data, etc. Multiple panels of a single or even several figures can be included as multiple sheets in one excel file that is saved using exactly the following convention: S1_Data.xlsx (using an underscore).

2) Deposition in a publicly available repository. Please also provide the accession code or a reviewer link so that we may view your data before publication.

Regardless of the method selected, please ensure that you provide the individual numerical values that underlie the summary data displayed in the following figure panels as they are essential for readers to assess your analysis and to reproduce it:

Figs. 1BEG, 2BE, 3C-G, 4C-J, 5BCDFGIJK, S1ABC, S2AB, S3AB, S4ABC

NOTE: the numerical data provided should include all replicates AND the way in which the plotted mean and errors were derived (it should not present only the mean/average values).

- Please also ensure that figure legends in your manuscript include information on where the underlying data can be found, and ensure your supplemental data file/s has a legend.

- Please ensure that your Data Statement in the submission system accurately describes where your data can be found. Your Data Statement currently says:

"All the imaging data were included in the supplementary data. And the single cell RNA-seq data has been deposited on GEO (GSE134288)." The GEO dataset is currently private and is scheduled to be released on Jul 01, 2020. Please release this now.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLOT AND GEL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS:

For manuscripts submitted on or after 1st July 2019, we require the original, uncropped and minimally adjusted images supporting all blot and gel results reported in an article's figures or Supporting Information files. We will require these files before a manuscript can be accepted so please prepare and upload them now. Please carefully read our guidelines for how to prepare and upload this data: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/s/figures#loc-blot-and-gel-reporting-requirements

------------------------------------------------------------------------

REVIEWS:

Reviewer #1:

Thank you for addressing all my concerns adequately

--

Reviewer #2:

The revised manuscript PB-D-19-02041R2, by Wang et al, represents a significant improvement from the initial submission. Aspects of the imaging approach have been clarified and the added experiments (qPCR especially) address many of the key biological questions. I believe that this manuscript is now acceptable and worthy of publication in PLOS Biology. The study represents a significant technical achievement and generates biological data that is both interesting and intellectually stimulating. These data should be "seen" by the wider scientific community.

The more one thinks about the data presented the more interesting it becomes and consequently the more questions it generates. But these are for future studies. One comment the authors may wish to add to their discussion is that all clock studies in zebrafish have so far focused on one of the two (or possibly three) feedback loops that make up the circadian clock system. The data in this study is believable, but it is possible that the rapid dampening in DD is something specific to the "second" loop. And the classic clock/bmal - cry/per loop might behave differently. This would explain all of the differences seen between the various zebrafish groups studying this phenomenon. It is an interesting possibility that light input, as well as developmental timing, might vary across the feedback loops…..or the clock itself might develop differentially. The future will tell.

Congratulations to the authors on an excellent study.

--

Reviewer #3:

In the revised manuscript, Wang et al. provided supplemental analysis and data to address the previous comments. I remain supportive of this work, but there also remain a few issues which I respectfully disagree.

As I mentioned in the previous comments, low time resolution might result in false negative. The authors performed imaging with high time resolution (every one hour) at 5.0 to 6.0 dpf under LD (Fig 1g). But important point is DD condition. If they include LD data, I recommend them to show one hour data at DD condition to compare LD and DD condition.

The authors provided expression pattern of each DD cells in Fig S4c as I suggested. However many cells seem to be rhythmic. It is confusing, because they concluded that single-cell oscillations were dramatically dampened in animals raised under constant darkness. Please show the single cell data obtained from DD.

Fig 5j,k and Fig S4a,b are same data. Since the author performed JTK cycle in Fig.5j,k and cos fitting in Fig S4a,b, the results must not be the same. Please check the original results.

P13 The author described as “However, it has also been shown that mammalian iPS cells are non-rhythmic…”. I recommend them to add ES cells which is also the non-rhythmic case.

As I mentioned in the previous comments, Per oscillation might be detected in single cell level under DD, even though nr1d1 expression rhythm was dampened. The authors showed nr1d1 and per1b expression rhythms under LD using qPCR data, but it could not answer this question. In addition, circadian amplitude of per1b rhythms was high as compare to that of nrldl. Without a recording of single cell level of Per expression under DD, it is difficult to answer. However it might be beyond the scope of this study. Instead of doing this experiment, please discuss this issue in the manuscript.

As I mentioned previous comments, I suggested putting two parameters “period” and “trend” into cos fitting in two hours data (one hour data also). Because fluorescence is increased during development and period would be different cell by cell, if they use add two parameters, quality of the fitting results could be increased. I assume that some non-rhythmic neurons might be rhythmic.

--

Reviewer #4:

The revised version has addressed all my concerns. Therefore, I support its publication asap.

Decision Letter 3

Hashi Wijayatilake

10 Feb 2020

Dear Dr. Yan,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor, Dr. Achim Kramer, I am pleased to inform you that we will be delighted to publish your Methods and Resources in PLOS Biology.

The files will now enter our production system. You will receive a copyedited version of the manuscript, along with your figures for a final review. You will be given two business days to review and approve the copyedit. Then, within a week, you will receive a PDF proof of your typeset article. You will have two days to review the PDF and make any final corrections. If there is a chance that you'll be unavailable during the copy editing/proof review period, please provide us with contact details of one of the other authors whom you nominate to handle these stages on your behalf. This will ensure that any requested corrections reach the production department in time for publication.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with biologypress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Biology and for your support of Open Access publishing. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can provide any assistance during the production process.

Kind regards,

Krystal Farmer

PLOS Biology

on behalf of

Hashi Wijayatilake,

Managing Editor

PLOS Biology

Associated Data

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

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig

    (a) Plot of real-time PCR results of nr1d1 and per1b during early development (from 26 hpf to 68 hpf). Each time point is the pool of 10–20 fish. (b) Raw fluorescence values of all the traced nr1d1:VNP cells at 1-hour intervals for one day. (c) Circadian phase distributions of the 48 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in b. (d) Fluorescence images show the co-expression of nr1d1:VNP (nuclear signal) and her4:DsRed (cytoplasmic signal) in the zebrafish pineal gland. hpf, hours post fertilization.

    (EPS)

    S2 Fig. Log2-transformed dusk–dawn ratios of VNP fluorescence intensities at different time points during development (i.e., 4.5 dpf/4.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf/5.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf/6.0 dpf).

    (a) Each data point represents one cell and the colors correspond to different fish. The red dashed line represents y = 0. n.s. represents no significant difference in dusk–dawn ratios between different time points (two-tailed ANOVA test). (b) Barplot shows the number of cells with dusk > dawn (blue color, i.e., the number of cells above the red dash line in b) or dusk < dawn (red color, i.e., the number of cells below the red dash line in b). dpf, days postfertilization; VNP, Venus-NLS-PEST.

    (EPS)

    S3 Fig

    The comparison of the circadian phase between the two types of cells in Fig 4E: (a) fish1, (b) fish2. The color of the boxes corresponds to Fig 4E. Two-tailed Student t test was applied to calculate the levels of significance between the two types of cells. n.s. represents P > 0.05.

    (EPS)

    S4 Fig. LD cycle is essential for nr1d1 oscillation.

    (a) Comparison of the relative amplitudes of LD and DD cells in Fig 5I from cosine fitting. The red dashed line represents y = 0.05. (b) Percentages of oscillating cells (cosine fitting P < 0.05 and relative amplitude > 0.05) in each LD and DD fish. The orange bars represent the percentage of oscillating cells, while the blue bars represent the percentage of non-oscillating cells. (c) Single-cell tracing results of all 142 nr1d1:VNP-positive cells in three zebrafish pineal glands raised under DD condition. The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. (d) Expression patterns of LD (1 fish) and DD cells (1 fish) across one day at 1-hour resolution. Each thin line represents one cell and each dot represents raw fluorescence intensity. Thick lines represent the loess-smoothed curves for all the LD in blue and DD cells in red, respectively. The shaded areas show the 95% confidence level of the smooth curve. (e) Comparison of the absolute amplitudes of LD and DD cells from JTKcycle (1-hour resolution). The red dashed line represents y = 100. (f) Percentages of oscillating cells (JTKcycle adjusted P < 0.05 and absolute amplitude > 100) in each LD and DD fish (1-hour resolution). The orange bars represent the percentage of oscillating cells, while the blue bars represent the percentage of non-oscillating cells. (g) Single-cell tracing results of all 24 nr1d1:VNP-positive DD cells imaged at 1-hour resolution. The blue dots represent the original fluorescence signals, while the solid red line represents the smoothed curve fitted by the cosine functions. DD, constant dark; LD, light–dark.

    (EPS)

    S1 Data.  Excel spreadsheet containing data values plotted in all main and supporting figures.

    (XLSX)

    S2 Data. Tables A–L.

    (A) Promoter sequences (in Fastq format) used in this study to screen the circadian reporters in zebrafish. (B) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland, the optical tectum, and the cerebellum during development based on the whole-brain two-photon imaging under LD condition. The cells were tracked starting at 3.5 dpf in pineal gland, 5.5 dpf in optical tectum, and 6.5 dpf in cerebellum, respectively. Fish were imaged every 12 hours until 7.5 dpf. (C) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every hour under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (D) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland during development under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (E) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland of Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf under LD condition. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (F) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every 2 hours under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (G) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland during development under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf. (H) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf under LD condition based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf. Those are the control cells for Table I. (I) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf under LD_DD condition (fish were transferred to DD at 5.5 dpf) based on the two-photon imaging of the pineal gland. The fish were raised under LD from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and transferred to DD at 5.5dpf. The fish were imaged every 12 hours from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf. (J) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every 2 hours under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging in the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (K) Single-cell tracing result of nr1d1:VNP cells in the pineal gland imaged every hour under DD condition based on the two-photon imaging in the pineal gland. The fish were imaged starting at 5 dpf for one day. (L) Primers sequences used in RT-PCR experiment. In Tables A–K, TrackIDs are the identifiers unique for each individual fish. PositionX/Y/Z.* and Intensity.* are the x/y/z position and mean fluorescence intensity of the cell in each time point. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark; RT-PCR, real-time PCR.

    (XLSX)

    S1 Movie. The combined image stacks of the whole brain using two-photon imaging (whole brain fish 1).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (9 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, top to bottom, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S2 Movie. The combined image stacks of the whole brain using two-photon imaging (whole brain fish 2).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (9 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, top to bottom, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S3 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 8).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every hour (24 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S4 Movie. Confocal 3D reconstructions of zebrafish pineal gland.

    Zebrafish larvae were co-labeled with nr1d1:VNP (blue) and aanat2:mRFP (red).

    (AVI)

    S5 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 1).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S6 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 2).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S7 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 3).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S8 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 4).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S9 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 5).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S10 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 6).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S11 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 1).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S12 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 2).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S13 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 3).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S14 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 4).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S15 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 5).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S16 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (xops:nfsB-mCherry fish 6).

    This is Tg(nr1d1:VNP) × Tg(xops:nfsB-mCherry) fish. The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S17 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 7).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S18 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD fish 8).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S19 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 1).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S20 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 2).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S21 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 3).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S22 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 4).

    The fish was imaged from 3.5 dpf to 6.5 dpf every 12 hours (7 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. From left to right, 3.5 dpf, 4.0 dpf, 4.5 dpf, 5.0 dpf, 5.5 dpf, 6.0 dpf, and 6.5dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S23 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 1).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S24 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 2).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S25 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_LD fish 3).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S26 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 1).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S27 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 2).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S28 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (LD_DD fish 3).

    The fish was imaged from 6.0 dpf to 7.5 dpf every 12 hours (4 stacks). The fish was raised under LD condition from 0 dpf to 5.5 dpf and was transferred to DD condition from 5.5 dpf. From left to right, 6.0 dpf, 6.5 dpf, 7.0 dpf, and 7.5 dpf. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization; LD, light–dark.

    (AVI)

    S29 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 5).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S30 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 6).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S31 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging (DD fish 7).

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf in every two hours (12 stacks). The fish was raised under DD condition. DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    S32 Movie. The combined image stacks of the pineal gland using two-photon imaging.

    The fish was imaged at 5.0 dpf every hour (22 stacks, CT3–CT24). The fish was raised under DD condition. CT, circadian time DD, constant dark; dpf, days postfertilization.

    (AVI)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reply_to_reviewer_final_2_JY_revised_20191119.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: reply_JY.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All the imaging data were included in the supplementary data files S1, S2 Data and S1S32 Movies; the single-cell RNA-seq data have been deposited on GEO (GSE134288).


    Articles from PLoS Biology are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES