ABSTRACT
Animals anticipate the timing of food availability via the food-entrainable oscillator (FEO). The anatomical location and timekeeping mechanism of the FEO are unknown. Several studies showed the circadian gene, Period 2, is critical for FEO timekeeping. However, other studies concluded that canonical circadian genes are not essential for FEO timekeeping. In this study, we re-examined the effects of the Per2 Brdm1 mutation on food entrainment using methods that have revealed robust food anticipatory activity in other mutant lines. We examined food anticipatory activity, which is the output of the FEO, in single Period mutant mice. Single Per1, Per2, and Per3 mutant mice had robust food anticipatory activity during restricted feeding. In addition, we found that two different lines of Per2 mutant mice (ldc and Brdm1) anticipated restricted food availability. To determine if FEO timekeeping persisted in the absence of the food cue, we assessed activity during fasting. Food anticipatory (wheel-running) activity in all Period mutant mice was also robust during food deprivation. Together, our studies demonstrate that the Period genes are not necessary for the expression of food anticipatory activity.
Subject(s)
Anticipation, Psychological , Biological Clocks/physiology , Feeding Behavior/psychology , Period Circadian Proteins/genetics , Animals , Circadian Rhythm/physiology , Cues , Fasting/physiology , Feeding Behavior/physiology , Female , Food , Food Deprivation/physiology , Gene Expression Regulation , Male , Mice , Mice, Inbred C57BL , Mice, Knockout , Motor Activity/physiology , Mutation , Period Circadian Proteins/deficiency , Photoperiod , Signal TransductionABSTRACT
After repeated media attention in 2013 due to the Angelina Jolie disclosure and the Supreme Court decision to ban gene patents, the demand for cancer genetic counseling and testing services has never been greater. Debate has arisen regarding who should provide such services and the quality of genetics services being offered. In this ongoing case series, we document 35 new cases from 7 states (California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Utah) and the District of Columbia of adverse outcomes in cancer genetic testing when performed without the involvement of a certified genetic counselor. We identified 3 major themes of errors: wrong genetic tests ordered, genetic test results misinterpreted, and inadequate genetic counseling. Patient morbidity and mortality were an issue in several of these cases. The complexity of cancer genetic testing and counseling has grown exponentially with the advent of multigene panels that include rare genes and the potential for more variants of uncertain significance. We conclude that genetic counseling and testing should be offered by certified genetics providers to minimize the risks, maximize the benefits, and utilize health care dollars most efficiently.
