{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02089864158829676, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008881922675026124, 'mean_word_length': 4.984375, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Phenotypic Differences in Reentrainment Behavior and Sensitivity to Nighttime Light Pulses in Siberian Hamsters

Spontaneous reentrainment to phase shifts of the photocycle is a fundamental property of all circadian systems. Siberian hamsters are, however, unique in this regard because most fail to reentrain when the LD cycle (16-h light/day) is phase delayed by 5 h. In the present study, the authors compared reentrainment responses in hamsters from 2 colonies. One colony descended from animals trapped in the wild more than 30 years ago (designated “nonentrainers”), and the other colony was outbred as recently as 13 years ago (designated “entrainers”). As reported previously, only 10% of hamsters from the nonentrainer colony reentrained to a 5-h phase delay of the LD cycle. By contrast, 75% of animals from the entrainer colony reentrained to the phase shift. Another goal of this study was to test the hypothesis that failure to reentrain was a consequence of light exposure during the middle of the night on the day of the 5-h phase delay. This hypothesis was tested by exposing animals to 2 h of light during the early, middle, or late part of the night and then subjecting them on the next day to a 3-h phase delay of the photocycle, which is a phase shift to which all hamsters normally reentrain. All animals from both colonies reentrained when light pulses occurred early in the night, but more animals from the entrainer colony, compared to the nonentrainer colony, reentrained when the light pulse occurred in the middle or late part of the night. The phenotypic variation in reentrainment responses is similar to the variation in photoperiodic responsiveness previously reported for these 2 colonies. Phenotypic variation in both traits is due to underlying differences in circadian organization and suggests a common genetic basis for reentrainment responses and photoperiodic responsiveness.