Vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) is an important regulator of physiological circadian rhythmicity in the heart, though its loss does not abolish autonomic regulation or impair baseline cardiac function.
No immediate clinical implications from mouse data; leaves open VIP's role in human cardiac circadian rhythms.
The circadian system, driven by the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN), regulates properties of cardiovascular function. The dysfunction of this timing system can result in cardiac pathology. The neuropeptide vasoactive intestinal peptide (VIP) is crucial for circadian rhythms in a number of biological processes including SCN electrical activity and wheel running behavior. Anatomic evidence indicates that SCN neurons expressing VIP are well positioned to drive circadian regulation of cardiac function through interactions with the autonomic centers. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that loss of VIP would result in circadian deficits in heart rate (HR) and clock gene expression in cardiac tissue. We implanted radiotelemetry devices into VIP-deficient mice and wild-type (WT) controls and continuously recorded HR, body temperature, and cage activity in freely moving mice. Under light-dark conditions, VIP-deficient mice displayed weak rhythms in HR, body temperature, and cage activity, with onsets that were advanced in phase compared with WT mice. Similarly, clock gene expression in cardiac tissue was rhythmic but phase advanced in mutant mice. In constant darkness, the normal circadian rhythms in HR were lost in VIP-deficient mice; however, most mutant mice continued to exhibit circadian rhythms of body temperature with shortened free-running period. The loss of VIP altered, but did not abolish, autonomic regulation of HR. Analysis of the echocardiograms did not find any evidence for a loss of cardiac function in VIP-deficient mice, and the size of the hearts did not differ between genotypes. These results demonstrate that VIP is an important regulator of physiological circadian rhythmicity in the heart.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schroeder et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: