English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Many organisms use free running circadian clocks to anticipate the day night cycle. However, others organisms use simple stimulus-response strategies (‘hourglass clocks’) and it is not clear when such strategies are sufficient or even preferable to free running clocks. Here, we find that free running clocks, such as those found in the cyanobacterium  Synechococcus elongatus  and humans, can efficiently project out light intensity fluctuations due to weather patterns (‘external noise’) by exploiting their limit cycle attractor. However, such limit cycles are necessarily vulnerable to ‘internal noise’. Hence, at sufficiently high internal noise, point attractor-based ‘hourglass’ clocks, such as those found in a smaller cyanobacterium with low protein copy number,  Prochlorococcus marinus , can outperform free running clocks. By interpolating between these two regimes in a diverse range of oscillators drawn from across biology, we demonstrate biochemical clock architectures that are best suited to different relative strengths of external and internal noise.

Biophysical clocks face a trade-off between internal and external noise resistance