abstract: A clear and well-documented LaTeX document is presented as an article formatted for publication by CEUR-WS in a conference proceedings. Based on the "ceurart" document class, this article presents and explains many of the common variations, as well as many of the formatting elements an author may use in the preparation of the documentation of their work.
address: Peoples' Friendship University of Russia (RUDN University), 6 Miklukho-Maklaya St, Moscow, 117198, Russian Federation; Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, 6 Joliot-Curie, Dubna, Moscow region, 141980, Russian Federation; Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands; University of Skövde, Högskolevägen 1, 541 28 Skövde, Sweden
author: Dmitry S. Kulyabov; Ilaria Tiddi; Manfred Jeusfeld
bibliography: sample-ceur.bib
title: A better way to format your document for CEUR-WS

\[ orcid=0000-0002-0877-7063, firstname.lastname@example.com, url=https://yamadharma.github.io/, \]

\[ orcid=0000-0001-7116-9338, email@example.com, url=https://kmitd.github.io/ilaria/, \]

\[ orcid=0000-0002-9421-8566, email@example.com, url=http://conceptbase.sourceforge.net/mjf/, \]

# Introduction

CEUR-WS's article template provides a consistent LaTeX style for use across CEUR-WS publications, and incorporates accessibility and metadata-extraction functionality. This document will explain the major features of the document class.

If you are new to publishing with CEUR-WS, this document is a valuable guide to the process of preparing your work for publication.

The "`ceurart`" document class can be used to prepare articles for any CEUR-WS publication, and for any stage of publication, from review to final "camera-ready" copy with *very* few changes to the source.

This class depends on the following packages for its proper functioning:

-   `natbib.sty` for citation processing;

-   `geometry.sty` for margin settings;

-   `graphicx.sty` for graphics inclusion;

-   `hyperref.sty` optional package if hyperlinking is required in the document;

-   `fontawesome5.sty` optional package for bells and whistles.

All the above packages are part of any standard LaTeX installation. Therefore, the users need not be bothered about downloading any extra packages.

# Modifications

Modifying the template — including but not limited to: adjusting margins, typeface sizes, line spacing, paragraph and list definitions, and the use of the `\vspace` command to manually adjust the vertical spacing between elements of your work — is not allowed.

# Template parameters

There are a number of template parameters which modify some part of the `ceurart` document class. This parameters are enclosed in square brackets and are a part of the `\documentclass` command:

      \documentclass[parameter]{ceurart}

Frequently-used parameters, or combinations of parameters, include:

-   `twocolumn` : Two column layout.

-   `hf` : Enable header and footer[^1].

# Front matter

## Title Information

The titles of papers should be either all use the emphasizing capitalized style or they should all use the regular English (or native language) style. It does not make a good impression if you or your authors mix the styles.

Use the `\title` command to define the title of your work. Do not insert line breaks in your title.

## Title variants

`\title` command have the below options:

-   `title`: Document title. This is default option.

        \title[mode=title]{This is a title}

    You can just omit it, like as follows:

        \title{This is a title}

-   `alt`: Alternate title.

        \title[mode=alt]{This is a alternate title}

-   `sub`: Sub title.

        \title[mode=sub]{This is a sub title}

    You can just use `\subtitle` command, as follows:

        \subtitle{This is a sub title}

-   `trans`: Translated title.

        \title[mode=trans]{This is a translated title}

-   `transsub`: Translated sub title.

        \title[mode=transsub]{This is a translated sub title}

## Authors and Affiliations

Each author must be defined separately for accurate metadata identification. Multiple authors may share one affiliation. Authors' names should not be abbreviated; use full first names wherever possible. Include authors' e-mail addresses whenever possible.

`\author` command have the below options:

-   `style` : Style of author name (chinese)

-   `prefix` : Prefix

-   `suffix` : Suffix

-   `degree` : Degree

-   `role` : Role

-   `orcid` : ORCID

-   `email` : E-mail

-   `url` : URL

Author names can have some kinds of marks and notes:

-   affiliation mark: `\author[<num>]`.

The author names and affiliations could be formatted in two ways:

1.  Group the authors per affiliation.

2.  Use an explicit mark to indicate the affiliations.

Author block example:

    \author[1,2]{Author Name}[%
        prefix=Prof.,
        degree=D.Sc.,
        role=Researcher,
        orcid=0000-0000-000-0000,
        firstname.lastname@example.com,
        url=https://name.example.com
    ]

    \address[1]{Affiliation #1}
    \address[2]{Affiliation #2}

## Abstract and Keywords

Abstract shall be entered in an environment that starts with `\begin{abstract}` and ends with `\end{abstract}`.

    \begin{abstract}
      This is an abstract.
    \end{abstract}

The key words are enclosed in a `keywords` environment. Use `\sep` to separate keywords.

    \begin{keywords}
      First keyword \sep
      Second keyword \sep
      Third keyword \sep
      Fourth keyword
    \end{keywords}

At the end of front matter add `\maketitle` command.

## Various Marks in the Front Matter

The front matter becomes complicated due to various kinds of notes and marks to the title and author names. Marks in the title will be denoted by a star ($\star$) mark; footnotes are denoted by super scripted Arabic numerals, corresponding author by an Conformal asterisk (\*) mark.

### Title marks

Title mark can be entered by the command, `\tnotemark[<num>]` and the corresponding text can be entered with the command `\tnotetext[<num>]{<text>}`. An example will be:

    \title{A better way to format your document for CEUR-WS}

    \tnotemark[1]
    \tnotetext[1]{You can use this document as the template for preparing your
      publication. We recommend using the latest version of the ceurart style.}

`\tnotemark` and `\tnotetext` can be anywhere in the front matter, but should be before `\maketitle` command.

### Author marks

Author names can have some kinds of marks and notes:

-   footnote mark : `\fnmark[<num>]`

-   footnote text : `\fntext[<num>]{<text>}`

-   corresponding author mark : `\cormark[<num>]`

-   corresponding author text : `\cortext[<num>]{<text>}`

### Other marks

At times, authors want footnotes which leave no marks in the author names. The note text shall be listed as part of the front matter notes. Class files provides `\nonumnote` for this purpose. The usage

    \nonumnote{<text>}

and should be entered anywhere before the `\maketitle` command for this to take effect.

# Sectioning Commands

Your work should use standard LaTeX sectioning commands: `\section`, `\subsection`, `\subsubsection`, and `\paragraph`. They should be numbered; do not remove the numbering from the commands.

Simulating a sectioning command by setting the first word or words of a paragraph in boldface or italicized text is not allowed.

# Tables

The "`ceurart`" document class includes the "`booktabs`" package — <https://ctan.org/pkg/booktabs> — for preparing high-quality tables.

Table captions are placed *above* the table.

Because tables cannot be split across pages, the best placement for them is typically the top of the page nearest their initial cite. To ensure this proper "floating" placement of tables, use the environment `table` to enclose the table's contents and the table caption. The contents of the table itself must go in the `tabular` environment, to be aligned properly in rows and columns, with the desired horizontal and vertical rules.

Immediately following this sentence is the point at which Table  is included in the input file; compare the placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of this document.

```latex
\begin{table*}
  \caption{Frequency of Special Characters}
  \label{tab:freq}
  \begin{tabular}{ccl}
    \toprule
    Non-English or Math&Frequency&Comments\\
    \midrule
    \O & 1 in 1,000& For Swedish names\\
    $\pi$ & 1 in 5& Common in math\\
    \$ & 4 in 5 & Used in business\\
    $\Psi^2_1$ & 1 in 40,000& Unexplained usage\\
  \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
```

To set a wider table, which takes up the whole width of the page's live area, use the environment `table*` to enclose the table's contents and the table caption. As with a single-column table, this wide table will "float" to a location deemed more desirable. Immediately following this sentence is the point at which Table  is included in the input file; again, it is instructive to compare the placement of the table here with the table in the printed output of this document.

|    Command     | A Number | Comments         |
|:--------------:|:--------:|:-----------------|
| `'134``author` |   100    | Author           |
| `'134``table`  |   300    | For tables       |
| `'134``table*` |   400    | For wider tables |

Some Typical Commands

# Math Equations

You may want to display math equations in three distinct styles: inline, numbered or non-numbered display. Each of the three are discussed in the next sections.

## Inline (In-text) Equations

A formula that appears in the running text is called an inline or in-text formula. It is produced by the `math` environment, which can be invoked with the usual `\begin` …`\end` construction or with the short form `$` …`$`. You can use any of the symbols and structures, from $\alpha$ to $\omega$, available in LaTeX ; this section will simply show a few examples of in-text equations in context. Notice how this equation: $  \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0,$ set here in in-line math style, looks slightly different when set in display style. (See next section).

## Display Equations

A numbered display equation—one set off by vertical space from the text and centered horizontally—is produced by the `equation` environment. An unnumbered display equation is produced by the `displaymath` environment.

Again, in either environment, you can use any of the symbols and structures available in LaTeX; this section will just give a couple of examples of display equations in context. First, consider the equation, shown as an inline equation above: $$\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty} \frac{1}{n} = 0.$$ Notice how it is formatted somewhat differently in the `displaymath` environment. Now, we'll enter an unnumbered equation: $$S_{n} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} x_{i} ,$$ and follow it with another numbered equation: $$\lim_{x \to 0} (1 + x)^{1/x} = e$$ just to demonstrate LaTeX's able handling of numbering.

# Figures

The "`figure`" environment should be used for figures. One or more images can be placed within a figure. If your figure contains third-party material, you must clearly identify it as such, as shown in the example below.

Your figures should contain a caption which describes the figure to the reader. Figure captions go below the figure. Your figures should also include a description suitable for screen readers, to assist the visually-challenged to better understand your work.

Figure captions are placed below the figure.

# Citations and Bibliographies

The use of BibTeX for the preparation and formatting of one's references is strongly recommended. Authors' names should be complete — use full first names ("Donald E. Knuth") not initials ("D. E. Knuth") — and the salient identifying features of a reference should be included: title, year, volume, number, pages, article DOI, etc.

The bibliography is included in your source document with these two commands, placed just before the `\end{document}` command:

    \bibliography{bibfile}

where "`bibfile`" is the name, without the "`.bib`" suffix, of the BibTeX file.

## Some examples

A paginated journal article , an enumerated journal article , a reference to an entire issue , a monograph (whole book) , a monograph/whole book in a series (see 2a in spec. document) , a divisible-book such as an anthology or compilation followed by the same example, however we only output the series if the volume number is given (so series should not be present since it has no vol. no.), a chapter in a divisible book , a chapter in a divisible book in a series , a multi-volume work as book , an article in a proceedings (of a conference, symposium, workshop for example) (paginated proceedings article) , a proceedings article with all possible elements , an example of an enumerated proceedings article , an informally published work , a doctoral dissertation , a master's thesis: , an online document / world wide web resource , a video game (Case 1) and (Case 2) and and (Case 3) a patent , work accepted for publication , prolific author and . Other cites might contain 'duplicate' DOI and URLs (some SIAM articles) . Multi-volume works as books and . A couple of citations with DOIs: . Online citations: .

# Acknowledgments

Identification of funding sources and other support, and thanks to individuals and groups that assisted in the research and the preparation of the work should be included in an acknowledgment section, which is placed just before the reference section in your document.

This section has a special environment:

    \begin{acknowledgments}
      These are different acknowledgments.
    \end{acknowledgments}

so that the information contained therein can be more easily collected during the article metadata extraction phase, and to ensure consistency in the spelling of the section heading.

Authors should not prepare this section as a numbered or unnumbered `\section`; please use the "`acknowledgments`" environment.

# Appendices

If your work needs an appendix, add it before the "`\end{document}`" command at the conclusion of your source document.

Start the appendix with the "`\appendix`" command:

    \appendix

and note that in the appendix, sections are lettered, not numbered.

# Online Resources

The sources for the ceur-art style are available via

-   [GitHub](https://github.com/yamadharma/ceurart),

-   [Overleaf template](https://www.overleaf.com/latex/templates/template-for-submissions-to-ceur-workshop-proceedings-ceur-ws-dot-org/pkfscdkgkhcq).

[^1]: You can enable the display of page numbers in the final version of the entire collection. In this case, you should adhere to the end-to-end pagination of individual papers.


abstract: This is a review of the book **Quantum \[Un\]speakables: From Bell to Quantum Information**. Reinhold A. Bertlmann and Anton Zeilinger (editors). xxii + 483 pp. Springer-Verlag, 2002. \$89.95.
author: Nino Zanghı̀ and Roderich Tumulka
date: July 7, 2003
title: John Bell Across Space and Time

*Ten years after his death, one of the sharpest minds in quantum physics was celebrated in a memorial conference.*

John Stewart Bell (1928-1990) was one of the leading physicists of the 20th century, a deep and serious thinker. He worked at CERN in Geneva on the physics of particle accelerators, made a number of impressive contributions to quantum field theory, and became famous for the discovery of a phenomenon he called nonlocality. However, the most remarkable thing about him was perhaps that he was a realist.

Realism is the philosophical view that the world out there actually exists, as opposed to the view that it is a mere hallucination. We are all born realists, but some of us change our minds as adults. Now it may seem to you that for physics to make any sense, a physicist would have to be, or at least pretend to be, a realist; after all, it would seem that physics is about finding out how the world out there works.

But, as a matter of fact, in the 1920s Niels Bohr, the leading quantum physicist of his time, began to advocate the idea that realism is childish and unscientific; he proposed instead what is now called the "Copenhagen interpretation" of quantum physics, a rather incoherent philosophical doctrine, which (according to Richard Feynman) "nobody really understands." Part of this doctrine is the view that macroscopic objects, such as chairs and planets, do exist out there, but electrons and the other microscopic particles do not. Correspondingly, Copenhagen quantum theory refuses to provide any consistent story about what happens to microscopic objects, and instead prefers to make contradictory statements about them. According to the Copenhagen view, the world is divided into two realms, macro and micro, "classical" and "quantum," logical and contradictory—or, as Bell put it in one of his essays, into "speakable" and "unspeakable."

Although it is not clear where the border between the two realms should be, and how this duality could possibly be compatible with the fact that chairs consist of electrons and other particles, Bohr's view became the orthodoxy. That is, it became not merely the majority view among physicists, but rather the dogma. Ever since, being a realist has been rather dangerous for a quantum physicist, because it has been widely regarded as a sign of being too stupid to understand orthodox quantum theory—which, as we've mentioned, nobody really understands.

Along with Albert Einstein, Erwin Schrödinger, Louis de Broglie and David Bohm, Bell was one of the few people who felt compelled by his conscience to reject Bohr's philosophy. Bell emphasized that the empirical facts of quantum physics do not at all force us to renounce realism: There is a realist theory that accounts for all of these facts in a most elegant way—Bohmian mechanics (also known as de Broglie–Bohm theory). It describes a world in which electrons, quarks and the like are point particles that move in a manner dictated by the wave function. It should be taught to students, Bell insisted, as a legitimate alternative to the orthodoxy. And in 1986, GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber succeeded in developing a second kind of realist theory, encouraged by Bell and known as *spontaneous localization*. But overcoming prejudice and changing convictions takes more than one generation.

*Quantum \[Un\]speakables* is the proceedings volume of a conference held at the University of Vienna in November 2000 to commemorate the 10th anniversary of Bell's death. The 30 articles written for this volume by 35 authors deal foremost with nonlocality and, of course, the meaning of quantum theory. The contributions focus very much on personal recollections and mostly presuppose that the reader is familiar with the relevant physics and mathematics. The recollections make this book a valuable source both on John Bell the man and on the history of quantum physics between 1950 and 1990. Among other things, several authors complain about the dogmatic aversion among physicists in the 1960s to even take note of Bell's nonlocality theorem.

*Quantum \[Un\]speakables* also reflects the prevailing situation in the year 2000 in that it collects personal, diverging views about the meaning of quantum physics from a cross-section of physicist. The cross-section is biased, though, because researchers working on Bohmian mechanics, of which Bell was the leading proponent during the decades before his death, were simply not invited to the conference, and the realists are in the minority among the authors. Thus we recommend that readers be very cautious in regard to the conclusions drawn in this book about the foundations of quantum physics.

This warning concerns in particular the conclusions drawn from Bell's nonlocality theorem. Let us tell the story briefly here. Bohmian mechanics involves superluminal action-at-a-distance and thus violates the "locality principle" of relativity theory. This was considered, by the Copenhagen camp, an indication that Bohmian mechanics was on the wrong track. In 1964, Bell proved that any serious version of quantum theory (regardless of whether or not it is based on microscopic realism) must violate locality. This means that if nature is governed by the predictions of quantum theory, the "locality principle" is simply wrong, and our world is nonlocal. It also means that the nonlocality of Bohmian mechanics is not a sign of its being on the wrong track, but quite the contrary.

The Copenhagen view, in comparison, is indeed less local: It is nonlocal in cases that Bohmian mechanics can explain in a purely local way. (For example, for a particle in a quantum state that is a superposition of being in London and being in Tokyo, according to Copenhagenism there is no matter of fact about whether the particle actually is in London or in Tokyo prior to the first attempt at detection—which presupposes a temporal ordering.) But it is also contradictory, vague and confusing enough for its adherents to claim it is completely local, and thus that nonlocality is a consequence of an attachment to *realism*. Therefore, so the argument goes, it was Bell who finally proved realism wrong! Bell, of course, emphatically rejected this incorrect interpretation of his nonlocality theorem.

The crucial experiments violating Bell's inequality and thus, according to Bell's theoretical analysis, demonstrating nonlocality have been performed many times since 1980, and have also lead to significant improvements in experimental techniques. Some of these techniques have now become valuable for quantum cryptography and the first steps towards the construction of a quantum computer. These two fields are usually summarized under the key word "quantum information," and great hopes are expressed, also in *Quantum \[Un\]speakables*, that quantum information will provide new insights into the nature of the quantum world.

But we see no reason for such hopes. Quantum information theory is a straightforward application of the rules laid down in, for example, John von Neumann's classic 1932 book on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics. Any interpretation of quantum mechanics, to the extent that it succeeds in explaining these rules, also explains quantum computers and the like. And to the idea that quantum theory may after all be merely about information and nothing else, Bell responded with a crucial question: "Information? Whose information? Information about what?"

**Reviewer information.** *Nino Zanghı̀ is professor of theoretical physics at the Università degli Studi di Genova, Italy. Roderich Tumulka is a post-doctoral research fellow at the physics department of the Università degli Studi di Genova. The authors wish to thank Sheldon Goldstein for his critical reading of a draft for this article.*


# Abstract

The development of systemic approaches in biology has put emphasis on identifying genetic modules whose behavior can be modeled accurately so as to gain insight into their structure and function. However most gene circuits in a cell are under control of external signals and thus quantitative agreement between experimental data and a mathematical model is difficult. Circadian biology has been one notable exception: quantitative models of the internal clock that orchestrates biological processes over the 24-hour diurnal cycle have been constructed for a few organisms, from cyanobacteria to plants and mammals. In most cases, a complex architecture with interlocked feedback loops has been evidenced. Here we present first modeling results for the circadian clock of the green unicellular alga *Ostreococcus tauri*. Two plant-like clock genes have been shown to play a central role in *Ostreococcus* clock. We find that their expression time profiles can be accurately reproduced by a minimal model of a two-gene transcriptional feedback loop. Remarkably, best adjustment of data recorded under light/dark alternation is obtained when assuming that the oscillator is not coupled to the diurnal cycle. This suggests that coupling to light is confined to specific time intervals and has no dynamical effect when the oscillator is entrained by the diurnal cycle. This intringuing property may reflect a strategy to minimize the impact of fluctuations in daylight intensity on the core circadian oscillator, a type of perturbation that has been rarely considered when assessing the robustness of circadian clocks.

# Author Summary

Circadian clocks keep time of day in many living organisms, allowing them to anticipate environmental changes induced by day/night alternation. They consist of networks of genes and proteins interacting so as to generate biochemical oscillations with a period close to 24 hours. Circadian clocks synchronize to the day/night cycle through the year principally by sensing ambient light. Depending on the weather, the perceived light intensity can display large fluctuations within the day and from day to day, potentially inducing unwanted resetting of the clock. Furthermore, marine organisms such as microalgae are subjected to dramatic changes in light intensities in the water column due to streams and wind. We showed, using mathematical modelling that the green unicellular marine alga Ostreococcus tauri has evolved a simple but effective strategy to shield the circadian clock from daylight fluctuations by localizing coupling to the light during specific time intervals. In our model, as in experiments, coupling is invisible when the clock is in phase with the day/night cycle but resets the clock when it is out of phase. Such a clock architecture is immune to strong daylight fluctuation.

# Introduction

Real-time monitoring of gene activity now allow us to unravel the complex dynamical behavior of regulatory networks underlying cell functions . However, understanding the collective behavior of even a few molecular actors defies intuition, as it depends not only on the topology of the interaction network but also on strengths and response times of its links . A mathematical description of a regulatory network is thus necessary to qualitatively and quantitatively understand its dynamical behavior, but obtaining it is challenging. State variables and parameters are subject to large fluctuations , which create artificial complexity and mask the actual network structure. Genetic modules are usually not isolated but coupled to a larger network, and a given gene can be involved in different modules and pathways . It is thus important to identify gene circuits whose dynamical behavior can be modeled quantitatively, to serve as model circuits.

One strategy for obtaining such circuits has been to construct synthetic networks, which are isolated by design . As recent experiments have shown, an excellent quantitative agreement can be obtained by incorporating when needed detailed descriptions of various biochemical processes (e.g., multimerization, transport, DNA looping, etc.) .

Another strategy is to study natural gene circuits whose function makes them relatively autonomous and stable. The circadian clocks that drive biological processes around the day/night cycle in many living organisms are natural candidates, as these genetic oscillators keep track of the most regular environmental constraint: the alternation of daylight and darkness caused by Earth rotation . Informed by experiments, circadian clock models have progressively become more complex, evolving from single loops featuring a self-repressed gene  to networks of interlocked feedback loops.

Here we report surprisingly good agreement between the mathematical model of a single transcriptional feedback loop and expression profiles of two central clock genes of *Ostreococcus tauri*. This microscopic green alga is the smallest free-living eukaryote known to date and belongs to the Prasinophyceae, one of the most ancient groups of the green lineage. *Ostreococcus* displays a very simple cellular organization, with only one mitochondrion and one chloroplast . Its small genome (12.6 Mbp) sequence revealed a high compaction (85% of coding DNA) and a very low gene redundancy  (e.g., most cyclins and CDK are present as a single copy gene ).The cell division cycle of *Ostreococcus* is under control of a circadian oscillator, with cell division occurring at the end of the day in light/dark cycles . These daily rhythms in cell division meet the criteria characterizing a circadian clock, as they can be entrained to different photoperiods, persist under constant conditions and respond to light pulses by phase shifts that depend on internal time .

Very recently, some light has been shed on the molecular workings of *Ostreococcus* clock by Corellou *et al.* . Since the clock of closely related *Arabidopsis* has been extensively studied, they searched *Ostreococcus* genome for orthologs of higher plant clock genes and found only two, similar to *Arabidopsis* central clock genes *Toc1* and *Cca1* . These two genes display rhythmic expression both under light/dark alternation and in constant light conditions. A functional analysis by overexpression/antisense strategy showed that *Toc1* and *Cca1* are important clock genes in *Ostreococcus*. Overexpression of *Toc1* led to increased levels of CCA1 while overexpression of *Cca1* resulted in lower levels of TOC1. Furthermore CCA1 was shown to bind to a conserved evening element sequence (EE) that is required for the circadian regulated activity of *Toc1* promoter. Whether *Toc1* and *Cca1* work in a negative feedback loop could not be inferred from this study since *Ostreococcus* clock appeared to rely on more than a simple *Toc1*/*Cca1* negative feedback loop.

Interestingly, *Arabidopsis* genes *Toc1* and *Cca1* were the core actors of the first plant clock model, based on a transcriptional loop where TOC1 activates *Cca1* and the similar gene *Lhy*, whose proteins dimerize to repress *Toc1* . However, this model did not reproduce well expression peaks of *Toc1* and *Cca1* in *Arabidopsis*  and was extended to adjust experimental data . Current *Arabidopsis* clock models feature several interlocked feedback loops . This led us to investigate whether the transcriptional feedback loop model where *Toc1* activates *Cca1* and is repressed by *Cca1* would be relevant for *Ostreococcus*.

We not only found that this two-gene loop model reproduces perfectly transcript profiles of *Ostreococcus* *Toc1* and *Cca1* but that excellent adjustment of data recorded under light/dark alternation is obtained when no model parameter depends on light intensity. This counterintuitive finding suggests that the oscillator is not permanently coupled to light across the 24-hour cycle but only during specific time intervals, which is supported by numerical simulations. In this article, we propose that the invisibility of coupling in entrainment conditions reflects a strategy to shield the oscillator from natural fluctuations in daylight intensity.

# Results

## Experimental data and model adjustment

To characterize the temporal pattern of *Toc1* and *Cca1* expression in *Ostreococcus*, we used microarray data acquired in triplicate under 12:12 light/dark cycle, as described in  (Fig. ). One *Toc1* and two *Cca1* mRNA time courses had no aberrant point. Here, we use as target profiles the complete *Toc1* profile and the complete *Cca1* profile whose samples are obtained from the same microarray data as the *Toc1* profile. We checked that the results described in this work are robust to the biological variations observed. Corellou *et al.* have also carried out an extensive work of genetic transformation in *Ostreococcus*, leading to transcriptional and translational fusion lines allowing one to monitor transcriptional activity and protein dynamics in living cells . However, luciferase kinetics in this organism is still not well known and we postpone the analysis of luminescence time series to a future work. Model adjustment has thus been carried out using microarray expression data, which reflect accurately the endogeneous levels of mRNA. Although seeking quantitative agreement with luminescence time series was premature at this stage, predicted protein concentration profiles were compared with data from translational fusion lines as an additional test.

A minimal mathematical model of the two-gene feedback loop comprises four ordinary differential equations (Eq. (), Methods) with 16 parameters. Since detailed models extending the basic 4-ODE model () could only have led to better adjustment, we purposely neglected here effects such as compartmentalisation or delays due to transcription or translation so as to minimize the risk of overfitting and reliably assess the validity of the two-gene loop hypothesis.

Experimental data are recorded under 12:12 Light/Dark (LD) alternation so that the coupling which synchronizes the clock to the diurnal cycle must be hypothesized. Circadian models usually assume that some parameters depend on light intensity (e.g., a degradation rate increases in the dark), and thus take different values at day and night. Parameter space dimension then increases by the number of modulated parameters. Various couplings to light were considered, with 1 to 16 parameters depending on light intensity. We also tested adjustment to model  with all parameters constant, which allowed us to quantify the relevance of coupling mechanisms by measuring the difference between best-fitting profiles in the coupled and uncoupled cases.

The free-running period (FRP) of the oscillator in constant day conditions was fixed at 24 hours, which was the mean value observed in experiments , but we checked that our main results remain valid for other values of the FRP. In fact, we found that when FRP was freely adjustable, it usually converged to values close to or slightly below 24 hours. Fixing the FRP at exactly 24 hours is interesting in that coupling mechanisms are selected by adjustment only if they improve goodness of fit and not merely to achieve frequency locking.

## A free-running model adjusts experimental data

The first result is that an excellent agreement between numerical and experimental profiles is obtained, with a root mean square (RMS) error of a few percent (Figs. (A)-(B)). There is no point in extending model  to improve adjustment of microarray data, which are compatible with the hypothesis of a *Toc1*-*Cca1* feedback loop. Moreover, the corresponding protein profiles (not adjusted) correlate well with luminescence signals from CCA1:Luc and TOC1:Luc translational fusion lines (Figs. (C)-(F)).

But the more surprising is that a non-coupled model, where all parameters are kept constant, adjusts experimental data (Fig. (B), RMS error 3.6%) essentially as well as a fully coupled model where all parameters are allowed to vary between day and night (Fig. (A), RMS error 3.3%). The corresponding parameter values are given in Table . When only one or a few parameters were modulated, goodness of fit significantly degraded compared to the uncoupled and fully coupled cases. This indicates that besides being biologically unrealistic, the model with all parameters modulated fits data merely because of its large parameter space dimension, and cannot be considered seriously. Moreover we simulated the transition from LD alternation to constant light (LL) or constant darkness (DD) conditions for this model and found that it still adjusted experimental data well in LL while displaying strongly damped oscillations in DD (Fig. S1). This confirms that adjustment relies on time profiles being close to free-running oscillator profiles and that adjustment by a fully coupled model is in fact accidental.

On the other hand the uncoupled model is equally unrealistic because it cannot be entrained to the day/night cycle, whereas it is observed experimentally that upon a phase shift of the light/dark cycle, CCA1 and TOC1 expression peaks quickly recover their original timings in the cycle. To verify that adjustment by a free-running oscillator model does not depend on the target profile used, we generated a large number of synthetic profiles whose samples where randomly chosen inside the interval of variation observed in biological triplicates, and adjusted a free-running oscillator model to them. In each case, we found that although RMS error slightly degraded compared our target profile (where mCCA1 and mTOC1 samples for a given time always come from the same microarray), it remained on average near 10 %, with visually excellent adjustment (Fig. S2). Last, it should be noted that assuming a FRP of 24 hours allows frequency locking to occur without coupling, but cannot induce best adjustment in this limiting case by itself.

Thus the paradoxical result that data points fall almost perfectly on the temporal profiles of a free-running oscillator is counterintuitive but must nevertheless be viewed as a signature of the clock architecture. As we will see, this in fact does not imply that the oscillator is uncoupled but only that within the class of models considered so far, where parameters of the TOC1–CCA1 loop take day and night values, the uncoupled model is the one approaching experimental data best. Nothing precludes that there are more general coupling schemes that adjust data equally well.

Before unveiling such models, we discuss now whether the simple negative feedback loop described by model  is a plausible autonomous gene oscillator. With two transcriptional regulations, it is a simpler circuit than the Repressilator, where three genes repress themselves circularly . It is known that in this topology, oscillations become more stable as the number of genes along the loop increases. The two-gene feedback loop described by () could therefore seem to be a less robust oscillator than the Repressilator, and thus a poor model for the core oscillator of a circadian clock.

To address this issue, we checked robustness of adjustment with respect to parameter variations. We found that the experimental profiles can be reproduced in a wide region of parameter space around the optimum, which is quite remarkable given the simplicity of the model (Fig. S3). Moreover, a distinctive feature of the best fitting parameter sets is a strongly saturated degradation, in particular for *Cca1* mRNA, with an extremely low value of $K_{M_C}$ equal to $0.6 \%$ of the maximal *CCa1* mRNA concentration (see table ). In this situation, the number of molecules degraded per unit time is essentially constant and does not depend on the concentration except at very small values. This is consistent with the characteristic sawtooth shape of our target profile drawn in linear scale (Fig. (B)).

The role of post-translational interactions in gene oscillators and circadian clocks has been recently emphasized (see, e.g., ), and in particular saturated degradation has since long been known to favor oscillations . Recently, it has been been shown to act as a delay  and to be essential for inducing robust oscillations in simple synthetic oscillators  (compare Fig. (B) with Fig. 5 of ). Thus, strongly saturated degradation is very likely also a key dynamical ingredient of the natural gene oscillator studied here.

## Adjustment by a model with gated coupling

Circadian models are usually coupled to diurnal cycle by changing some parameter values between day and night . This assumes that all molecular actors involved in light input pathways have been incorporated and that their properties (e.g., degradation rates) react directly to light. Such couplings act over the entire cycle except when light-sensitive actors are present only transiently. For example, models of *Arabidopsis* clock feature an intermediary protein PIF3 that is necessary for induction of CCA1 by light but is shortly degraded after dawn so that CCA1 transcription is only transiently activated. Gating of light input has been observed in several circadian clocks and may be important for maintaining proper timing under different photoperiods .

In our case, light/dark alternation has no detectable signature in the dynamics of *Toc1* and *Cca1* mRNA when the clock is phase-locked to the diurnal cycle. This suggests that the actors of the two-gene loop do not sense light directly, and are driven via unknown mediators, which modify their properties inside specific temporal intervals. Since the input pathway can have complex structure and dynamics, possibly featuring separate feedback loops, the windows of active coupling may be located anywhere inside the diurnal cycle and reflect light level at other times of the cycle. Coupling activation should depend both on time of day and on the intrinsic dynamics of the light input pathway, notwithstanding a possible feedback from the circadian core oscillator .

For simplicity, we restrict ourselves to models in which some parameters of the TOC1–CCA1 feedback loop are modified between two times of the day, measured relatively to dawn (ZT0). The start and end times of coupling windows are then model parameters instead of being fixed at light/dark transitions. This assumes that the input pathway tracks diurnal cycle instantaneously, without loss of generality for understanding behavior in entrainment conditions. In this scheme, resetting of the two-gene oscillator can be studied by simply shifting the oscillator phase relatively to the coupling windows. The results so obtained will be sufficient to show that there exist coupling schemes which leave no signature on mRNA profiles, and to study their properties.

What makes our approach original is not the gated coupling to diurnal cycle, which can be found in other models, but the fact that we do not try to model the actors of the input pathway, which can be complex. This is because we focus here on the TOC1–CCA1 feedback loop, which mostly behaves as an autonomous oscillator. Thus we only need to know the action of the unknown mediators on TOC1 or CCA1, the details of their dynamics being irrelevant.

We systematically scanned the coupling window start and end times, adjusting model for each pair. This revealed that many coupling schemes are compatible with experimental data. For example, TOC1 degradation rate $\delta_{P_T}$ can be modified almost arbitrarily in a large temporal window between ZT22.5 and ZT6.5 without degrading adjustment. This is shown in Figs. (A)-(C), where $\delta_{P_T}=3\delta^0_{P_T}$ inside this window (here and below, $\delta^0_X$ denotes the uncoupled degradation rate of variable $X$). Although the coupling is active for 8 hours, this coupling scheme generates mRNA and protein profiles which are indistinguishable from those of a free-running oscillator. Indeed, modifying TOC1 stability in a window where protein level is low, as is the case for any subinterval of the ZT22.5–ZT6.5 window, does not perturb the oscillator.

We also found a family of time windows of different lengths centered around ZT13.33, inside which the CCA1 degradation rate $\delta_{P_C}$ can be decreased without significantly modifying goodness of fit. In Figs. (D)-(F), we show the effect of having $\delta_{P_C}=\delta^0_{P_C}/2$ between ZT12.8 and ZT13.95. In this coupling scheme, mRNA profiles are not affected but coupling activation has a noticeable effect on CCA1 level, which rises faster than in the uncoupled case. After the window, however, CCA1 level relaxes in a few hours to the uncoupled profile, losing memory of the perturbation. Near this time of the day, the CCA1 protein level appears to be slaved by the other variables: the perturbation induced by modified degradation does not propagate to the other variables, and when coupling is switched off, the protein level relaxes to its value in the uncoupled solution. Thus, the effect of coupling is not only small but transient. An important consequence, which we will exploit later, is that the two coupling windows shown in Fig.  can be combined without modifying adjustment, provided the perturbation induced by one window has vanished when the other window begins.

In these examples, adjustment is sensitive to the timing of these coupling windows: when the start time is modified slightly, the end time must be changed simultaneously so as to recover good adjustment. On the other hand, we found that adjustment error depends little on the coupling strength (measured by the ratio between degradation rates outside and inside the window), especially for short coupling windows.

Fig. (A) shows how adjustment error varies as a function of coupling strength for the two coupling windows used in Fig.  as well as for two other windows inside which the CCA1 protein degradation is reduced, one shorter and the other longer than the window in Fig. (B). The window of accelated TOC1 degradation is totally insentitive to modifications of the TOC1 degradation rate, which is due to protein levels being very low in this window. Windows of CCA1 stabilization are all the more insensitive to variations in CCA1 degradation rate as they are shorter. To quantify the sensitivity of a given window we define $r_\text{max}$ as the largest value of the ratio $r=\delta^0_{P_C}/\delta_{P_C}$ such that adjustment RMS error remains below 10 % for any value of $r$ between $1$ and $r_\text{max}$. The associated variations in mRNA profiles are visually undetectable and below experimental uncertainties. For the windows ZT12–ZT15.47, ZT12.8–ZT13.95 and ZT13–ZT13.65, of respective durations 3.47, 1.15 and 0.65 hours, we find that the $r_\text{max}$ index takes the value 1.5, 2.5 and 260 respectively.

To gain better insight into the effect of a coupling window, we must take into account the fact that the induced variation in the entrained oscillations can be decomposed as a displacement along the limit cycle (resulting in a phase shift) and a displacement transversely to the limit cycle (resulting in a deformation of the limit cycle). To this end, we apply a variable phase shift to the entrained time profile and optimize this phase shift so as to minimize the adjustment error. We define the waveform error as the minimal value of the latter, and the phase error the value of the phase shift for which it is obtained. A small waveform error indicates that we are following the same limit cycle as in the free-running case, possibly with a different phase than is observed experimentally. Waveform and phase errors for the three windows of CCA1 protein stabilization considered in Fig. (A) are shown in Figs. (B) and (C), respectively. It can be seen that only the largest window is associated with a deformation of the limit cycle for large values of $r$, and that it remains modest (RMS error of about 10 % for $r=20$). For the two shorter windows, degraded adjustment essentially results from a phase shift of the entrained solution as the modulation index is increased. It can also be seen that the phase error is in fact very small, approximately 7.5 and 2.5 minutes at $r=10$ for the two shorter windows. Thus it appears that for short enough windows, the effect of the light coupling mechanism can be entirely captured by studing the phase response induced by the mechanism and that a necessary property of a coupling window is that it induces a zero phase shift of the free-running limit cycle (or a phase shift corresponding to the mismatch between the natural and forcing periods in the general case that we will consider later).

## Systematic characterization of gated coupling mechanisms

Besides the two specific examples shown in Fig. , other coupling schemes are compatible with experimental data. In this section, we undergo a systematic approach in order to determine those coupling schemes that do synchronize the free-running model to the day/night cycle, while leaving no signature on mRNA profiles when the phase-locking regime is achieved. To this aim, a preliminary step is to identify those coupling schemes that synchronize in the limit of weak forcing using the tools of infinitesimal phase response curve, which can be defined in the framework of perturbation theory in the vicinity of periodic orbits . Computation of the parametric impulse phase response curve   ($Z_{piPRC}$) characterizing a light-coupling mechanism corresponding to parameter variation $\mathbf{dp}$ allows one to determine time intervals specified by duration $\tau$ and median position $t_m$ such that when the mechanism is applied in this time interval, it generates a zero phase shift and phase-locking is stable to small perturbations (see Supporting materials). Such intervals satisfy: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{rll}
\int_{t_m-\tau/2}^{t_m+\tau/2} \, Z_{piPRC}(u,\mathbf{dp})\, du=0 \\
\int_{t_m-\tau/2}^{t_m+\tau/2} \, Z_{piPRC}'(u,\mathbf{dp})\, du<0
\end{array} \right.
\label{Eq:z}$$

Figure depicts the properties of various gated couplings in the case where the light-coupling mechanism is assumed to modulate specifically a single transcription-related or degradation-related kinetic parameter. For sufficiently weak positive or negative modulation of those eight parameters, a coupling window of specific width ($\tau$) and position ($t_m$) can always be found to satisfy the Eq. (Figs. (A)–(C)), thus being compatible with experimental data. However, the adjustment of these weak coupling schemes to data is expected to deteriorate progressively when coupling strength is increased, because (i) the locking phase may change, (ii) the modulation may deviate significantly the trajectory from that of the free-running oscillator or (iii) the entrained solution may loose its stability. Numerical simulations performed at different coupling strengths indicate that only a subset of coupling schemes determined in the limit of weak coupling keep a good adjustement irrespective of the coupling strength. Fig. (D) shows window timings such that adjustment error remains below 10 % when the kinetic parameter is multiplied or divided by 1.17 or 2. Such a goodness of fit can only be obtained if limit cycle deformation remains small.

As with the examples considered in the previous section, some coupling mechanisms have robust adjustment properties in that a good adjustment is obtained at the two different coupling strengths for the same timings, which coincide with the timings computed in the weak coupling limit. In these cases, adjustment is robust to variations in the coupling strength, which suggests that for these coupling mechanisms, the weak coupling approximation remains valid up to large coupling strengths. For instance, light coupling mechanisms that temporarily increase TOC protein degradation ($\delta_{P_T}$) or CCA1 activation threshold ($P_{T0}$) in windows located during the day the night appear to be robust couplings. Similarly, decreasing CCA1 protein degradation ($\delta_{P_C}$) or TOC repression threshold ($P_{C0}$) in windows occuring during night are robust light-coupling mechanisms. Some other mechanisms do not display the same robustness because either the window timings corresponding to good adjustment depend sensitively on coupling strength (e.g., for positive modulation of mTOC1 degradation rate) or because no good adjustment can be found except for very short windows (e.g., modulation of mCCA1 degradation rate). Other robust coupling mechanisms can be identified in Fig. S4, in which the coupling mechanisms not considered in Fig.  are characterized.

Figure  provides a complementary illustration of the robustness of adjustment for models with gated modulation of CCA1 or TOC1 protein degradation rate. In these plots, the window center is kept fixed at the time determined from Eq. () and shown in Fig. (C) while coupling strength and window duration are freely varied. It can be seen that this timing is compatible with adjustment in a wide range of coupling strengths and window durations.

Our analysis shows that several coupling mechanisms are compatible with the experimental data and that discriminating them requires more experimental data. In particular, monitoring gene expression in transient conditions will probably be crucial since the coupling mechanism leaves apparently no signature in the experimental data in entrainement conditions. For simplicity, we restrict ourselves in the following to models in which half-lives of TOC1 or CCA1 proteins are modified during a specific time interval that is determined in Fig (D).

## Resetting

One may wonder about the purpose of coupling schemes with almost no effect on the oscillator. The key point is that our data have been recorded when the clock was entrained by the diurnal cycle and phase-locked to it. A natural question then is: how do such couplings behave when clock is out of phase and resetting is needed? We found that while the two mechanisms shown in Fig.  have poor resetting properties when applied separately (Fig. S5), a combination of both can be very effective. In Fig. (A)-(B), we show how the two-gene oscillator recovers from a sudden phase-shift of 12 hours using a two-window coupling scheme. As described above, we assume for simplicity that the two coupling windows remain fixed with respect to the day/night cycle. The 12-hour phase shift is induced by initializing at dawn the oscillator state with the value it takes at dusk in the entrained regime. Figs. (A)-(B) show that most of the lag is absorbed in the first 24 hours and the effect of the initial perturbation is hardly detectable after 48 hours.

To design this coupling, we utilized the fact that modifying coupling strengths inside windows hardly affects adjustment. We could therefore choose their values so as to minimize the maximal residual phase shift after three days for all possible initial lags (Fig. (C)). Interestingly, we found that the best resetting behavior is obtained when the start time of the window of modified TOC degradation coincides with dawn. Phase locking in this example is globally stable. However, resetting becomes slow when the residual phase shift is under an hour and the residual phase shift is variable (RMS phase error after 5 days is 25 minutes and maximum phase error is 1 hour), and (Fig. (C)). This inefficiency results in fact from the limitations of a model where the two parameters are modulated by a rectangular profile with fixed timing. Indeed, we will see later that impressive adjustment and resetting behavior can be simultaneously obtained when parameters are modulated with smooth profiles. Our numerical results thus show that a coupling scheme can at the same time be almost invisible when the oscillator is in phase with its forcing cycle and effective enough to ensure resetting when the oscillator is out of phase. By invisible, we mean that the time profile remains in a close neighborhood of the uncoupled one, so that the only effect of coupling is to fix the phase of the oscillation with respect to the day/night cycle.

## Robustness to daylight fluctuations

Why would it be beneficial for a circadian oscillator to be minimally affected by light/dark alternation in normal operation? A tempting hypothesis is that while daylight is essential for synchronizing the clock, its fluctuations can be detrimental to time keeping and that it is important to shield the oscillator from them. If the entrained temporal profile remains close to that of an uncoupled oscillator at different values of the coupling parameter, then it will be naturally insensitive to fluctuations in this parameter. To gain insight into this fundamental question, we subjected the fully coupled and occasionally coupled clock models to fluctuating daylight.

With the light input pathway unknown, we must allow for the fact that light fluctuations may be strongly attenuated upon reaching the *Toc1*-*Cca1* loop. For example, the light signal could be transmitted through an ultrasensitive signaling cascade with almost constant output above an input threshold close to daylight intensities at dawn. The core oscillator would then be subjected to a driving cycle much closer to a perfect square wave than the intensity profile. We thus considered varying modulation depths for the core oscillator parameters to reflect this possible attenuation.

Although the two types of model adjust experimental data equally well when subjected to a regular alternation, they have completely different responses to daylight fluctuations. In Fig. , we assume that light intensity is constant throughout a given day but varies randomly from day to day. For almost zero modulation, the fully coupled model of Fig. (B) maintains relatively regular oscillations of varying amplitude (Fig. (B)). When parameter values are modulated by only a few percent, however, this model behaves erratically: oscillations stop for a few days, expression peaks occur a few hours in advance,... (Fig. (C)). A circadian clock similarly built would be adversely affected by fluctuations in daylight intensity even with very strong attenuation in the input pathway.

In contrast to this, the two occasionally coupled oscillators of Fig.  keep time perfectly even for extreme fluctuations (Figs. (D)-(E)) and generate oscillations that are indistinguishable from those of the free-running oscillator which adjusts experimental data recorded under strictly periodic light/dark alternation. Obviously, this extends to models combinining the two windows, such as the one used in Fig. . This simple model thus describes a robust clock that is both sensitive to phase shifts in the forcing cycle and insensitive to fluctuations in intensity.

We also studied the effect of fluctuations at shorter time scales. When light intensity was varied randomly each hour, but with the same mean intensity each day, the permanently coupled model was still affected but much less than in Fig.  (Fig. S6).

## Influence of free-running period

The results described above may seem to rely on the FRP being equal to 24 hours. When the FRP is smaller or larger, coupling is required to achieve frequency locking and pull the oscillation period to 24 hours. To investigate this more general case, we scaled kinetic constants of the free-running model used in Fig. (B) to shift the FRP to 25 or 23.5 hours. In both cases (short FRP and long FRP), we could find models with gated coupling that adjust perfectly the experimental data with a period of 24 hours (Fig. ). These models are very similar to those shown in Fig. , the only notable difference being that coupling windows are shifted so that the induced resetting corrects for the period mismatch. Interestingly, the coupling windows for a FRP of 25 hours are located near the light/dark and dark/light transitions. We found that these coupling schemes were also very robust to daylight fluctuations (Fig. S7), indicating that the modulation ratio (equal to 3 for the two windows) is not critical. We also found that without taking adjustment into account, the free running oscillator is entrained by the coupling windows shown in Fig. ) within a wide range of modulation ratios, from a lower threshold of 1.05 (resp. 1.25) for the FRP equal to 23.5 hours (resp. 25 hours) to an upper threshold of 13 for both FRPs. With a modulation ratio of 3, free-running oscillators with FRPs ranging from 22 to 29 hours could be entrained.

## Gating by smooth profiles

Gating of light input by rectangular profiles does not reflect the fact that the concentration of the mediators modulating the oscillator typically vary in a gradual way. The existence of nested coupling windows such that models with shorter windows can adjust data with larger parameter modulation (see Fig. ) suggests investigating the action of smooth gating profiles, with maximal parameter modulation near the center of the window. To this end, we considered 24-hour periodic, Gaussian-shaped, modulation profiles defined by: $1/r_C(t)=\delta^0_{P_C}/\delta_{P_C}(t)=
1+k_C\exp\left(-\frac{\sin(\pi(t-t_C)/24)^2}{\sigma_C^2}\right)$ and $r_T(t)=\delta_{P_T}(t)/\delta^0_{P_T}=1+k_T\exp\left(-\frac{\sin(\pi(t-t_T)/24)^2}{\sigma_T^2}\right)$, which are parameterized by the times of maximal modulation $t_{C}$, $t_{T}$, the coupling durations $\sigma_C$, $\sigma_T$ and the modulation depths $k_C$ and $k_T$. To assess whether good data adjustment and resetting behavior could be obtained simultaneously, these six parameters were chosen so as to minimize the RMS residual phase error 5 days after an initial random phase shift ranging from -12 to 12 hours (see Methods). Note that this naturally forces adjustment to experimental RNA profiles.

The behavior of the model using the optimized modulation profiles (Figs. (A)-(B)) confirms the findings obtained with rectangular profiles (Fig. ). The entrained RNA and protein time profiles shadow that of the reference free-running oscillator, with little evidence of the coupling (Figs. (C)-(E)). Phase resetting in response to a phase shift is excellent (Fig. (F)): RMS (resp. maximum) residual phase shift after 5 days is 2.4 min (resp., 10 min). This is all the more remarkable as the Gaussian shape of the modulation profile is artificial, which shows that the dynamical mechanism exploited here is robust and relatively insensitive to the shape of the modulation profile. Moreover, the oscillator is extremely resistant to daylight fluctuations (Fig. (F)). In spite of its simplicity, the two gene-oscillator studied here thus fulfills key requirements for a circadian oscillator when modulated with the right timing.

# Discussion

Our findings illustrate how mathematical modeling can give insight into the architecture of a genetic module. Not only can expression profiles of two *Ostreococcus* clock genes be reproduced accurately by a simple two-gene transcriptional feedback loop model, but furthermore excellent adjustment of mRNA data is provided by a free-running model. This counterintuitive result can be explained if coupling to the diurnal cycle occurs during specific temporal windows, where unidentified mediators interact with the TOC1-CCA1 oscillator in such a way that it experiences negligible forcing when it is in phase with the day/night cycle, and strong resetting when it is out of phase. We could exhibit many coupling schemes compatible with experimental mRNA temporal profiles, differing by the coupling mechanism or by the window timing. This indicates that identification of the actual light input pathway will require additional experimental data. Our analysis strongly supports the conjecture that *Ostreococcus* genes *Cca1* and *Toc1* are the molecular components of an oscillator at the core of *Ostreococcus* clock but does not exclude that other coupled oscillators or feedback loops exist.

Why would a circadian oscillator decouple from the day/night cycle when in phase with it so as to generate quasi-autonomous oscillations? A natural hypothesis is that this protects the clock against daylight fluctuations, which can be important in natural conditions . In a vast majority of numerical simulations and experiments on circadian clocks reported in the literature, the day/night cycle is taken into account through a perfect alternation of constant light intensity and darkness. However, this is somehow idealized, as the primary channel through which clocks get information about Earth rotation, namely daylight, is variable.

In nature, the daylight intensity sensed by an organism depends not only on time of day but also on various factors such as sky cover or, for marine organisms such as *Ostreococcus*, the distance to sea surface and water turbidity, which can affect perceived intensity much more than atmosphere. Therefore, the light intensity reaching a circadian clock can vary several-fold not only from one day to the next but also between different times of the day. A clock permanently coupled to light is also permanently subjected to its fluctuations. Depending on the coupling scheme, keeping time may become a challenge when fluctuations induce phase resettings and continuously drive the clock away from its desired state. Indeed, we found that a mathematical model with properly timed coupling windows was insensitive to strong light intensity fluctuations while a permanently coupled model became erratic even for very small coupling strengths. For simplicity, we only tested the robustness of a model with modulated TOC1 and CCA1 protein degradation. However, it should be stressed that all other light-coupling mechanisms that have been found to be robust with respect to adjustment (see Figs.  and S4) are naturally also robust with respect to daylight fluctuations. Indeed they adjust the experimental data for varying coupling strengths at fixed window timings. This indicates that the limit cycle is insensitive to variations in the coupling strength, which is the key to the robustness to daylight fluctuations. Another interesting result from our numerical simulations is that the most disruptive fluctuations are the variations in intensity from one day to the other, since their time scale matches the oscillator period. Indeed, faster or slower fluctuations are easily filtered out.

These results lead to enquire whether similar designs exist in other circadian clocks. Although the importance of this problem was noted some time ago , the robustness of circadian clocks to daylight fluctuations and how this constraint shapes their molecular architecture have been little studied until very recently. The discussion on how genetic oscillators can keep daytime has essentially focused on the most important sources of noise under constant conditions : temperature variations  or fluctuations in concentration due to small numbers of molecules . However, an operating clock is naturally subjected to an external forcing cycle, which is yet another source of fluctuations.

We thus conjecture that a circadian clock must be built so as to be insensitive to daylight intensity fluctuations when entrained by the day/night cycle, just as it is insentitive to molecular or temperature fluctuations, and that this can be achieved by keeping the oscillator as close to the free-running limit cycle as possible, scheduling coupling at a time when the oscillator is not responsive. An important consequence of this principle is that it allows us to discriminate between different possible coupling mechanisms for a given model, as our analysis revealed dramatic differences in the ability of different parametric modulations to buffer fluctuations. It also allows us to determine the preferred timing for a given coupling mechanism, which may prove very helpful when trying to identify the molecular actors which mediate the light information to the clock.

When the FRP is close to 24 hours, as in much of our analysis it is easy to understand why robustness to daylight fluctuations requires that the forced oscillation shadows the free-running solution. Robustness manifests itself in the time profile remaining constant when subjected to random sequences of daylight intensity. This includes strongly fluctuating sequences as well as sequences of constant daylight intensity at different levels. Thus, the oscillator response should be the same at high and low daylight intensities, which implies that the solution must remain close to the free-running one as forcing is increased from zero. Note that this only holds in entrainment conditions, where coupling is not needed. When the clock is out of phase, strong responses to forcing are expected, with resetting being faster as forcing is stronger.

When the natural and external periods are significantly different, the problem may seem more complex as coupling is required to correct the period mismatch. There is a minimal coupling strength under which the oscillator is not frequency-locked and entrainment cannot occur. Nevertheless, we showed that properly timing the coupling windows is as effective for oscillators with FRP of 23.5 and 25 hours as for the 24-hour example we had considered. Again, the forced solution remains close to the free-running limit cycle even if proceeding at a different speed to correct the period mismatch. This also shows that FRP is not a critical parameter for adjustment of the experimental data used here.

A consequence of the small deviation of the limit cycle from the free-running one when coupling strength is varied is that oscillations should vary little upon a transition from LD to LL or DD conditions (see, e.g., Figs. (G)-(H)). We searched the litterature for examples of such behavior. Ref.  provides a interesting comparison of models for the *Drosophila* and *Neurospora* circadian clocks which is illustrative for our discussion. In this study, the variation in amplitude is much less pronounced for the *Drosophila* model than for the *Neurospora* one (see Fig. 2 of ). Concurrently, the sensitivity of the phase of the entrained oscillations to variations in the light-controlled parameter is much smaller for the *Drosophila* model (see Fig. 3 of ), which is a necessary condition for robustness to daylight fluctuations. Another interesting comparison involves the one-loop and two-loop models of *Arabidopsis* clock. The one-loop model clearly modifies its behavior upon entering DD conditions from LD (see Fig. 5 of ) while the two-loop model preserves its average waveform when transiting from LD to LL, except for the disappearance of the acute response to light at dawn (see Fig. 6 of ). Thus, the two-loop model not only reproduces experimental data better but also seems more robust.

The *Drosophila* and *Neurospora* clock models analyzed in  also differ in their response to forcing when their FRP is close to 24 hours . A number of circadian models cannot be entrained when their FRP is too close to 24 hours because complex oscillations, period-doubled or chaotic ones, are observed easily for moderate to strong forcing. Indeed, it is expected that near resonance between the forcing and natural periods, the strong response exalts nonlinearities and favors complex behavior. Again, the *Drosophila* clock model appears to be more robust in this respect . We stress that making the coupling invisible in entrainment conditions naturally addresses this issue. Dynamically uncoupling the oscillator from the diurnal cycle in entrainment conditions makes it immune both to fluctuations in daylight intensity and to destabilization in the face of strong forcing.

An important problem is how a clock with occasional coupling can adjust to different photoperiods so as to anticipate daily events all along the year. We can only touch briefly this question here as it requires understanding how the temporal profile of the coupling windows changes with photoperiod and thus a detailed description of the unknown light input pathways and additional feedback loops that control the timing of these windows. The key point is that the phase of the entrained oscillations is controlled by the position of the coupling windows. Thus the role of light input pathways and additional feedback loops, whose internal dynamics will typically be affected by input from photoreceptors and feedback from the TOC1–CCA1 oscillator, is to time the coupling windows as needed for each photoperiod so that the correct oscillation timing is generated . This question will be addressed in a future work, together with the analysis of the luminescence time series recorded for differents photoperiods.

Our results also bring some insight into the recent observation that a circadian clock may require multiple feedback loops to maintain proper timing of expression peaks in response to noisy light input across the year . We have shown here that a single two-gene loop can display impressive robustness to daylight fluctuations when its parameters are modulated with the right timing. As noted when discussing the response to different photoperiods, this requires the presence of additional feedback loops to generate the biochemical signal needed to drive the core oscillator appropriately, and which we have not yet identified and modeled in Ostreococcus. Robustness to fluctuations thus implies a minimal level of complexity.

Finally, robustness to intensity fluctuations may explain why it is important to have a self-sustained oscillator at the core of the clock, as a forced damped oscillator permanently needs forcing to maintain its amplitude, and is thereby vulnerable to amplitude fluctuations. Confining the dynamics near the free-running limit cycle allows to have a pure phase dynamics for the core oscillator, uncoupled from intensity fluctuations. Understanding how to construct it will require taking into account the sensitivity of the free-running oscillator to perturbations across its cycle .

A simple organism as *Ostreococcus* can apparently combine mathematical simplicity with the complexity of any cell. The low genomic redundancy of *Ostreococcus* is certainly crucial for allowing accurate mathematical modeling, leading to better insight into the clock workings. *Ostreococcus* therefore stands as a very promising model for circadian biology, but also more generally for systems biology.

# Materials and Methods

A minimal mathematical model of the transcriptional loop where *Toc1* activates *Cca1* which represses *Toc1*, consists of the following four differential equations:

$$\label{eq:model}
  \begin{eqnarray}
    \dot{M_T} &=& \mu_T + \frac{\lambda_T}{1+(P_C/P_{C0})^{n_C}} -
    \delta_{M_T} \frac{K_{M_T} M_T}{K_{M_T} + M_T}\\
    \dot{P_T} &=& \beta_T M_T -
    \delta_{P_T} \frac{K_{P_T} P_T}{K_{P_T} + P_T}\\
    \dot{M_C} &=& \mu_C + \frac{\lambda_C (P_T/P_{T0})^{n_T}}{1+(P_T/P_{T0})^{n_T}} -
    \delta_{M_C} \frac{K_{M_C} M_C}{K_{M_C} + M_C}\\
    \dot{P_C} &=& \beta_C M_C -
    \delta_{P_C} \frac{K_{P_C} P_C}{K_{P_C} + P_C}
  \end{eqnarray}$$ Eqs () describe the time evolution of mRNA concentrations $M_C$ and $M_T$ and protein concentrations $P_C$ and $P_T$ for the *Cca1* and *Toc1* genes, as it results from mRNA synthesis regulated by the other protein, translation and enzymatic degradation. *Toc1* transcription rate varies between $\mu_T$ at infinite CCA1 concentration and $\mu_T+\lambda_T$ at zero CCA1 concentration according to the usual gene regulation function with threshold $P_{C0}$ and cooperativity $n_C$. Similarly, *Cca1* transcription rate is $\mu_C$ (resp., $\mu_C+\lambda_C$) at zero (resp., infinite) TOC1 concentration, with threshold $P_{T0}$ and cooperativity $n_T$. Translation of TOC1 and CCA1 occurs at rates $\beta_T$ and $\beta_C$, respectively. For each species $Y$, the Michaelis-Menten degradation term is written so that $\delta_Y$ is the low-concentration degradation rate and $K_Y$ is the saturation threshold.

Model () has 16 free continuously varying parameters besides the cooperativities $n_C$ and $n_T$ which can be set to the integer values 1 or 2 by the adjustment procedure. mRNA concentrations are determined experimentally only relative to a reference value and protein profiles are not adjusted. Therefore, two solutions of Eqs. () that have the same waveforms up to scale factors are equivalent. Therefore, we can eliminate four parameters by scaling Eqs. (), with only 12 free parameters controlling adjustment when parameters do not vary in time, which optimizes parameter space exploration. Then parameters are rescaled so that the maximum value of protein profiles is 100 nM, the maximum value of *Cca1* mRNA profile is 10 nM and the *Toc1* and *Cca1* mRNA maximum values are in the same proportion as in microarray data. This makes it easier to compare regulation thresholds and degradation saturation thresholds relative to the maximum values of the four concentrations. When the number of modulated parameters is $m$, parameter space is $(12+m)$-dimensional.

Adjustment was carried out by using a large number of random parameter sets as starting points for an optimization procedure based on a Modified Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm (routine LMDIF of the MINPACK software suite ). Goodness of fit for a given parameter set was estimated by the root mean square (RMS) error between experimental and numerical mRNA levels, in logarithmic scale. Numerical integration was performed with the SEULEX algorithm . Adjustment was carried out with 14 (resp. 2) Quad-Core Intel Xeon processors at 2.83 GHz during 72 hours for the 28-dimensional (resp. 12-dimensional) parameter space. Convergence was checked by verifying that the vicinity of the optimum was well sampled. In the uncoupled case, the ODE system is invariant under time translation so that its solutions are defined up to an arbitrary phase. An additional routine was then used to select the best-fitting phase.

To study the effect of daylight fluctuations, parameters were modulated as follows. $L(t) \in \left[0,1\right]$ is the randomly varying light intensity, with $L^{\text{ref}}=0.5$ the reference level. We define the reference modulation depth of the $Y$ parameter taking value $Y_L$ at standard light level and $Y_D$ in dark as $k^{\text{ref}}_Y=\left(Y_L-Y_D \right)/\left(Y_L+Y_D \right)$. $L(t)$ modifies modulation depth according to $k_Y=k_Y^{\text{ref}}\left[1 +
  \beta\;\left(L-L^{\text{ref}}\right)\right]$, where $\beta$ quantifies sensitivity to light variation. The modified modulation depth fixes a new value for the day value, the dark value being unchanged. For models with occasional coupling, we use similar definitions with dark and light parameter values replaced by parameter values respectively outside and inside of the coupling window. The CCA1 stability modulation inside the window starting after dusk depends on the intensity of the previous day.

The parameters of the Gaussian-shaped modulation profiles were determined by optimizing resetting. For all possible variable initial time lag ranging from -12 to 12 hours, the effect of the coupling scheme based on the two profiles modulating TOC1 degradation and CCA1 degradation was characterized as follows. The time lag was applied to the free-running cycle adjusting experimental data. Then, the coupling scheme was applied for one or 5 days. Finally, the coupling was switched off and the residual phase error was measured after two days. The set of six parameters defining modulation profiles were obtained as those which minimize RMS residual phase error across the 24-hour interval.

# Acknowledgments

We thank Bernard Vandenbunder for his helpful guidance in the early stages of this work oscillators and Constant Vandermoere for assistance with data analysis.

# References

# Figure Legends

# Tables

| Symbol | Description | FC (day) | FC (night) | FR |
|:---|:---|---:|---:|---:|
| $\mu_T$ | Minimal *Toc1* transcription rate (nM/min) | 0.0017 | 0.0016 | 0.0065 |
| $\lambda_T$ | CCA1-dependent *Toc1* transcription rate (nM/min) | 0.93 | 0.29 | 0.67 |
| $P_{C_0}$ | CCA1 level at *Toc1* repression threshold (nM) | 1.47 | 0.00 | 1.04 |
| $n_C$ | Cooperativity of CCA1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| $1/\delta_{M_T}$ | mTOC1 half-life (min) | 13.8 | 22.0 | 5.08 |
| $K_{M_T}$ | mTOC1 degradation saturation threshold (nM) | 8.85 | 18.3 | 1.25 |
| $\beta_T$ | TOC1 translation rate (1/min) | 0.013 | 0.023 | 0.016 |
| $1/\delta_{P_T}$ | TOC1 half-life (min) | 29.9 | 29.0 | 3.58 |
| $K_{P_T}$ | TOC1 degradation saturation threshold (nM) | 3.85 | 9.78 | 0.76 |
| $\mu_C$ | Minimal *Cca1* transcription rate (nM/min) | 0.0075 | 0.017 | 0.052 |
| $\lambda_C$ | TOC1-dependent *Cca1* transcription rate (nM/min) | 0.12 | 0.047 | 0.060 |
| $P_{T_0}$ | TOC1 level at *Cca1* activation threshold (nM) | 100.4 | 1.49 | 44.1 |
| $n_T$ | Cooperativity of CCA1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| $1/\delta_{M_C}$ | mCCA1 half-life (min) | 13.3 | 52.2 | 0.82 |
| $K_{M_C}$ | mCCA1 degradation saturation threshold (nM) | 0.56 | 3.76 | 0.063 |
| $\beta_C$ | CCA1 translation rate (1/min) | 0.056 | 0.046 | 0.075 |
| $1/\delta_{P_C}$ | CCA1 half-life (min) | 55.5 | 92.3 | 54.7 |
| $K_{P_C}$ | CCA1 degradation saturation threshold (nM) | 32.4 | 36.0 | 46.0 |

**Model parameter values**

**Supporting Information**

## Gated-coupling design in the weak modulation limit

The free oscillator model was shown to adjust remarkably well the RNAmicroarray data from LD12:12 experiments. A tempting hypothesis is that the synchronization of the free running oscillator to the day-night cycle involves a light-dependent gated-coupling mechanism that has restricted effect on the RNA traces when phase locked. We develop here a systematic method to repertoriate the coupling schemes that synchronize the free oscillator to the diurnal cycle while preserving the adjustment score obtained in the absence of coupling. For enough weak coupling strength, any coupling schemes that achieve the correct locking phase preserve the adjustement score. Those coupling schemes can be found in the framework of perturbation theory in the vicinity of a periodic orbit \[1,2,3\], assuming that the driving force period is enough close to the internal clock period. We consider the state vector of a nonlinear oscillator, which represents the concentration of the molecular clock components. In constant dark conditions, the concentration vector $\mathbf{X}$ evolves according to: $$d\mathbf{X}/dt=\mathbf{F}(\mathbf{X},\mathbf{p_0})
\label{eq:co}$$ Eq. has a periodic solution $\mathbf{X_{\gamma}}(t)$ corresponding to a stable limit cycle of period $T$ close to $24$ hours. We assume that the coupling between the light and the circadian oscillator is mediated by a set of $N$ components ($k$ is the index), which modulate the parameter vector in the direction of $\mathbf{dp}_k$: $$\mathbf{p}(t)=\mathbf{p_0}+\sum_{k=1,N} L_k(t,\tau_k,(t_m)_k) \mathbf{dp}_k$$ where the $24h$-periodic scalar function $L_k(t,\tau_k,(t_m)_k)$ represents the temporal profile of activation (rectangular- or gaussian-shaped profiles in the present paper) of the light-dependent component $k$ with $\tau_k$ and $(t_m)_k$ characterizing the effective coupling window duration and center ($t=0$ correspond to the night-day transition or CT0).

A small enough parametric impulse perturbation applied at phase $u$ induces an infinitesimal change of the circadian oscillator phase defining a $T$-periodic scalar function $Z_{piPRC}(u,\mathbf{dp})$ called infinitesimal phase response curve \[2\] or, to be more precise, parametric impulse phase response curve \[3\]: $$Z_{piPRC}(u,\mathbf{dp}_k)=(\mathbf{dp}_k)^T.\mathbf{Z_p}(u)$$ where $$\mathbf{Z_p}(u)=[\frac{\partial \mathbf{F}(\mathbf{X}_{\gamma}(u))}
{\partial \mathbf{p}}]^T \frac
{\partial\phi(\mathbf{X}_{\gamma}(u))}{\partial{\bf X}}$$

Then, the phase change induced by the light sensed during the daytime can be derived from the convolution of the temporal profile of the light-sensing components with the piPRC: $$\Delta\phi=\sum_{k=1,N} \int_0^{T} L_k(u,\tau_k,(t_m)_k)
Z_{piPRC}(u+\phi,\mathbf{dp}_k) du$$ where $\phi$ is the phase of the oscillator at CT0. A stable entrainment state requires that the scalar functions $L$ and $Z_{ipPRC}$ satisfies: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{rll}
\sum_{k=1,N} \int_0^{T} L_k(u,\tau_k,(t_m)_k) \,
Z_{piPRC}(u+\phi^*,\mathbf{dp}_k) du=\delta \phi^* \\
\sum_{k=1,N} \int_0^{T} L_k(u,\tau_k,(t_m)_k) \,
Z_{piPRC}'(u+\phi^*,\mathbf{dp}_k) du<0
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq-gp}$$ where $\phi^*$ is the locked phase (relative to CT0) and $\delta\phi^*$ is the phase change induced by the period mismatch between the free oscillator and the day-night period, which is assumed to be small with respect to $T$.

For any modulated parameter set $\mathbf{dp}$ whose $Z_{piPRC}$-function is equal to $\delta \phi^*$, one can always find $\tau_k$ and $(t_m)_k$, that satisfies Eqs. above. In the case where there is a unique coupling scheme ($N=1$) with a rectangular profile, the coupling interval satisfies: $$\left\{ \begin{array}{rll}
\int_{t_m-\tau/2}^{t_m+\tau/2} \, Z_{piPRC}(u,\mathbf{dp}) du=\delta \phi^*\\
\int_{t_m-\tau/2}^{t_m+\tau/2} \, Z_{piPRC}'(u,\mathbf{dp}) du<0
\end{array} \right.
\label{eq-square}$$ Figures 5 and S4 show the numerical solutions of this equation with $\delta
\phi^*$ equal to 0 (the FRP being equal to 24 hours), which determine the coupling intervals (compatible with experimental data) for positive and negative modulation of the 16 parameters of the model.

# References

Kramer MA, Rabitz H, Calo JM (1984) Sensitivity analysis of oscillatory systems. Appl Math Model. 8: 328-340.

Rand DA, Shulgin BV, Salazar D, Millar AJ (2004) Design principles underlying circadian clocks. J R Soc Interface. 1: 119-30.

Taylor SR, Gunawan R, Petzold LR, Doyle FJ 3rd (2008) Sensitivity Measures for Oscillating Systems: Application to Mammalian Circadian Gene Network. IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 53: 177-188.

<img src="Fig_S1" style="width:12cm" alt="image" />

Figure S1: **Transition from light/dark alternation (LD) to constant light (LL) and constant darkness (DD) for the fully coupled model.** Time evolution of mRNA concentrations for the fully coupled model shown in Fig. 2(A) for various light protocols: LD alternation (dashed, black), one LD period from ZT0 to ZT24 then constant light (in red) and one LD period from ZT0 to ZT24 then darkness (in blue). *Cca1* and *Toc1* mRNA concentrations are shown in the top and bottom frame, respectively.

<img src="Fig_S2" style="width:10cm" alt="image" />

Figure S2: **Influence of experimental errors on adjustement of a free running oscillator model to data**. Alternate target profiles with samples randomly chosen inside the interval of variation observed are generated and adjusted. Each random target corresponds to a slightly different parameter set and to a different adjustment RMS error (A) RMS error distribution; (B) The five target profiles most distant from each other have been selected and are associated with different colors. Crosses (resp. circles) indicate the *Cca1* (resp *Toc1*) mRNA target samples, the solid line is the numerical solution of the adjusting model.

<img src="Fig_S3" style="width:15cm" alt="image" />

Figure S3: **Probability distribution for parameter values in parameter sets with adjustment RMS error below 10%**. Parameters are determined as explained in Methods. The percentage of occurrence is evaluated for bins of width 0.2 in $\log_{10}$. The probability distributions of parameter values for the model with all parameters modulated are shown in red and blue for the day and night values, respectively. The probability distribution of parameter values for the model with all parameters constant is shown in black.

<img src="Fig_S4" style="width:11cm" alt="image" />

Figure S4: **Characterization of coupling schemes.** (A) iPRC characterizing the phase change induced by an infinitesimal perturbation of parameters $\lambda_X$, $\beta_X$ and $K_X$. (B) Characterization of time position, $tm$, and duration $\tau$ of couplings with a rectangular gating profile satisfying Eq. (1). Parameters are modulated either positively (red) or negatively (blue). (C) Characterization of time position and duration of couplings with a rectangular gating profile adjusting experimental data with a RMS error below $10\%$ for four different levels of coupling strength (blue: $p/p_0=1.17$; cyan: $p/p_0=1.17$; red: $p/p_0=0.85$; orange: $p/p_0=0.5$; $p/p_0$ being the ratio between the parameter values within and outside the coupling window)

<img src="Fig_S5" style="width:11cm" alt="image" />

Figure S5: **Resetting of the clock model of Fig.4 in response to a phase shift of the day/night cycle**. Solid curves display the residual phase shift of the clock after 1 (black) and 5 (blue) day/night cycles as a function of the initial phase shift. (A) TOC1 degradation rate is multiplied by 2.1 between ZT0 and ZT6.5. (B) CCA1 degradation rate is multiplied by 0.6 between ZT12.8 and ZT13.95. (C) Figure 6C is reproduced here for convenience. TOC1 (resp. CCA1) is multiplied by 2.1 (resp. 0.6) between ZT0 and ZT6.5 (resp. ZT12.8 and ZT13.95), which results in uniform convergence to phase-locking. Phase RMS error after 5 day/night cycles is 25 min while the maximum error is 1 hour.

<img src="Fig_S6" style="width:15cm" alt="image" />

Figure S6: **Response of the fully coupled and occasionally coupled clock models to fluctuations in daylight intensity occurring on a time scale of one hour**. The figure is otherwise similar to Fig 5.

<img src="Fig_S7" style="width:15cm" alt="image" />

Figure S7: **Response of the two occasionally coupled clock models of Fig. 8 to fluctuations in daylight intensity**. (a) Light intensity varying randomly from day to day. The time evolution of TOC1 protein concentration is shown for: (b) the clock model with a FRP of 23.5h; (c) the clock model with a FRP of 25h. The figure is otherwise similar to Fig 5.