A 2015 bioinformatics study (Lehmann et al., PLOS ONE 10(5):e0126283) assembled the network of circadian regulated genes (NCRG) by combining human co-expression data (COXPRESdb) with literature text-mining, extending the extended core-clock network (ECCN) by 118 predicted clock-regulated genes, and validated selected edges using published ChIP-seq binding data for BMAL1, REV-ERBα/β and RORα/γ. The network's cancer-associated targets — including Elavl1, Nme1, Dhx9, Med1, Rbbp7, Ddx6 and Ncl — rest on physical-binding evidence only, in a network that is a consensus across tissues. The open problem is to convert this computational consensus into a functionally validated, tissue-resolved regulatory map: (i) whether rhythmic binding of clock transcription factors at the validated cancer-related targets dynamically alters their transcription, (ii) dissect the proposed NCL–RORγ–miRNA axis, i.e., whether circadian — RORγ-dependent — regulation of nucleolin (NCL) levels modulates the biogenesis or stability of oncogenic miRNAs such as miR-21, miR-221/222 and miR-103 in breast cancer models, and (iii) decompose the cross-tissue NCRG into tissue- or cell-type-specific subnetworks. No study touching the circadian–nucleolin intersection is known to date, so the mechanistic core remains open. A caveat on the evidential basis: the breast-cancer NCL–miRNA study cited by the source paper (Pichiorri et al. 2013) was retracted in June 2026, so the NCL-to-oncogenic-miRNA link in breast cancer now rests on adjacent, non-retracted work in other contexts (Pickering et al. 2011; Sheetz et al. 2020) — which sharpens rather than closes the axis question.

Background

The mammalian circadian clock is a self-sustaining ~24-hour oscillator built on interlocked transcription–translation feedback loops. The heterodimer of the transcription factors CLOCK and BMAL1 binds E-box DNA motifs to activate genes including Per1–3 and Cry1–2, whose protein products repress CLOCK/BMAL1 activity; the nuclear receptors RORα/β/γ (activators) and REV-ERBα/β (repressors) compete for RORE elements in the promoters of Bmal1 and of clock output genes. Genes whose expression is driven by this oscillator are called clock-controlled genes (CCGs). Because the oscillator couples to distinct tissue functions, a long-standing goal is a comprehensive map of clock-regulated genes and the transcription factors (TFs) that connect them, particularly in pathological contexts such as cancer, where circadian disruption is epidemiologically and experimentally linked to tumour progression.

Lehmann et al. (2015) addressed this computationally. They started from an extended core-clock network (ECCN) of 43 genes, then predicted new clock targets by intersecting two independent evidence types: gene co-expression analysis (using the COXPRESdb database of human expression correlations, with a conservatively chosen threshold selecting the 10,000 most strongly (anti-)correlating pairs with ECCN genes) and text-mining of ~22 million PubMed citations with the GeneView pipeline. The 118 genes supported by both sources were merged with the ECCN into the network of circadian regulated genes (NCRG). As validation, the authors analysed published ChIP-seq datasets (chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by sequencing, which maps genome-wide physical binding sites of a protein) for BMAL1, REV-ERBα/β and RORα/γ, using a closest-gene association score; this confirmed predicted regulation of several cancer-related genes, among them Elavl1, Nme1, Dhx9, Med1, Rbbp7, Ddx6 and Ncl. One branch was singled out as a mechanistic hypothesis: nucleolin (NCL, encoded by Ncl), an abundant RNA-binding protein involved in ribosome biogenesis and RNA metabolism, was reported in earlier work to bind the miRNA-processing machinery and to regulate oncogenic miRNAs — Pickering et al. (2011) showed that NCL interaction with the microprocessor complex (the Drosha-containing complex that performs the first miRNA maturation step) affects biogenesis of miR-15a and miR-16, and Pichiorri et al. (2013) reported that in-vivo NCL targeting affects breast cancer aggressiveness through regulation of miR-21, miR-221/222 and miR-103. (The Pichiorri paper was retracted in June 2026 — Retraction notice, Journal of Experimental Medicine, doi:10.1084/jem.2012095006112026r; NCL-dependent regulation of miR-21, miR-221 and miR-222 biogenesis is independently supported in prostate cancer cells by Sheetz et al. 2020, but the breast-cancer-specific claims currently lack valid published support.) Since ChIP-seq identified Ncl as a RORγ target and Ncl mRNA oscillates circadianly, the authors proposed that NCL is a novel link by which the clock, specifically through RORγ, could regulate oncogenic miRNA expression in breast cancer.

Two structural limitations of the NCRG motivate the present problem. First, the co-expression data were derived from a mixture of many tissue types, so the NCRG is an aggregate in which tissue-specific interactions cannot be distinguished; tissue-specific circadian transcriptomes are well documented (e.g., Zhang et al. 2014 across dozens of mouse tissues; Yeung et al. 2018 on rhythmic, tissue-specific enhancer and transcription-factor activity), and databases such as CirGRDB now integrate circadian expression with miRNA and RNA-binding-protein regulators across dozens of tissues — but the human NCRG itself has never been decomposed into tissue- or cell-type-specific subnetworks. Second, ChIP-seq evidence establishes only that a clock TF binds near a locus at some circadian time; whether rhythmic binding dynamically alters transcription of the validated cancer-related targets has not been tested functionally.

Problem Statement

The open problem is to convert the NCRG — a cross-tissue computational consensus whose cancer-associated edges rest on static ChIP-seq physical-binding evidence — into a functionally validated, tissue-resolved map of circadian transcriptional regulation. Three linked questions serve this single objective:

  1. Functional dynamics of clock–target edges. Does rhythmic binding of BMAL1, REV-ERBα/β and RORα/γ at the ChIP-validated cancer-related targets of the NCRG (including Elavl1, Nme1, Dhx9, Med1, Rbbp7, Ddx6 and Ncl) dynamically alter the transcription of these genes? The static physical proximity that ChIP-seq establishes does not settle this: distinguishing dynamic regulation from static binding calls for time-resolved functional evidence.

  2. The NCL–RORγ–miRNA axis. The specific mechanistic hypothesis raised by the network: circadian — RORγ-dependent — regulation of nucleolin (NCL) levels modulates the biogenesis or stability of its oncogenic miRNA targets (miR-21, miR-221, miR-222, miR-103) in breast cancer models. Whether NCL transcription is rhythmically driven by RORγ, and whether imposed circadian variation of NCL (or RORγ) measurably changes miRNA processing or abundance and downstream cancer-related phenotypes, both remain open. Note on the evidential basis: the breast-cancer evidence for NCL control of this specific miRNA set derives largely from a study retracted in 2026 (Pichiorri et al. 2013); independent non-retracted work supports NCL regulation of miRNA biogenesis in other contexts (Pickering et al. 2011; Sheetz et al. 2020), so which miRNAs NCL controls in breast cancer cells is itself unresolved.

  3. Tissue-specific structure of the network. The NCRG aggregates data from a mixture of tissue types; characterizing its tissue-specific subnetworks — which clock–target connections hold in which tissues or cell types, including comparisons across cancer-relevant cell states — remains undone, even though tissue- or cell-type-resolved circadian datasets have since become available.

The common objective uniting these components is to establish whether, how, and in which tissues the mammalian circadian clock transcriptionally controls the predicted cancer-related targets of the NCRG, with the NCL–RORγ–miRNA axis as the flagship mechanistic instance. The three questions are jointly posed, each addressing a distinct layer of this single objective: functional transcriptional dynamics, the NCL–RORγ–miRNA mechanism, and tissue-specific structure.

References

  1. Lehmann R, Childs L, Thomas P, Abreu M, Fuhr L, Herzel H, Leser U, Relógio A (2015). Assembly of a Comprehensive Regulatory Network for the Mammalian Circadian Clock: A Bioinformatics Approach. PLOS ONE 10(5):e0126283. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0126283, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126283
  2. Pichiorri F, Palmieri D, De Luca L, Consiglio J, You J, Rocci A, Talabere T, Piovan C, Lagana A, Cascione L, Guan J, Gasparini P, Balatti V, Nuovo G, Coppola V, Hofmeister CC, Marcucci G, Byrd JC, Volinia S, Shapiro CL, Freitas MA, Croce CM (2013). In vivo NCL targeting affects breast cancer aggressiveness through miRNA regulation [RETRACTED 30 June 2026; retraction notice doi:10.1084/jem.2012095006112026r]. Journal of Experimental Medicine 210(5):951–968. doi:10.1084/jem.20120950, https://doi.org/10.1084/jem.20120950
  3. Pickering BF, Yu D, Van Dyke MW (2011). Nucleolin protein interacts with microprocessor complex to affect biogenesis of microRNAs 15a and 16. Journal of Biological Chemistry 286(51):44095–44103. doi:10.1074/jbc.M111.265439, https://doi.org/10.1074/jbc.M111.265439
  4. Sheetz T, Mills J, Tessari A, Pawlikowski M, Braddom AE, Posid T, Zynger DL, James C, Embrione V, Parbhoo K, Foray C, Coppola V, Croce CM, Palmieri D (2020). NCL Inhibition Exerts Antineoplastic Effects against Prostate Cancer Cells by Modulating Oncogenic MicroRNAs. Cancers 12(7):1861. doi:10.3390/cancers12071861, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12071861
  5. Oh TG, Wang SM, Acharya BR, Goode JM, Graham JD, Clarke CL, Yap AS, Muscat GEO (2016). The Nuclear Receptor, RORγ, Regulates Pathways Necessary for Breast Cancer Metastasis. EBioMedicine 6:59–72. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.02.028, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2016.02.028
  6. Cai D, Wang J, Gao B, Li J, Wu F, Zou JX, Xu J, Jiang Y, Zou H, Huang Z, Borowsky AD, Bold RJ, Lara PN, Li JJ, Chen X, Lam KS, To KF, Kung HJ, Fiehn O, Zhao R, Evans RM, Chen HW (2019). RORγ is a targetable master regulator of cholesterol biosynthesis in a cancer subtype. Nature Communications 10:4621. doi:10.1038/s41467-019-12529-3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-12529-3
  7. Sulli G, Rommel A, Wang X, Kolar MJ, Puca F, Saghatelian A, Plikus MV, Verma IM, Panda S (2018). Pharmacological activation of REV-ERBs is lethal in cancer and oncogene-induced senescence. Nature 553(7688):351–355. doi:10.1038/nature25170, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25170
  8. Yeung J, Mermet J, Jouffe C, Marquis J, Charpagne A, Gachon F, Naef F (2018). Transcription factor activity rhythms and tissue-specific chromatin interactions explain circadian gene expression across organs. Genome Research 28(2):182–191. doi:10.1101/gr.222430.117, https://doi.org/10.1101/gr.222430.117
  9. Zhang R, Lahens NF, Ballance HI, Hughes ME, Hogenesch JB (2014). A circadian gene expression atlas in mammals: Implications for biology and medicine. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111(45):16219–16224. doi:10.1073/pnas.1408886111, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1408886111
  10. Li X, Shi L, Zhang K, Wei W, Liu Q, Mao F, Li J, Cai W, Chen H, Teng H, Li J, Sun Z (2018). CirGRDB: a database for the genome-wide deciphering circadian genes and regulators. Nucleic Acids Research 46(D1):D64–D70. doi:10.1093/nar/gkx944, https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkx944
  11. Wucher V, Sodaei R, Amador R, Irimia M, Guigó R (2023). Day-night and seasonal variation of human gene expression across tissues. PLOS Biology 21(2):e3001986. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001986, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001986
  12. El-Athman R, Fuhr L, Relógio A (2018). A Systems-Level Analysis Reveals Circadian Regulation of Splicing in Colorectal Cancer. EBioMedicine 33:68–81. doi:10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.06.012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2018.06.012
  13. Li Y, Basti A, Yalçin M, Relógio A (2020). Circadian Dysregulation of the TGFβ/SMAD4 Pathway Modulates Metastatic Properties and Cell Fate Decisions in Pancreatic Cancer Cells. iScience 23(10):101551. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2020.101551, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101551
  14. Yalçin M, El-Athman R, Ouk K, Priller J, Relógio A (2020). Analysis of the Circadian Regulation of Cancer Hallmarks by a Cross-Platform Study of Colorectal Cancer Time-Series Data Reveals an Association with Genes Involved in Huntington's Disease. Cancers 12(4):963. doi:10.3390/cancers12040963, https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12040963
  15. Bhargava A, Herzel H, Ananthasubramaniam B (2015). Mining for novel candidate clock genes in the circadian regulatory network. BMC Systems Biology 9:78. doi:10.1186/s12918-015-0227-2, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12918-015-0227-2
  16. Du NH, Arpat AB, De Matos M, Gatfield D (2014). MicroRNAs shape circadian hepatic gene expression on a transcriptome-wide scale. eLife 3:e02510. doi:10.7554/eLife.02510, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.02510
  17. Ogino T, Matsunaga N, Tanaka T, Tanihara T, Terajima H, Yoshitane H, Fukada Y, Tsuruta A, Koyanagi S, Ohdo S (2021). Post-transcriptional repression of circadian component CLOCK regulates cancer-stemness in murine breast cancer cells. eLife 10:e66155. doi:10.7554/eLife.66155, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.66155
  18. Herichová I (2025). miRNA-mediated regulation of clock gene expression in men and women with colorectal cancer and possible consequences for disease management. Biomedical Journal 48(3):100784. doi:10.1016/j.bj.2024.100784, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bj.2024.100784
  19. Bartman CM, Oyama Y, Brodsky K, Khailova L, Walker L, Koeppen M, Eckle T (2017). Intense light-elicited upregulation of miR-21 facilitates glycolysis and cardioprotection through Per2-dependent mechanisms. PLOS ONE 12(4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0176243, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0176243
  20. Li S, Zhu J, Liu N, Wang X, Li Y, Chen Q, Yin W, Song Y (2026). Circadian disruption accelerates the progression of experimental periodontitis via PER2/miR-21-mediated inflammatory and osteogenic dysregulation. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research. doi:10.1093/jbmr/zjag083, https://doi.org/10.1093/jbmr/zjag083