Social Behaviours: Nurturing nature

Mutant zebrafish exhibit different behaviours depending on the genetic background of the fish they were raised with.
  1. Elena Dreosti  Is a corresponding author
  1. Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, United Kingdom

Behaviours emerge under the combined influence of the environment (nurture) and the genetic information an individual inherited from its ancestors (nature). However, it is still difficult to tease apart the respective contribution of these different factors, which are often deeply intertwined. This is particularly the case with regards to social behaviours.

When animals with a mutation in a gene show a change in a specific behaviour, it is tempting to conclude that said gene is somehow involved in that behaviour. But this is not always the case. Animals are usually raised by their parents and grow up with siblings, who may share the same environment and genetic background (including this mutation). This makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly which elements, or combination of elements, are responsible for the emergence of these ‘behavioural phenotypes’ – that is, behaviours that are associated with a specific genotype.

To understand the direct effect of a specific mutation on the behavioural phenotype of an individual, the environment must be controlled for, including the genetic background of the individual’s social group – its genetic social environment (Baud et al., 2017). Now, in eLife, Rui Oliveira and co-workers based in Portugal, Israel and Poland – including Diogo Ribeiro as first author – report that, in zebrafish, the genetic social environment of an individual while it is growing up affects the adult’s behavioural phenotype (Ribeiro et al., 2020a).

Zebrafish are a good model to study the indirect effects of social genetic variation because they are highly social animals with a genome that can easily be modified. Ribeiro et al. first generated a mutant zebrafish line that lacks the gene for the oxytocin receptor, a protein involved in social-bonding behaviours in animals (Olff et al., 2013). A mutant fish was then either raised with its mutant siblings, or in a group of non-mutant fish. Similarly, a non-mutant individual was raised in a shoal of other non-mutants, or with mutant fish. Using different methods, the team then examined how each combination of genetic and social environment influenced the behavioural phenotype of the mutants.

Regardless of whether they were raised with mutants or non-mutants, fish that lacked the gene for the oxytocin receptor were always worse at discriminating between a familiar and an unfamiliar fish – a result predicted by previous studies (Ribeiro et al., 2020b). However, other experiments revealed that only mutant fish raised with other mutants were more reluctant to approach other fish and to integrate into a shoal. This showed that the genetic background of the group in which mutant fish were raised caused specific social phenotypes, as opposed to the loss of the oxytocin receptor gene alone.

This study may help researchers to understand how the genetic social environment can influence the impact of specific mutations on social interactions. It could also be relevant to work on other forms of behaviour, such as fear conditioning in mice: researchers wishing to investigate this behaviour would normally generate a mouse line lacking a gene thought to be involved in fear conditioning, and then examine how the mutation affects the behaviour of the mice. Variations in fear conditioning in the mutants would then be attributed to the genetic change rather than the social genetic environment. The work of Ribeiro et al. shows that researchers need to be aware of this effect, and control for it whenever possible.

These results also demonstrate the need to be cautious about the many human genetic studies that suggest potential links between a gene and the propensity to develop certain conditions. For instance, the general public now has easy access to DNA tests, which can link variations in certain genes to higher risks of becoming obese, being a smoker, or living a shorter life. However, a gene apparently associated with an increased risk for obesity may in fact be connected to increased parental anxiety. In this case, the weight gain would be a secondary effect of being raised by anxious parents. The impact of the social genetic environment should therefore be carefully assessed for all of these genes.

Finally, Ribeiro et al. show that specific social environments could potentially rescue or promote specific behavioural phenotypes, a finding that could be used to better study human behaviours and socialisation.

References

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Elena Dreosti

    Elena Dreosti is in the Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University College London, United Kingdom

    For correspondence
    e.dreosti@ucl.ac.uk
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6738-7057

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published:

Copyright

© 2020, Dreosti

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 4,534
    views
  • 108
    downloads
  • 0
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Elena Dreosti
(2020)
Social Behaviours: Nurturing nature
eLife 9:e61323.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.61323

Further reading

    1. Ecology
    2. Neuroscience
    Kathleen T Quach, Gillian A Hughes, Sreekanth H Chalasani
    Research Article

    Prey must balance predator avoidance with feeding, a central dilemma in prey refuge theory. Additionally, prey must assess predatory imminence—how close threats are in space and time. Predatory imminence theory classifies defensive behaviors into three defense modes: pre-encounter, post-encounter, and circa-strike, corresponding to increasing levels of threat—–suspecting, detecting, and contacting a predator. Although predatory risk often varies in spatial distribution and imminence, how these factors intersect to influence defensive behaviors is poorly understood. Integrating these factors into a naturalistic environment enables comprehensive analysis of multiple defense modes in consistent conditions. Here, we combine prey refuge and predatory imminence theories to develop a model system of nematode defensive behaviors, with Caenorhabditis elegans as prey and Pristionchus pacificus as predator. In a foraging environment comprised of a food-rich, high-risk patch and a food-poor, low-risk refuge, C. elegans innately exhibits circa-strike behaviors. With experience, it learns post- and pre-encounter behaviors that proactively anticipate threats. These defense modes intensify with predator lethality, with only life-threatening predators capable of eliciting all three modes. SEB-3 receptors and NLP-49 peptides, key stress regulators, vary in their impact and interdependence across defense modes. Overall, our model system reveals fine-grained insights into how stress-related signaling regulates defensive behaviors.

    1. Ecology
    Laura Fargeot, Camille Poesy ... Blanchet Simon
    Research Article

    Understanding the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functioning stands as a cornerstone in ecological research. Extensive evidence now underscores the profound impact of species loss on the stability and dynamics of ecosystem functions. However, it remains unclear whether the loss of genetic diversity within key species yields similar consequences. Here, we delve into the intricate relationship between species diversity, genetic diversity, and ecosystem functions across three trophic levels – primary producers, primary consumers, and secondary consumers – in natural aquatic ecosystems. Our investigation involves estimating species diversity and genome-wide diversity – gauged within three pivotal species – within each trophic level, evaluating seven key ecosystem functions, and analyzing the magnitude of the relationships between biodiversity and ecosystem functions (BEFs). We found that, overall, the absolute effect size of genetic diversity on ecosystem functions mirrors that of species diversity in natural ecosystems. We nonetheless unveil a striking dichotomy: while genetic diversity was positively correlated with various ecosystem functions, species diversity displays a negative correlation with these functions. These intriguing antagonist effects of species and genetic diversity persist across the three trophic levels (underscoring its systemic nature), but were apparent only when BEFs were assessed within trophic levels rather than across them. This study reveals the complexity of predicting the consequences of genetic and species diversity loss under natural conditions, and emphasizes the need for further mechanistic models integrating these two facets of biodiversity.