Drift in Individual Behavioral Phenotype as a Strategy for Unpredictable Worlds

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In "Drift in Individual Behavioral Phenotype as a Strategy for Unpredictable Worlds," Maloney et al. (2024) investigate changes in individual responses over time, referred to as behavioral drift within the lifespan of an animal. Drift, as defined in the paper, complements stable behavioral variation (animal individuality/personality within a lifetime) over shorter timeframes, which the authors associate with an underlying bet-hedging strategy. The third timeframe of behavioral variability that the authors discuss occurs within seasons (across several generations of some insects), termed "adaptive tracking." This division of "adaptive" behavioral variability over different timeframes is intuitively logical and adds valuable depth to the theoretical framework concerning the ecological role of individual behavioral differences in animals.

Strengths:

While the theoretical foundations of the study are strong, the connection between the experimental data (Figure 1) and the modeling work (Figure 2-4) is less convincing.

Weaknesses:

In the experimental data (Figure 1), the authors describe the changes in behavioral preferences over time. While generally plausible, I identify three significant issues with the experiments:

(1) All of the subsequent theoretical/simulation data is based on changing environments, yet all the experiments are conducted in unchanging environments. While this may suffice to demonstrate the phenomenon of behavioral instability (drift) over time, it does not properly link to the theory-driven work in changing environments. An experiment conducted in a changing environment and its effects on behavioral drift would improve the manuscript's internal consistency and clarify some points related to (3) below.

(2) The temporal aspect of behavioral instability. While the analysis demonstrates behavioral instability, the temporal dynamics remain unclear. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify (based on graphs and text) whether the behavioral changes occur randomly over time or follow a pattern (e.g., initially more right turns, then more left turns). A proper temporal analysis and clearer explanations are currently missing from the manuscript.

(3) The temporal dimension leads directly into the third issue: distinguishing between drift and learning (e.g., line 56). In the neutral stimuli used in the experimental data, changes should either occur randomly (drift) or purposefully, as in a neutral environment, previous strategies do not yield a favorable outcome. For instance, the animal might initially employ strategy A, but if no improvement in the food situation occurs, it later adopts strategy B (learning). In changing environments, this distinction between drift and learning should be even more pronounced (e.g., if bananas are available, I prefer bananas; once they are gone, I either change my preference or face negative consequences). Alternatively, is my random choice of grapes the substrate for the learning process towards grapes in a changing environment? Further clarification is needed to resolve these potential conflicts.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an inspired study that merges the concept of individuality with evolutionary processes to uncover a new strategy that diversifies individual behavior that is also potentially evolutionarily adaptive.

The authors use a time-resolved measurement of spontaneous, innate behavior, namely handedness or turn bias in individual, isogenic flies, across several genetic backgrounds.

They find that an individual's behavior changes over time, or drifts. This has been observed before, but what is interesting here is that by looking at multiple genotypes, the authors find the amount of drift is consistent within genotype i.e., genetically regulated, and thus not entirely stochastic. This is not in line with what is known about innate, spontaneous behaviors. Normally, fluctuations in behavior would be ascribed to a response to environmental noise. However, here, the authors go on to find what is the pattern or rule that determines the rate of change of the behavior over time within individuals. Using modeling of behavior and environment in the context of evolutionarily important timeframes such as lifespan or reproductive age, they could show when drift is favored over bet-hedging and that there is an evolutionary purpose to behavioral drift. Namely, drift diversifies behaviors across individuals of the same genotype within the timescale of lifespan, so that the genotype's chance for expressing beneficial behavior is optimally matched with potential variation of environment experienced prior to reproduction. This ultimately increases the fitness of the genotype. Because they find that behavioral drift is genetically variable, they argue it can also evolve.

Strengths:

Unlike most studies of individuality, in this study, the authors consider the impact of individuality on evolution. This is enabled by the use of multiple natural genetic backgrounds and an appropriately large number of individuals to come to the conclusions presented in the study. I thought it was really creative to study how individual behavior evolves over multiple timescales. And indeed this approach yielded interesting and important insight into individuality. Unlike most studies so far, this one highlights that behavioral individuality is not a static property of an individual, but it dynamically changes. Also, placing these findings in the evolutionary context was beneficial. The conclusion that individual drift and bet-hedging are differently favored over different timescales is, I think, a significant and exciting finding.

Overall, I think this study highlights how little we know about the fundamental, general concepts behind individuality and why behavioral individuality is an important trait. They also show that with simple but elegant behavioral experiments and appropriate modeling, we could uncover fundamental rules underlying the emergence of individual behavior. These rules may not at all be apparent using classical approaches to studying individuality, using individual variation within a single genotype or within a single timeframe.

Weaknesses:

I am unconvinced by the claim that serotonin neuron circuits regulate behavioral drift, especially because of its bidirectional effect and lack of relative results for other neuromodulators. Without testing other neuromodulators, it will remain unclear if serotonin intervention increases behavioral noise within individuals, or if any other pharmacological or genetic intervention would do the same. Another issue is that the amount of drugs that the individuals ingested was not tracked. Variable amounts can result in variable changes in behavior that are more consistent with the interpretation of environmental plasticity, rather than behavioral drift. With the current evidence presented, individual behavior may change upon serotonin perturbation, but this does not necessarily mean that it changes or regulates drift.

However, I think for the scope of this study, finding out whether serotonin regulates drift or not is less important. I understand that today there is a strong push to find molecular and circuit mechanisms of any behavior, and other peers may have asked for such experiments, perhaps even simply out of habit. Fortunately, the main conclusions derived from behavioral data across multiple genetic backgrounds and the modeling are anyway novel, interesting, and in fact more fundamental than showing if it is serotonin that does it or not.

To this point, one thing that was unclear from the methods section is whether genotypes that were tested were raised in replicate vials and how was replication accounted for in the analyses. This is a crucial point - the conclusion that genotypes have different amounts of behavioral drift cannot be drawn without showing that the difference in behavioral drift does not stem from differences in developmental environment.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper begins by analyzing the drift in individual behavior over time. Specifically, it quantifies the circling direction of freely walking flies in an arena. The main takeaway from this dataset is that while flies exhibit an individual turning bias (when averaged over time), their preferences fluctuate over slow timescales.

To understand whether genetic or neuromodulatory mechanisms influence the drift in individual preference, the authors test different fly strains concluding that both genetic background and the neuromodulator serotonin contribute to the degree of drift.

Finally, the authors use theoretical approaches to identify the range of environmental conditions under which drift in individual bias supports population growth.

Strengths:

The model provides a clear prediction of the environmental fluctuations under which a drift in bias should be beneficial for population growth.

The approach attempts to identify genetic and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying drift in bias.

Weaknesses:

Different behavioral assays are used and are differently analysed, with little discussion on how these behaviors and analyses compare to each other.

Some of the model assumptions should be made more explicit to better understand which aspects of the behaviors are covered.

Author response:

Public Reviews:

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

In "Drift in Individual Behavioral Phenotype as a Strategy for Unpredictable Worlds," Maloy et al. (2024) investigate changes in individual responses over time, referred to as behavioral drift within the lifespan of an animal. Drift, as defined in the paper, complements stable behavioral variation (animal individuality/personality within a lifetime) over shorter timeframes, which the authors associate with an underlying bet-hedging strategy. The third timeframe of behavioral variability that the authors discuss occurs within seasons (across several generations of some insects), termed "adaptive tracking." This division of "adaptive" behavioral variability over different timeframes is intuitively logical and adds valuable depth to the theoretical framework concerning the ecological role of individual behavioral differences in animals.

Strengths:

While the theoretical foundations of the study are strong, the connection between the experimental data (Figure 1) and the modeling work (Figure 2-4) is less convincing.

Weaknesses:

In the experimental data (Figure 1), the authors describe the changes in behavioral preferences over time. While generally plausible, I identify three significant issues with the experiments:

(1) All of the subsequent theoretical/simulation data is based on changing environments, yet all the experiments are conducted in unchanging environments. While this may suffice to demonstrate the phenomenon of behavioral instability (drift) over time, it does not properly link to the theory-driven work in changing environments. An experiment conducted in a changing environment and its effects on behavioral drift would improve the manuscript's internal consistency and clarify some points related to (3) below.

In our framework, we posit that the amount of drift has been shaped by evolution to maximize fitness in the environments that the population has experienced, and this drift is observed independent of environment. While we agree that exploring the role of changing environments on the measure of drift would be interesting, we would anticipate the effects may be nuanced and beyond the scope of the current paper (and the scope of our theoretical work, which assumes that the individual phenotype is unaffected by change of environment except as mediated by death due to fitness effects). For example, it would be difficult to differentiate drift from idiosyncratic differences in learning (Smith et al., 2022), and non-adaptive plasticity to unrelated cues has been posited as a method of producing diverse phenotypes (Maxwell and Magwene, 2017), so “learning” to uncorrelated stimuli could conceivably be a mechanism for drift. Given the scope of the current study, we prioritized eliminating potential confounds for measuring drift, but remain interested in the interaction between learning and drift.

(2) The temporal aspect of behavioral instability. While the analysis demonstrates behavioral instability, the temporal dynamics remain unclear. It would be helpful for the authors to clarify (based on graphs and text) whether the behavioral changes occur randomly over time or follow a pattern (e.g., initially more right turns, then more left turns). A proper temporal analysis and clearer explanations are currently missing from the manuscript.

We agree it would be helpful to have more description of the dynamics over time aside from the power spectrum and autoregressive model fits. We hope to address this in more detail to provide more description of the changes over time in a revision.

(3) The temporal dimension leads directly into the third issue: distinguishing between drift and learning (e.g., line 56). In the neutral stimuli used in the experimental data, changes should either occur randomly (drift) or purposefully, as in a neutral environment, previous strategies do not yield a favorable outcome. For instance, the animal might initially employ strategy A, but if no improvement in the food situation occurs, it later adopts strategy B (learning). In changing environments, this distinction between drift and learning should be even more pronounced (e.g., if bananas are available, I prefer bananas; once they are gone, I either change my preference or face negative consequences). Alternatively, is my random choice of grapes the substrate for the learning process towards grapes in a changing environment? Further clarification is needed to resolve these potential conflicts.

As in our response to point 1, we believe this is a crucial distinction, and we intend to further highlight it in the discussion in the revision and further expand our discussion of how the two strategies may interact.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This is an inspired study that merges the concept of individuality with evolutionary processes to uncover a new strategy that diversifies individual behavior that is also potentially evolutionarily adaptive.

The authors use a time-resolved measurement of spontaneous, innate behavior, namely handedness or turn bias in individual, isogenic flies, across several genetic backgrounds.

They find that an individual's behavior changes over time, or drifts. This has been observed before, but what is interesting here is that by looking at multiple genotypes, the authors find the amount of drift is consistent within genotype i.e., genetically regulated, and thus not entirely stochastic. This is not in line with what is known about innate, spontaneous behaviors. Normally, fluctuations in behavior would be ascribed to a response to environmental noise. However, here, the authors go on to find what is the pattern or rule that determines the rate of change of the behavior over time within individuals. Using modeling of behavior and environment in the context of evolutionarily important timeframes such as lifespan or reproductive age, they could show when drift is favored over bet-hedging and that there is an evolutionary purpose to behavioral drift. Namely, drift diversifies behaviors across individuals of the same genotype within the timescale of lifespan, so that the genotype's chance for expressing beneficial behavior is optimally matched with potential variation of environment experienced prior to reproduction. This ultimately increases the fitness of the genotype. Because they find that behavioral drift is genetically variable, they argue it can also evolve.

Strengths:

Unlike most studies of individuality, in this study, the authors consider the impact of individuality on evolution. This is enabled by the use of multiple natural genetic backgrounds and an appropriately large number of individuals to come to the conclusions presented in the study. I thought it was really creative to study how individual behavior evolves over multiple timescales. And indeed this approach yielded interesting and important insight into individuality. Unlike most studies so far, this one highlights that behavioral individuality is not a static property of an individual, but it dynamically changes. Also, placing these findings in the evolutionary context was beneficial. The conclusion that individual drift and bet-hedging are differently favored over different timescales is, I think, a significant and exciting finding.

Overall, I think this study highlights how little we know about the fundamental, general concepts behind individuality and why behavioral individuality is an important trait. They also show that with simple but elegant behavioral experiments and appropriate modeling, we could uncover fundamental rules underlying the emergence of individual behavior. These rules may not at all be apparent using classical approaches to studying individuality, using individual variation within a single genotype or within a single timeframe.

Weaknesses:

I am unconvinced by the claim that serotonin neuron circuits regulate behavioral drift, especially because of its bidirectional effect and lack of relative results for other neuromodulators. Without testing other neuromodulators, it will remain unclear if serotonin intervention increases behavioral noise within individuals, or if any other pharmacological or genetic intervention would do the same. Another issue is that the amount of drugs that the individuals ingested was not tracked. Variable amounts can result in variable changes in behavior that are more consistent with the interpretation of environmental plasticity, rather than behavioral drift. With the current evidence presented, individual behavior may change upon serotonin perturbation, but this does not necessarily mean that it changes or regulates drift.

However, I think for the scope of this study, finding out whether serotonin regulates drift or not is less important. I understand that today there is a strong push to find molecular and circuit mechanisms of any behavior, and other peers may have asked for such experiments, perhaps even simply out of habit. Fortunately, the main conclusions derived from behavioral data across multiple genetic backgrounds and the modeling are anyway novel, interesting, and in fact more fundamental than showing if it is serotonin that does it or not.

We agree that our data do not support a strong conclusion that serotonin plays a privileged role in regulating drift. Based on previous literature (e.g. Kain et al., 2014, where identical pharmacological manipulations had an effect on variability while dopaminergic and octopaminergic manipulations did not), we think it likely that large global perturbations in serotonin that we observe are likely to influence plasticity that might be involved in drift (and thus find the results we observe not particularly surprising). Nonetheless, we agree that the mechanism by which serotonin may affect drift could be indirect, and it is similarly plausible that many global perturbations could lead to some shift in the amount of drift. We intend to further discuss these issues in the revision.

To this point, one thing that was unclear from the methods section is whether genotypes that were tested were raised in replicate vials and how was replication accounted for in the analyses. This is a crucial point - the conclusion that genotypes have different amounts of behavioral drift cannot be drawn without showing that the difference in behavioral drift does not stem from differences in developmental environment.

While a cursory inspection suggests that batch effects between different replicates was small, we intend to clarify this and more explicitly address the effects of replicates in revision.

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

The paper begins by analyzing the drift in individual behavior over time. Specifically, it quantifies the circling direction of freely walking flies in an arena. The main takeaway from this dataset is that while flies exhibit an individual turning bias (when averaged over time), their preferences fluctuate over slow timescales.

To understand whether genetic or neuromodulatory mechanisms influence the drift in individual preference, the authors test different fly strains concluding that both genetic background and the neuromodulator serotonin contribute to the degree of drift.

Finally, the authors use theoretical approaches to identify the range of environmental conditions under which drift in individual bias supports population growth.

Strengths:

The model provides a clear prediction of the environmental fluctuations under which a drift in bias should be beneficial for population growth.

The approach attempts to identify genetic and neurophysiological mechanisms underlying drift in bias.

Weaknesses:

Different behavioral assays are used and are differently analysed, with little discussion on how these behaviors and analyses compare to each other.

We intend to address this in a revision of the discussion.

Some of the model assumptions should be made more explicit to better understand which aspects of the behaviors are covered.

We will further clarify the assumptions of the model in revision.