Neuroanatomical foundations of social tolerance across macaque species

Reviewer #1 (Public review):

Summary:

This paper investigates the potential link between amygdala volume and social tolerance in multiple macaque species. Through a comparative lens, the authors considered tolerance grade, species, age, sex, and other factors that may contribute to differing brain volumes. They found that amygdala, but not hippocampal, volume differed across tolerance grades, such that high-tolerance species showed larger amygdala than low-tolerance species of macaques. They also found that less tolerant species exhibited increases in amygdala volume with age, while more tolerant species showed the opposite. Given their wide range of species with varied biological and ecological factors, the authors' findings provide new evidence for changes in amygdala volume in relation to social tolerance grades. Contributions from these findings will greatly benefit future efforts in the field to characterize brain regions critical for social and emotional processing across species.

Strengths:

(1) This study demonstrates a concerted and impressive effort to comparatively examine neuroanatomical contributions to sociality in monkeys. The authors impressively collected samples from 12 macaque species with multiple datapoints across species age, sex, and ecological factors. Species from all four social tolerance grades were present. Further, the age range of the animals is noteworthy, particularly the inclusion of individuals over 20 years old - an age that is rare in the wild but more common in captive settings.

(2) This work is the first to report neuroanatomical correlates of social tolerance grade in macaques in one coherent study. Given the prevalence of macaques as a model of social neuroscience, considerations of how socio-cognitive demands are impacted by the amygdala are highly important. The authors' findings will certainly inform future studies on this topic.

(3) The methodology and supplemental figures for acquiring brain MRI images are well detailed. Clear information on these parameters is crucial for future comparative interpretations of sociality and brain volume, and the authors do an excellent job of describing this process in full.

Weaknesses:

(1) The nature vs. nurture distinction is an important one, but it may be difficult to draw conclusions about "nature" in this case, given that only two data points (from grades 3 and 4) come from animals under one year of age (Method Figure 1D). Most brains were collected after substantial social exposure-typically post age 1 or 1.5-so the data may better reflect developmental changes due to early life experience rather than innate wiring. It might be helpful to frame the findings more clearly in terms of how early experiences shape development over time, rather than as a nature vs. nurture dichotomy.

(2) It would be valuable to clarify how the older individuals, especially those 20+ years old, may have influenced the observed age-related correlations (e.g., positive in grades 1-2, negative in grades 3-4). Since primates show well-documented signs of aging, some discussion of the potential contribution of advanced age to the results could strengthen the interpretation.

(3) The authors categorize the behavioral traits previously described in Thierry (2021) into 3 self-defined cognitive requirements, however, they do not discuss under what conditions specific traits were assigned to categories or justify why these cognitive requirements were chosen. It is not fully clear from Thierry (2021) alone how each trait would align with the authors' categories. Given that these traits/categories are drawn on for their neuroanatomical hypotheses, it is important that the authors clarify this. It would be helpful to include a table with all behavioral traits with their respective categories, and explain their reasoning for selecting each cognitive requirement category.

(4) One of the main distinctions the authors make between high social tolerance species and low tolerance species is the level of complex socio-cognitive demands, with more tolerant species experiencing the highest demands. However, socio-cognitive demands can also be very complex for less tolerant species because they need to strategically balance behaviors in the presence of others. The relationships between socio-cognitive demands and social tolerance grades should be viewed in a more nuanced and context-specific manner.

(5) While the limitations section touches on species-related considerations, the issue of individual variability within species remains important. Given that amygdala volume can be influenced by factors such as social rank and broader life experience, it might be useful to further emphasize that these factors could introduce meaningful variation across individuals. This doesn't detract from the current findings but highlights the importance of considering life history and context when interpreting subcortical volumes-particularly in future studies.

Reviewer #2 (Public review):

Summary:

This comparative study of macaque species and the type of social interaction is both ambitious and inevitably comes with a lot of caveats. The overall conclusion is that more intolerant species have a larger amygdala. There are also opposing development profiles regarding amygdala volume depending on whether it is a tolerant or intolerant species.

To achieve any sort of power, they have combined data from 4 centres, which have all used different scanning methods, and there are some resolution differences. The authors have also had to group species into 4 classifications - again to assist with any generalisations and power. They have focussed on the volumes of two structures, the amygdala and the hippocampus, which seems appropriate. Neither structure is homogeneous and so it may well be that a targeted focus on specific nuclei or subfields would help (the authors may well do this next) - but as the variables would only increase further along with the number of potential comparisons, alongside small group numbers, it seems only prudent to treat these findings are preliminary. That said, it is highly unlikely that large numbers of macaque brains will become available in the near future.

This introduction is by way of saying that the study achieves what it sets out to do, but there are many reasons to see this study as preliminary. The main message seems to be twofold: (1) that more intolerant species have relatively larger amygdalae, and (2) that with development, there is an opposite pattern of volume change (increasing with age in intolerant species and decreasing with age in tolerant species). Finding 1 is the opposite of that predicted in Table 1 - this is fine, but it should be made clearer in the Discussion that this is the case, otherwise the reader may feel confused. As I read it, the authors have switched their prediction in the Discussion, which feels uncomfortable.

It is inevitable that the data in a study of this complexity are all too prone to post hoc considerations, to which the authors indulge. In the case of Grade 1 species, the individuals have a lot to learn, especially if they are not top of the hierarchy, but at the same time, there are fewer individuals in the troop, making predictions very tricky. As noted above, I am concerned by the seemingly opposite predictions in Table 1 and those in the Discussion regarding tolerance and amygdala volume. (It may be that the predictions in Table 1 are the opposite of how I read them, in which case the Table and preceding text need to align.)

Reviewer #3 (Public review):

Summary:

In this study, the authors were looking at neurocorrelates of behavioural differences within the genus Macaca. To do so, they engaged in real-world dissection of dead animals (unconnected to the present study) coming from a range of different institutions. They subsequently compare different brain areas, here the amygdala and the hippocampus, across species. Crucially, these species have been sorted according to different levels of social tolerance grades (from 1 to 4). 12 species are represented across 42 individuals. The sampling process has weaknesses ("only half" of the species contained by the genus, and Macaca mulatta, the rhesus macaque, representing 13 of the total number of individuals), but also strengths (the species are decently well represented across the 4 grades) for the given purpose and for the amount of work required here. I will not judge the dissection process as I am not a neuroanatomist, and I will assume that the different interventions do not alter volume in any significant ways / or that the different conditions in which the bodies were kept led to the documented differences across species.

There are two main results of the study. First, in line with their predictions, the authors find that more tolerant macaque species have larger amygdala, compared to the hippocampus, which remains undifferentiated across species. Second, they also identify developmental effects, although with different trends: in tolerant species, the amygdala relative volume decreases across the lifespan, while in intolerant species, the contrary occurs. The results look quite strong, although the authors could bring up some more clarity in their replies regarding the data they are working with. From one figure to the other, we switch from model-calculated ratio to model-predicted volume. Note that if one was to sample a brain at age 20 in all the grades according to the model-predicted volumes, it would not seem that the difference for amygdala would differ much across grades, mostly driven with Grade 1 being smaller (in line with the main result), but then with Grade 2 bigger than Grade 3, and then Grade 4 bigger once again, but not that different from Grade 2.

Overall, despite this, I think the results are pretty strong, the correlations are not to be contested, but I also wonder about their real meaning and implications. This can be seen under 3 possible aspects:

(1) Classification of the social grade

While it may be familiar to readers of Thierry and collaborators, or to researchers of the macaque world, there is no list included of the 18 behavioral traits used to define the three main cognitive requirements (socio-cognitive demands, predictability of the environment, inhibitory control). It would be important to know which of the different traits correspond to what, whether they overlap, and crucially, how they are realized in the 12 study species, as there could be drastic differences from one species to the next. For now, we can only see from Table S1 where the species align to, but it would be a good addition to have them individually matched to, if not the 18 behavioral traits, at least the 3 different broad categories of cognitive requirements.

(2) Issue of nature vs nurture

Another way to look at the debate between nature vs nurture is to look at phylogeny. For now, there is no phylogenetic tree that shows where the different grades are realized. For example, it would be illuminating to know whether more related species, independently of grades, have similar amygdala or hippocampus sizes. Then the question will go to the details, and whether the grades are realized in particular phylogenetic subdivisions. This would go in line with the general point of the authors that there could be general species differences.

With respect to nurture, it is likely more complicated: one needs to take into account the idiosyncrasies of the life of the individual. For example, some of the cited literature in humans or macaques suggests that the bigger the social network, the bigger the brain structure considered. Right, but this finding is at the individual level with a documented life history. Do we have any of this information for any of the individuals considered (this is likely out of the scope of this paper to look at this, especially for individuals that did not originate from CdP)?

(3) Issue of the discussion of the amygdala's function

The entire discussion/goal of the paper, states that the amygdala is connected to social life. Yet, before being a "social center", the amygdala has been connected to the emotional life of humans and non-humans alike. The authors state L333/34 that "These findings challenge conventional expectations of the amygdala's primary involvement in emotional processes and highlight the complexity of the amygdala's role in social cognition". First, there is no dichotomy between social cognition and emotion. Emotion is part of social cognition (unless we and macaques are robots). Second, there is nowhere in the paper a demonstration that the differences highlighted here are connected to social cognition differences per se. For example, the authors have not tested, say, if grade 4 species are more afraid of snakes than grade 1 species. If so, one could predict they would also have a bigger amygdala, and they would probably also find it in the model. My point is not that the authors should try to correlate any kind of potential aspect that has been connected to the amygdala in the literature with their data (see for example the nice review by Domínguez-Borràs and Vuilleumier, https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-823493-8.00015-8), but they should refrain from saying they have challenged a particular aspect if they have not even tested it. I would rather engage the authors to try and discuss the amygdala as a multipurpose center, that includes social cognition and emotion.

Strengths:

Methods & breadth of species tested.

Weaknesses:

Interpretation, which can be described as 'oriented' and should rather offer additional views.