Linking the evolution of two prefrontal brain regions to social and foraging challenges in primates

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

The present study provides a phylogenetic analysis of the size prefrontal areas in primates, aiming to investigate whether relative size of the rostral prefrontal cortex (frontal pole) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex volume vary according to known ecological or social variables.

I am very much in favor of the general approach taken in this study. Neuroimaging now allows us to obtain more detailed anatomical data in a much larger range of species than ever before and this study shows the questions that can be asked using these types of data. In general, the study is conducted with care, focusing on anatomical precision in definition of the cortical areas and using appropriate statistical techniques, such as PGLS. That said, there are some points where I feel the authors could have taken their care a bit further and, as a result, inform the community even more about what is in their data.

The introduction sets up the contrast of 'ecological' (mostly foraging) and social variables of a primate's life that can be reflected in the relative size of brain regions. This debate is for a large part a relic of the literature and the authors themselves state in a number of places that perhaps the contrast is a bit artificial. I feel that they could go further in this. Social behavior could easily be a solution to foraging problems, making them variables that are not in competition, but simply different levels of explanation. This point has been made in some of the recent work by Robin Dunbar and Susanne Shultz.

In a similar vein, the hypotheses of relating frontal pole to 'meta-cognition' and dorsolateral PFC to 'working memory' is a dramatic oversimplification of the complexity of cognitive function and does a disservice to the careful approach of the rest of the manuscript. One can also question the predicted relationship between frontal pole meta-cognition and social abilities versus foraging, as Passingham and Wise show in their 2012 book that it is frontal pole size that correlates with learning ability-an argument that they used to relate this part of the brain to foraging abilities. I would strongly suggest the authors refrain from using such descriptive terms. Why not simply use the names of the variables actually showing significant correlations with relative size of the areas?

The major methodological judgements in this paper are of course in the delineation of the frontal pole and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. As I said above, I appreciate how carefully the authors describe their anatomical procedure, allowing researchers to replicate and extend their work. They are also careful not to relate their regions of interest to precise cytoarchitectonic areas, as such a claim would be impossible to make without more evidence. That said, there is a judgement call made in using the principal sulcus as a boundary defining landmark for FP in monkeys and the superior frontal sulcus in apes. I do not believe that these sulci are homologous. Indeed, the authors themselves go on to argue that dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, where studied using cytoarchitecture, stretches to the fundus of principal sulcus in monkeys, but all the way to the inferior frontal sulcus in apes. That means that using the fundus of PS is not a good landmark. Of course, any definition will attract criticism, so the best solution might be to run the analysis multiple times, using different definitions for the areas, and see how this affects results.

If I understand correctly, the PGLS was run separately for the three brain measure (whole brain, FP, DLPFC). However, given that the measures are so highly correlated, is there an argument for an analysis that allows testing on residuals. In other words, to test effects of relative size of FP and DLPFC over and above brain size?

In the discussion and introduction, the authors discuss how size of the area is a proxy for number of neurons. However, as shown by Herculano-Houzel, this assumption does not hold across species. Across monkeys and apes, for instance, there is a different in how many neurons can be packed per volume of brain. There is even earlier work from Semendeferi showing how frontal pole especially shows distinct neuron-to-volume ratios.

Overall, I think this is a very valuable approach and the study demonstrates what can now be achieved in evolutionary neuroscience. I do believe that they authors can be even more thorough and precise in their measurements and claims.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

In the manuscript entitled "Linking the evolution of two prefrontal brain regions to social and foraging challenges in primates" the authors measure the volume of the frontal pole (FP, related to metacognition) and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC, related to working memory) in 16 primate species to evaluate the influence of socio-ecological factors on the size of these cortical regions. The authors select 11 socio-ecological variables and use a phylogenetic generalized least squares (PGLS) approach to evaluate the joint influence of these socio-ecological variables on the neuro-anatomical variability of FP and DLPFC across the 16 selected primate species; in this way, the authors take into account the phylogenetic relations across primate species in their attempt to discover the influence of socio-ecological variables on FP and DLPF evolution.

The authors run their studies on brains collected from 1920 to 1970 and preserved in formalin solution. Also, they obtained data from the Mussée National d´Histoire Naturelle in Paris and from the Allen Brain Institute in California. The main findings consist in showing that the volume of the FP, the DLPFC, and the Rest of the Brain (ROB) across the 16 selected primate species is related to three socio-ecological variables: body mass, daily traveled distance, and population density. The authors conclude that metacognition and working memory are critical for foraging in primates and that FP volume is more sensitive to social constraints than DLPFC volume.

The topic addressed in the present manuscript is relevant for understanding human brain evolution from the point of view of primate research, which, unfortunately, is a shrinking field in neuroscience. But the experimental design has two major weak points: the absence of lissencephalic primates among the selected species and the delimitation of FP and DLPFC. Also, a general theoretical and experimental frame linking evolution (phylogeny) and development (ontogeny) is lacking.

Major comments.
1.- Is the brain modular? Is there modularity in brain evolution?: The entire manuscript is organized around the idea that the brain is a mosaic of units that have separate evolutionary trajectories:

"In terms of evolution, the functional heterogeneity of distinct brain regions is captured by the notion of 'mosaic brain', where distinct brain regions could show a specific relation with various socio-ecological challenges, and therefore have relatively separate evolutionary trajectories".

This hypothesis is problematic for several reasons. One of them is that each evolutionary module of the brain mosaic should originate in embryological development from a defined progenitor (or progenitors) domain [see García-Calero and Puelles (2020)]. Also, each evolutionary module should comprise connections with other modules; in the present case, FP and DLPFC have not evolved alone but in concert with, at least, their corresponding thalamic nuclei and striatal sector. Did those nuclei and sectors also expand across the selected primate species? Can the authors relate FP and DLPFC expansion to a shared progenitor domain across the analyzed species? This would be key to proposing homology hypotheses for FP and DLPFC across the selected species. The authors use all the time the comparative approach but never explicitly their criteria for defining homology of the cerebral cortex sectors analyzed.

Contemporary developmental biology has showed that the selection of morphological brain features happens within severe developmental constrains. Thus, the authors need a hypothesis linking the evolutionary expansion of FP and DLPFC during development. Otherwise, the claims form the mosaic brain and modularity lack fundamental support.

Also, the authors refer most of the time to brain regions, which is confusing because they are analyzing cerebral cortex regions.

2.- Definition and delimitation of FP and DLPFC: The precedent questions are also related to the definition and parcellation of FP and DLPFC. How homologous cortical sectors are defined across primate species? And then, how are those sectors parcellated?

The authors delimited the FP:

"...according to different criteria: it should match the functional anatomy for known species (macaques and humans, essentially) and be reliable enough to be applied to other species using macroscopic neuroanatomical landmarks".

There is an implicit homology criterion here: two cortical regions in two primate species are homologs if these regions have similar functional anatomy based on cortico-cortical connections. Also, macroscopic neuroanatomical landmarks serve to limit the homologs across species.

This is highly problematic. First, because similar function means analogy and not necessarily homology [for further explanation see Puelles et al. (2019); García-Cabezas et al. (2022)]. Second, because there are several lissencephalic primate species; in these primates, like marmosets and squirrel monkeys, the whole approach of the authors could not have been implemented. Should we suppose that lissencephalic primates lack FP or DLPFC? Do these primates have significantly more simplistic ways of life than gyrencephalic primates? Marmosets and squirrel monkeys have quite small brains; does it imply that they have not experience the influence of socio-ecological factors on the size of FP, DLPFC, and the rest of the brain?

The authors state that:

"the strong development of executive functions in species with larger prefrontal cortices is related to an absolute increase in number of neurons, rather than in an increase in the ration between the number of neurons in the PFC vs the rest of the brain".

How does it apply to marmosets and squirrel monkeys?

References:
García-Cabezas MA, Hacker JL, Zikopoulos B (2022) Homology of neocortical areas in rats and primates based on cortical type analysis: an update of the Hypothesis on the Dual Origin of the Neocortex. Brain structure & function Online ahead of print. doi:doi.org/10.1007/s00429-022-02548-0

García-Calero E, Puelles L (2020) Histogenetic radial models as aids to understanding complex brain structures: The amygdalar radial model as a recent example. Front Neuroanat 14:590011. doi:10.3389/fnana.2020.590011

Nieuwenhuys R, Puelles L (2016) Towards a New Neuromorphology. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25693-1

Puelles L, Alonso A, Garcia-Calero E, Martinez-de-la-Torre M (2019) Concentric ring topology of mammalian cortical sectors and relevance for patterning studies. J Comp Neurol 527 (10):1731-1752. doi:10.1002/cne.24650

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This is an interesting manuscript that addresses a longstanding debate in evolutionary biology - whether social or ecological factors are primarily responsible for the evolution of the large human brain. To address this, the authors examine the relationship between the size of two prefrontal regions involved in metacognition and working memory (DLPFC and FP) and socioecological variables across 16 primate species. I recommend major revisions to this manuscript due to: 1) a lack of clarity surrounding model construction; and 2) an inappropriate treatment of the relative importance of different predictors (due to a lack of scaling/normalization of predictor variables prior to analysis). My comments are organized by section below:

Introduction:
• Well written and thorough, but the questions presented could use restructuring.

Methods:
• It is unclear which combinations of models were compared or why only population density and distance travelled tested appear to have been included.
• Brain size (vs. body size) should be used as a predictor in the models.
• It is not appropriate to compare the impact of different predictors using their coefficients if the variables were not scaled prior to analysis.