Individuality across environmental context in Drosophila melanogaster

Reviewer #1 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors state the study's goal clearly: "The goal of our study was to understand to what extent animal individuality is influenced by situational changes in the environment, i.e., how much of an animal's individuality remains after one or more environmental features change." They use visually guided behavioral features to examine the extent of correlation over time and in a variety of contexts. They develop new behavioral instrumentation and software to measure behavior in Buridan's paradigm (and variations thereof), the Y-maze, and a flight simulator. Using these assays, they examine the correlations between conditions for a panel of locomotion parameters. They propose that inter-assay correlations will determine the persistence of locomotion individuality.

Strengths:

The OED defines individuality as "the sum of the attributes which distinguish a person or thing from others of the same kind," a definition mirrored by other dictionaries and the scientific literature on the topic. The concept of behavioral individuality can be characterized as:
(1) a large set of behavioral attributes,
(2) with inter-individual variability, that are
(3) stable over time.

A previous study examined walking parameters in Buridan's paradigm, finding that several parameters were variable between individuals, and that these showed stability over separate days and up to 4 weeks (DOI: 10.1126/science.aaw718). The present study replicates some of those findings and extends the experiments from temporal stability to examining the correlation of locomotion features between different contexts.

The major strength of the study is using a range of different behavioral assays to examine the correlations of several different behavior parameters. It shows clearly that the inter-individual variability of some parameters is at least partially preserved between some contexts, and not preserved between others. The development of high-throughput behavior assays and sharing the information on how to make the assays is a commendable contribution.

Weaknesses:

The definition of individuality considers a comprehensive or large set of attributes, but the authors consider only a handful. In Supplemental Fig. S8, the authors show a large correlation matrix of many behavioral parameters, but these are illegible and are only mentioned briefly in Results. Why were five or so parameters selected from the full set? How were these selected? Do the correlation trends hold true across all parameters? For assays in which only a subset of parameters can be directly compared, were all of these included in the analysis, or only a subset?

The correlation analysis is used to establish stability between assays. For temporal re-testing, "stability" is certainly the appropriate word, but between contexts, it implies that there could be 'instability'. Rather, instead of the 'instability' of a single brain process, a different behavior in a different context could arise from engaging largely (or entirely?) distinct context-dependent internal processes, and have nothing to do with process stability per se. For inter-context similarities, perhaps a better word would be "consistency".

The parameters are considered one by one, not in aggregate. This focuses on the stability/consistency of the variability of a single parameter at a time, rather than holistic individuality. It would appear that an appropriate measure of individuality stability (or individuality consistency) that accounts for the high-dimensional nature of individuality would somehow summarize correlations across all parameters. Why was a multivariate approach (e.g. multiple regression/correlation) not used? Treating the data with a multivariate or averaged approach would allow the authors to directly address 'individuality stability', along with the analyses of single-parameter variability stability.

The correlation coefficients are sometimes quite low, though highly significant, and are deemed to indicate stability. For example, in Figure 4C top left, the % of time walked at 23{degree sign}C and 32{degree sign}C are correlated by 0.263, which corresponds to an R2 of 0.069 i.e. just 7% of the 32{degree sign}C variance is predictable by the 23{degree sign}C variance. Is it fair to say that a 7% determination indicates parameter stability? Another example: "Vector strength was the most correlated attention parameter... correlations ranged... to -0.197," which implies that 96% (1 - R2) of Y-maze variance is not predicted by Buridan variance. At what level does an r value not represent stability?

The authors describe a dissociation between inter-group differences and inter-individual variation stability, i.e. sometimes large mean differences between contexts, but significant correlation between individual test and retest data. Given that correlation is sensitive to slope, this might be expected to underestimate the variability stability (or consistency). Is there a way to adjust for the group differences before examining the correlation? For example, would it be possible to transform the values to in-group ranks prior to correlation analysis?

What is gained by classifying the five parameters into exploration, attention, and anxiety? To what extent have these classifications been validated, both in general and with regard to these specific parameters? Is the increased walking speed at higher temperatures necessarily due to an increased 'explorative' nature, or could it be attributed to increased metabolism, dehydration stress, or a heat-pain response? To what extent are these categories subjective?

The legends are quite brief and do not link to descriptions of specific experiments. For example, Figure 4a depicts a graphical overview of the procedure, but I could not find a detailed description of this experiment's protocol.

Using the current single-correlation analysis approach, the aims would benefit from re-wording to appropriately address single-parameter variability stability/consistency (as distinct from holistic individuality). Alternatively, the analysis could be adjusted to address the multivariate nature of individuality, so that the claims and the analysis are in concordance with each other.

The study presents a bounty of new technology to study visually guided behaviors. The GitHub link to the software was not available. To verify the successful transfer of open hardware and open-software, a report would demonstrate transfer by collaboration with one or more other laboratories, which the present manuscript does not appear to do. Nevertheless, making the technology available to readers is commendable.

The study discusses a number of interesting, stimulating ideas about inter-individual variability, and presents intriguing data that speaks to those ideas, albeit with the issues outlined above.

While the current work does not present any mechanistic analysis of inter-individual variability, the implementation of high-throughput assays sets up the field to more systematically investigate fly visual behaviors, their variability, and their underlying mechanisms.

Reviewer #2 (Public Review):

Summary:

The authors repeatedly measured the behavior of individual flies across several environmental situations in custom-made behavioral phenotyping rigs.

Strengths:

The study uses several different behavioral phenotyping devices to quantify individual behavior in a number of different situations and over time. It seems to be a very impressive amount of data. The authors also make all their behavioral phenotyping rig design and tracking software available, which I think is great and I'm sure other folks will be interested in using and adapting it to their own needs.

Weaknesses/Limitations:

I think an important limitation is that while the authors measured the flies under different environmental scenarios (i.e. with different lighting and temperature) they didn't really alter the "context" of the environment. At least within behavioral ecology, context would refer to the potential functionality of the expressed behaviors so for example, an anti-predator context, a mating context, or foraging. Here, the authors seem to really just be measuring aspects of locomotion under benign (relatively low-risk perception) contexts. This is not a flaw of the study, but rather a limitation to how strongly the authors can really say that this demonstrates that individuality is generalized across many different contexts. It's quite possible that rank order of locomotor (or other) behaviors may shift when the flies are in a mating or risky context.

The analytical framework in terms of statistical methods is lacking. It appears as though the authors used correlations across time/situations to estimate individual variation; however, far more sophisticated and elegant methods exist. The paper would be a lot stronger, and my guess is, much more streamlined if the authors employ hierarchical mixed models to analyse these data these models could capture and estimate differences in individual behavior across time and situations simultaneously. Along with this, it's currently unclear whether and how any statistical inference was performed. Right now, it appears as though any results describing how individuality changes across situations are largely descriptive (i.e. a visual comparison of the strengths of the correlation coefficients?).

Another pretty major weakness is that right now, I can't find any explicit mention of how many flies were used and whether they were re-used across situations. Some sort of overall schematic showing exactly how many measurements were made in which rigs and with which flies would be very beneficial.

I don't necessarily doubt the robustness of the results and my guess is that the author's interpretations would remain the same, but a more appropriate modeling framework could certainly improve their statistical inference and likely highlight some other cool patterns as these methods could better estimate stability and covariance in individual intercepts (and potentially slopes) across time and situation.

Reviewer #3 (Public Review):

This manuscript is a continuation of past work by the last author where they looked at stochasticity in developmental processes leading to inter-individual behavioural differences. In that work, the focus was on a specific behaviour under specific conditions while probing the neural basis of the variability. In this work, the authors set out to describe in detail how stable the individuality of animal behaviours is in the context of various external and internal influences. They identify a few behaviours to monitor (read outs of attention, exploration, and 'anxiety'); some external stimuli (temperature, contrast, nature of visual cues, and spatial environment); and two internal states (walking and flying).

They then use high-throughput behavioural arenas - most of which they have built and made plans available for others to replicate - to quantify and compare combinations of these behaviours, stimuli, and internal states. This detailed analysis reveals that:

(1) Many individualistic behaviours remain stable over the course of many days.
(2) That some of these (walking speed) remain stable over changing visual cues. Others (walking speed and centrophobicity) remain stable at different temperatures.
(3) All the behaviours they tested failed to remain stable over the spatially varying environment (arena shape).
(4) Only angular velocity (a readout of attention) remains stable across varying internal states (walking and flying).

Thus, the authors conclude that there is a hierarchy in the influence of external stimuli and internal states on the stability of individual behaviours.

The manuscript is a technical feat with the authors having built many new high-throughput assays. The number of animals is large and many variables have been tested - different types of behavioural paradigms, flying vs walking, varying visual stimuli, and different temperatures among others.