February 19th:

SNACKS:  Bailey & Neenah

PAPER DISCUSSION:
Liz & Christina
Last week we read a review that covered 3 different research areas related to individual differences as well as one paper that examined the genomic basis for individual difference in a caste system. This week we move to the oh-so-controversial field of animal personality (well, ok, they don't use that trigger term).

Rey, S., Boltana, S., Vargas, R., Roher, N. & MacKenzie, S. Rey, S., Boltana, S., Vargas, R., Roher, N. & MacKenzie, S. 2013. Combining animal personalities with transcriptomics resolves individual variation within a wild-type zebrafish population and identifies underpinning molecular differences in brain function. Molecular Ecology, 22:6100-6115.


SUPPLEMENTAL STUFF

Filename Format Size Description
mec12556-sup-0001-FigS1.pdf application/PDF 92K Fig. S1 A. QPCR validation for Gadph, FLI-1, Protocadherin, Crx, Opsin, Hox5a, Hox5c, Grk7 and Arrestin mRNAs in P and R individuals (n = 3). Data show both array-derived data (black boxes) and absolute quantification (copy number; open boxes) of the 9 mRNA targets measured. Data are show as mean ± SD. B. Primer sequences for mRNA targets.
mec12556-sup-0002-TableS1.pdf application/PDF 57K Table S1 Spearman correlation coefficients across different contexts for A) proactive and B) reactive individuals. (*P < 0.05; **P < 0.01).
mec12556-sup-0003-TableS2.xlsx application/msexcel 12739K Table S2 Whole transcriptome data (Gene ID, description, expression and regulation) from the three different experimental groups (n = 32.761); 1 proactive, 2 reactive, 3 random selected (base population) individuals.
mec12556-sup-0004-TableS3.xlsx application/msexcel 898K Tables S3 A) Transcriptome data showing regulated transcripts that were specific to P and R subpopulations (n = 3.027).All data show Gene ID, description, raw expression and P-value. B) Gene ID, GO and relative abundance of 47 selected mRNA transcripts.
mec12556-sup-0005-TableS4.xlsx application/msexcel 532K Tables S4 Transcriptome data showing regulated transcripts specific to P and R subpopulations found in each gross brain region.
mec12556-sup-0006-TableS5.xlsx application/msexcel 42K Tables S5 Results of ancova for common slope of regression and adjusted means examining differences in the variance of the expression data across P and R personalities in zebrafish (proactive, reactive and random selected; n =10 individuals of each population).

WHO-IS-WHO: Liz & Sara

QUESTIONS TO PONDER AS YOU READ:
How might you remake these figures to be more understandable?
Is there an actual difference between P and I subgroups given the results in the rescreening?
Is a comparison to the base population an accurate control for rescreening?
Why might LFA be inversely correlated with all other aggression measurements?
What might be the adaptive value of having a consistently smaller and less aggressive us population of males?
Is it fair to say that given the mRNA data, metabolism and circadian rhythm is related to personality?
The authors on occasion mention that 'personality affects key cellular processes in the zebrafish'.
....Is this a chicken or the egg question? Can you think of a better control for the GO analyses?
What do you think about R and P having significantly less transcript variation in comparison to the base population?
..... What does it tell us?
Rey et al. approaches animal personality as dichotomous phenomenons, rather than personality traits that fall on a spectrum (where some individuals are more proactive or reactive than others).
.... Do you think that's appropriate?
.... How would the experimental design have to change to address this question?
.... More broadly - what might be the relevancy of this work outside the scope of understanding zebrafish behavior?
What follow up experiments might you do?
Also figures 3 and 4 were a little challenging so make sure to give them a close look.

REVIEW AND PAPER PRESENTATION:
Leah & Conrad   
The review paper this week (Renn & Schumer 2013), attempts to apply the theory of genetic acommodation to animal behavior. This theory is very familiar to evolutionary biologist who study phenotypic plasticity but has primarily been applied to cases of morphological or physiological plasticity. The primary research paper this week (Latta et al 2012) is an example from physiology. As you read that paper, think "Behavior", and evaluate the review....

Renn, S.C.P. and Schumer, M.E.2013 Genetic accommodation and behavioural evolution: insights from genomic studies. Animal Behaviour. 85:1012-1022.

Latta, L. C., Weider, L. J., Colbourne, J. K. & Pfrender, M. E. 2012. The evolution of salinity tolerance in Daphnia: a functional genomics approach. Ecology Letters, 15, 794-802

WHO-IS-WHO:  Audrey & James

QUESTIONS TO PONDER AS YOU READ

  • What is genetic assimilation? (can you draw it graphically?)

  • What is genetic accommodation? (can you draw it graphically?)
  • Figure 3 in (Latta et al) is quite difficult at first. Don't fret! We will go over it in depth. After careful dissection, consider the following:
    • What is the overall point of presenting us with Figure 3 as Figure 4 has they generally all the same information PLUS more? (Hint: look to Figure 3 of Renn & Schumer's review)
  • Did Latta et al meet the four criteria proposed by Renn & Schumer?
  • Any other promising, ideal systems for future (or currently ongoing) study not proposed in the review?
  • How possible is it to satisfy all four criteria?
  • Any proposals for such a study (if you had unlimited funding)?
  • With regards to the data presented by Latta & colleagues: 
    • What next experiments would Latta et al want to perform?
    • What next experiments would Renn & Schumer propose?
    • What do you propose they test?
  • Tinbergen outlined the four domains of inquiry through which animal behavior could be studied. However, these four approaches are clearly used in other fields as well, such as physiology as seen in Latta et al. How does the study performed by Latta & colleagues probe each of the 4 domains?