Naked Mole-Rat Social Phenotypes Vary in Investigative and Aggressive Behavior in a Laboratory Partner Preference Paradigm

Here we employed the partner preference test (PPT) to examine how naked mole-rat non-breeding individuals of different behavioral phenotypes make social decisions. Naked mole-rats from six colonies were classified into three behavioral phenotypes (soldiers, dispersers, and workers) using a battery of behavioral tests. They then participated in a 3 h long PPT, where they could freely interact with a tethered familiar or tethered unfamiliar conspecific. By comparing the three behavioral phenotypes, we tested the hypothesis that the PPT can be used to interrogate social decision-making in this species, revealing individual differences in behavior that are consistent with discrete social phenotypes. We also tested whether a shorter, 10 min version of the paradigm is sufficient to capture group differences in behavior. Overall, soldiers had higher aggression scores toward unfamiliar conspecifics than both workers and dispersers at the 10 min and 3 h comparison times. At the 10 min comparison time, workers showed a stronger preference for the familiar animal’s chamber, as well as for investigating the familiar conspecific, compared to both dispersers and soldiers. At the 3 h time point, no phenotype differences were seen with chamber or investigation preference scores. Overall, all phenotypes spent more time in chambers with another animal vs. being alone. Use of the PPT in a comparative context has demonstrated that the test identifies species and group differences in affiliative and aggressive behavior toward familiar and unfamiliar animals, revealing individual differences in social decision-making and, importantly, capturing aspects of species-specific social organization seen in nature

Characterizing the Putative Disperser Morph in Naked Mole-Rats

Naked mole-rats are eusocial mammals; their hierarchy consists of one breeding female, 1 to 3 male consorts, and their reproductively suppressed siblings and offspring. A potential â disperserâ subcaste has been suggested. The purpose of the current study was to better characterize the putative disperser morph. I hypothesized that dispersers and workers would exhibit different in-colony and out-colony behaviors, colony characteristics would affect the presence of dispersers, and dispersers would reproduce quicker than workers. The results found that naked mole-rats of both sexes consistently dispersed. Male dispersers and workers had minimal differences in in-colony behaviors and both preferred familiar colony odor. Queen aggression increased presence of female dispersers only. Dispersers were heavier and fatter than workers. Dispersers and workers produced litters at a similar rate to each other. These results suggest that dispersers may not be a separate subcaste, but rather a subset of the existing workers with increased exploratory behavior.M.Sc

Solving the Neurogenesis Puzzle: Looking for Pieces Outside the Traditional Box

The vast majority of what is considered fact about adult neurogenesis comes from research on laboratory mice and rats: where it happens, how it works, what it does. However, this relative exclusive focus on two rodent species has resulted in a bias on how we think about adult neurogenesis. While it might not prevent us from making conclusions about the evolutionary significance of the process or even prevent us from generalizing to diverse mammals, it certainly does not help us achieve these outcomes. Here, we argue that there is every reason to expect striking species differences in adult neurogenesis: where it happens, how it works, what it does. Species-specific adaptations in brain and behavior are paramount to survival and reproduction in diverse ecological niches and it is naive to think adult neurogenesis escaped these evolutionary pressures. A neuroethological approach to the study of adult neurogenesis is essential for a comprehensive understanding of the phenomenon. Furthermore, most of us are guilty of making strong assertions about our data in order to have impact yet this ultimately creates bias in how work is performed, interpreted, and applied. By taking a step back and actually placing our results in a much larger, non-biomedical context, we can help to reduce dogmatic thinking and create a framework for discovery