Developmental Behavioural Plasticity and <scp>DNA</scp> Methylation Patterns in Response to Predation Stress in Trinidadian Guppies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early-life experiences can predict the environments experienced later in life, giving individuals an opportunity to develop adaptive behaviour appropriate to a likely future environment. Epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation (DNAm) have been implicated in developmental behavioural plasticity; however, studies investigating this possibility are limited in taxonomic breadth and ecological relevance. We investigated the impact of early-life exposure to predation stress on behaviour and DNAm in the brains of Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata). We exposed guppies throughout development to either an alarm cue (conspecific skin extract), inducing predation stress, or a control cue (water) for 8 weeks and then raised them to adulthood under identical conditions. Then, we conducted two behavioural assays, an open-field and a grouping test, before performing whole-genome bisulfite sequencing on whole brains. Guppies exposed to the alarm cue during development exhibited increased grouping (shoaling) in adulthood compared to those exposed to the control treatment, but there were no detectable impacts on activity, boldness, or exploratory behaviour. We also identified stable shifts in brain DNAm in response to developmental alarm cue exposure in genes involved in behavioural regulation. Some differentially methylated sites were significantly associated with shoaling propensity in both males and females. Additionally, males and females differed in the magnitude of DNAm responses and the genes impacted, suggesting distinct roles for DNAm between the sexes. This study shows how early-life predation stress can induce behavioural changes in adulthood and that shifts in neural DNAm could be an underlying mechanism responsible for these changes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".