Abstract
Organisms can gain information about their environment from their ancestors, their parents or their own personal experience. ‘Cue integration’ models often start with the simplifying assumption that information from different sources is additive. Here, we test key assumptions and predictions of cue integration theory at both the phenotypic and molecular level in threespined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). We show that regardless of whether cues about predation risk were provided by their father or acquired through personal experience, sticklebacks produced the same set of predator-adapted phenotypes. Moreover, there were nonadditive effects of personal and paternal experience: animals that received cues from both sources resembled animals that received cues from a single source. A similar pattern was detected at the molecular level: there was a core set of genes that were differentially expressed in the brains of offspring regardless of whether risk was experienced by their father, themselves or both. These results provide strong support for cue integration theory because they show that cues provided by parents and personal experience are comparable at both the phenotypic and molecular level, and draw attention to the importance of nonadditive responses to multiple cues.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals
Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription
$29.99 / 30 days
cancel any time
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 digital issues and online access to articles
$119.00 per year
only $9.92 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on SpringerLink
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Dall, S. R., McNamara, J. M. & Leimar, O. Genes as cues: phenotypic integration of genetic and epigenetic information from a Darwinian perspective. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 327–333 (2015).
Leimar, O. The evolution of phenotypic polymorphism: randomized strategies versus evolutionary branching. Am. Nat. 165, 669–681 (2005).
Leimar, O. & McNamara, J. M. The evolution of transgenerational integration of information in heterogeneous environments. Am. Nat. 185, E55–E69 (2015).
Stamps, J. A. & Frankenhuis, W. E. Bayesian models of development. Trends Ecol. Evol. 31, 260–268 (2016).
Stamps, J. A. & Krishnan, V. V. Combining information from ancestors and personal experiences to predict individual differences in developmental trajectories. Am. Nat. 184, 647–657 (2014).
English, S., Pen, I., Shea, N. & Uller, T. The information value of non-genetic inheritance in plants and animals. PLoS ONE 10, e0116996 (2015).
McNamara, J. M., Dall, S. R. X., Hammerstein, P., Leimar, O. & Coulson, T. Detection vs selection: integration of genetic, epigenetic and evnironmental cues in fluctuating environments. Ecol. Lett. 19, 1267–1276 (2016).
Rivoire, O. & Leibler, S. A model for the generation and transmission of variations in evolution. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, E1940–E1949 (2014).
West-Eberhard, M. J. Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2003).
Frankenhuis, W. E. & Panchanathan, K. Balancing sampling and specialization: an adaptationist model of incremental development. Proc. R. Soc. B 278, 3558–3565 (2011).
McCollum, S. A. & Van Buskirk, J. Costs and benefits of predator-induced polyphenism in the gray treefrog Hyla chrysoscelis. Evolution 50, 583–593 (1996).
Buoro, M., Gimenez, G. & Prévost, E. Assessing adaptive phenotypic plasticity by means of conditional strategies from empirical data: the latent environmental threshold model. Evolution 66, 996–1009 (2012).
Sih, A. Prey uncertainty and the balancing of antipredator and feeding needs. Am. Nat. 139, 1052–1069 (1992).
Nesse, R. M. The smoke detector principle. Natural selection and the regulation of defensive responses. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 935, 75–85 (2001).
Tulley, J. J. & Huntingford, F. A. Paternal care and the development of adaptive variation in anti-predator responses in sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 35, 1570–1572 (1987).
McGhee, K. E. & Bell, A. M. Paternal care in a fish: epigenetics and fitness enhancing effects on offspring anxiety. Proc. R. Soc. B 281, 20141146 (2014).
Stein, L. R. & Bell, A. M. Paternal programming in sticklebacks. Anim. Behav. 95, 165–171 (2014).
Stein, L. R. & Bell, A. M. Consistent individual differences in paternal behavior in threespined sticklebacks. Curr. Zool. 58, 45–52 (2012).
Pressley, P. H. Parental effort and the evolution of nest-guarding tactics in the threespined stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus. Evolution 35, 282–295 (1981).
Stein, L. R. & Bell, A. M. Consistent individual differences in paternal behavior: a field study of three-spined stickleback. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 69, 227–236 (2015).
Meaney, M. J. Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 24, 1161–1192 (2001).
Endler, J. A. Multiple-trait coevolution and environmental gradients in guppies. Trends Ecol. Evol. 10, 22–29 (1995).
Vervust, B., Grbac, I. & Van Dame, R. Differences in morphology, performance and behaviour between recently diverged populations of Podarcis sicula mirror differences in predation pressure. Oikos 116, 1343–1352 (2007).
Bell, A. M., Dingemanse, N. J., Hankison, S. J., Langenhof, M. B. W. & Rollins, K. Early exposure to nonlethal predation risk by size-selective predators increases somatic growth and decreases size at adulthood in threespined sticklebacks. J. Evol. Biol. 24, 943–953 (2011).
Frommen, J. G. et al. Costly plastic morphological responses to predator specific odour cues in three-spined sticklebacks (Gasterosteus aculeatus). Evol. Ecol. 25, 641–656 (2011).
Reimchen, T. E. in The Evolutionary Biology of the Threespined Stickleback (eds Bell, M. A. & Foster, S. A.) 240–273 (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 1994).
Donelan, S. C. & Trussell, G. C. Synergistic effects of parental and embryonic exposure to predation risk on prey offspring size at emergence. Ecology 99, 68–78 (2018).
Harney, E., Paterson, S. & Plaistow, S. J. Offspring development and life-history variation in a water flea depends upon clone-specific integration of genetic, non-genetic and environmental cues. Funct. Ecol. 31, 1996–2007 (2017).
Beaty, L. E. et al. Shaped by the past, acting in the present: transgenerational plasticity of anti-predatory traits. Oikos 125, 1570–1576 (2016).
Luquet, E. & Tariel, J. Offspring reaction norms shaped by parental environment: interaction between within- and trans-generational plasticity of inducible defences. BMC Evol. Biol. 16, 209 (2016).
Seiter, M. & Schausberger, P. Maternal intraguild predation risk affects offspring anti-predator behavior and learning in mites. Sci. Rep. 5, 15046 (2015).
Stratmann, A. & Taborsky, B. Antipredator defences of young are independently determined by genetic inheritance, maternal effects and own early experience in mouthbrooding cichlids. Funct. Ecol. 28, 944–953 (2014).
Sultan, S. E., Barton, K. & Wilcek, A. M. Contrasting patterns of transgenerational plasticity in ecologically distinct congeners. Ecology 90, 1831–1839 (2009).
Agrawal, A. A., Laforsch, C. & Tollrian, R. Transgenerational induction of defences in animals and plants. Nature 401, 60–63 (1999).
Hales, N. R. et al. Contrasting gene expression programs correspond with predator-induced phenotypic plasticity within and across generations in Daphnia. Mol. Ecol. 26, 5003–5015 (2017).
Metzger, D. C. H. & Schulte, P. M. Maternal stress has divergent effects on gene expression patterns in the brains of male and female threespine stickleback. Proc. R. Soc. B 283, 20161734 (2016).
Swarup, H. States in the development of the stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus. J. Embryol. Exp. Morphol. 6, 373–383 (1958).
Wootton, R. J. A Functional Biology of Sticklebacks (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1984).
Peichel, C. et al. The master sex-determination locus in threespined sticklebacks is on a nascent Y chromosome. Curr. Biol. 14, 1416–1424 (2004).
R v. 3.2.2 (R Core Team, Vienna, 2016).
Bates, D., Maechler, M., Bolker, B. & Walker, S. Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. J. Stat. Softw. 67, 1–48 (2015).
Kuznetsova, A., Brockhoff, P. B. & Christensen, R. H. B. lmerTest: Tests for Random and Fixed Effects for Linear Mixed Effect Models R Package v. 2.0-6 (2014).
Kim, D. et al. TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biol. 14, R36 (2013).
Langmead, B. & Salzberg, S. L. Fast gapped-read alignment with Bowtie 2. Nat. Methods 9, 357–359 (2012).
Anders, S., Pyl, P. T. & Huber, W. HTSeq: a Python framework to work with high-throughput sequencing data. Bioinformatics 31, 166–169 (2015).
Law, C. W., Chen, Y., Shi, W. & Smyth, G. K. Voom: precision weights unlock linear model analysis tools for RNA-seq read counts. Genome Biol. 15, R29 (2014).
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to E. Murdoch for help with RNA extraction and building libraries for RNA-seq, and M. Bensky for the stickleback and sculpin illustrations. We also thank A. Sih, J. Stamps, G. Robinson, K. Hoke and S. English for valuable comments on the manuscript. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. IOS 1210696 and a National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship to L.R.S. Research reported in this publication was supported by National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award no. R01 GM082937. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
L.R.S. and A.M.B. conceived and designed the project. L.R.S. carried out the experiment and performed data collection. L.R.S., S.A.B. and A.M.B. analysed the data. L.R.S., S.A.B. and A.M.B. wrote the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Information
Supplementary Table 1; Supplementary Figures 1–3; Supplementary Reference
Supplementary Table 2
Alignment and percent reads mapped to stickleback genome
Supplementary Table 3
Differentially expressed gene lists for paternal experience, personal experience, and both cue treatments
Supplementary Table 4
GO and functional enrichments for all treatments
Supplementary Table 5
Phenotypic data of offspring
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Stein, L.R., Bukhari, S.A. & Bell, A.M. Personal and transgenerational cues are nonadditive at the phenotypic and molecular level. Nat Ecol Evol 2, 1306–1311 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0605-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41559-018-0605-4
This article is cited by
-
Transgenerational plasticity of exploratory behavior and a hidden cost of mismatched risk environments between parental sexes
Scientific Reports (2023)
-
The legacy of predator threat shapes prey foraging behaviour
Oecologia (2022)
-
Paternal care effects outweigh gamete-mediated and personal environment effects during the transgenerational estimation of risk in fathead minnows
BMC Ecology and Evolution (2021)
-
The information provided by the absence of cues: insights from Bayesian models of within and transgenerational plasticity
Oecologia (2020)
-
Thermal cues drive plasticity of desiccation resistance in montane salamanders with implications for climate change
Nature Communications (2019)