Socialising is good for people’s mental health and wellbeing. The connections and relationships that we form can make us more resilient and healthier. Researchers also know that prolonged periods of social isolation, and feeling lonely, can be detrimental to our health, especially in early childhood. The paradox is that loneliness often results in an even lower desire for social contact, leading to further isolation. But not everyone craves social contact. Some people prefer to be alone and feel more comfortable avoiding social interaction.

Zebrafish display the same social preferences. This, along with their transparent brains, makes them a useful model to study the links between social behaviour and brain activity. Like humans, zebrafish are social animals, with most fish taking a strong liking to social interactions by the time they are a few weeks old. A small number of ‘loner’ fish, however, prefer to avoid interacting with their siblings or tank mates. And so, if loneliness quells the desire for more social contact, the question becomes, does isolation turn otherwise social fish into loners?

Here, Tunbak et al. use zebrafish to study how social isolation changes brain activity and behaviour. Social fish were isolated from others in the tank for a few days. These so-called ‘lonely fish’ were then allowed back in contact with the other fish. This revealed that, after isolation, previously social fish did avoid interacting with others.

With this experimental set-up, Tunbak et al. also compared the brains of lonely and loner fish. When fish that prefer social interaction were deprived of social contact, they had increased activity in areas of the brain related to stress and anxiety. These lonely fish became anxious and very sensitive to stimuli; and their brain activity suggested that social interaction became overwhelming rather than rewarding. Positively, the lonely fish quickly recovered their normal, social behaviour when given a drug that reduces anxiety.

This work provides a glimpse into how human behaviour could be affected by lengthy periods in isolation. These results suggest that humans could feel anxious upon returning to normal life after spending a long time alone. Moreover, the findings show the impact that social interaction and isolation can have on the young, developing brain.

Social preference behaviour, the drive for individuals to identify and approach members of their own species (Rogers-Carter et al., 2018; Winslow, 2003), is a fundamental component of all social behaviour. We previously found that most zebrafish develop a strong social preference by 2–3 weeks of age (Dreosti et al., 2015), yet we also found a small number (~10%) of ‘loner’ fish that were averse to social cues. A similar diversity of individual social preferences has been found in many species, including humans (Sloan Wilson et al., 1994). Loneliness, undesired isolation from social interaction, has been linked to a reduction in social preference (Engeszer et al., 2004; Shams et al., 2018). We therefore asked whether the socially-averse loner fish found in the normal population would show a similar behavioural phenotype and neuronal activity to socially-averse lonely fish raised in isolation. To answer this question, we compared the behavioural and functional responses of isolated fish to controls during viewing of conspecifics. This comparison found that isolation induces patterns of brain activity that are not present in the normal population. We then asked if we could rescue the aversive behaviour of isolated fish. Since some of the highly activated areas in isolated fish are serotoninergic, we used Buspirone, a 5HT1A receptor agonist. These findings will have important implications for how we understand and treat the impact of social isolation.

Prolonged periods of social isolation are particularly detrimental to humans during early development. However, even brief periods of social isolation have been shown to impact mental and physical health. We therefore tested two models of social isolation, Full (fish raised completely without social interaction) and Partial (fish isolated for 48 hr prior to behavioural testing). Each experiment comprised two sessions, 15 min of acclimation to the chamber followed by 15 min of exposure to two size matched sibling fish that were not isolated. To quantify social preference, we calculated a visual preference index (VPI) that compares the amount of time fish spend in the chamber nearest the conspecifics versus the opposite chamber where they are visually isolated from social cues (see Materials and methods). Full social isolation (Fi) caused a significant decrease in social preference relative to normally raised sibling controls (C) (Figure 1A, left and middle panel: C vs Fi, p=8.3e⁻⁸, Mann-Whitney). Specifically, there was an increase in the number of individuals that had a large negative VPI. We therefore decided to divide the fish into three sociality groups: a) anti-social (-S) fish with VPIs below −0.5; b) pro-social (+S) fish with VPIs above +0.5; c) non-social fish with −0.5 < VPI < +0.5. Fish that underwent Partial isolation (Pi), exhibited an intermediate, yet highly significant, change in social preference (Figure 1A, right panel: C vs Pi, p=2.5e⁻⁸, Mann-Whitney).

Figure 1 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

Video 1

Download asset

As previously reported (Zellner et al., 2011), we found that fish raised in isolation were significantly less active than their normally raised siblings during the acclimation period (Figure 1B: C vs Fi, p=9.0e⁻⁶; C vs Pi, p=2.8e-⁹ Mann-Whitney) and during the social viewing session (Figure 1—figure supplement 1A: left C vs Fi, p=0.0001; C vs Pi, p=0.004 Mann-Whitney). We then divided fish into groups based on their social preference. Interestingly, anti-social fully and partially isolated fish showed very similar movement activity compared to anti-social controls during the acclimation (Figure 1C left: C (-S) vs Fi (-S), p=0.17 Mann-Whitney; C (-S) vs Pi (-S) p=0.23 Mann-Whitney) and during the social viewing session (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B left: C (-S) vs Fi (-S), p=0.48 Mann-Whitney; C (-S) vs Pi (-S) p=0.10 Mann-Whitney). The pro-social isolated fish, which also exhibited a reduction in activity relative to controls during the acclimation session (Figure 1C right: C (-S) vs Fi (-S), p=8.0e⁻⁵ Mann-Whitney; C (-S) vs Pi (-S) p=1.0e⁻⁷ Mann-Whitney), instead showed similar activity relative to controls during social viewing (Figure 1—figure supplement 1B right: C (-S) vs Fi (-S), p=0.02 Mann-Whitney; C (-S) vs Pi (-S) p=0.14 Mann-Whitney). In addition, we noticed that all isolated fish behaved qualitatively differently, exhibiting prolonged periods of quiescence (freezing) even when observing conspecifics (Figure 1D and Video 1).

Freezing is a hallmark of anxiety-like behaviour observed in many species, and reported in zebrafish exposed to stressors (Giacomini et al., 2015; Shams et al., 2018), including periods of social isolation (Egan et al., 2009; Shams et al., 2017). In order to quantify freezing behaviour, we measured the percentage of time spent in continuous periods (>3 s) without motion (Figure 1—figure supplement 1C-D). We found that both fully and partially isolated fish exhibited significantly more freezing than controls during the acclimation period (Figure 1—figure supplement 1C left: C vs Fi, p=3.4e⁻¹⁶ Mann-Whitney; C vs Pi, p=2.8e⁻⁵ Mann-Whitney), and that this increase relative to controls persisted for fully isolated fish during social viewing, but was reduced in partially isolated fish, perhaps representing some recovery during the 15 min of social interaction (Figure 1—figure supplement 1D left: C vs Fi, p=6.3e⁻¹³ Mann-Whitney; C vs Pi, p=0.03 Mann-Whitney). When we compared freezing behaviour of groups with similar social preference, we found, as expected, that anti-social fish exhibited increased freezing during social viewing regardless of rearing condition. However, pro-social fully isolated fish also showed increased freezing during social viewing, suggesting that they were not engaged in typical social interaction, but rather remained immobile on the side with the conspecifics (Figure 1—figure supplement 1D right).

The behavioural similarities between anti-social isolated (lonely) and anti-social control (loner) fish led us to hypothesize that isolation might simply predispose fish to the same anti-social state found in the normal population. If this is the case, neural activity of anti-social isolated and anti-social control fish should be similar when presented with social cues. To test this hypothesis, we performed whole-brain two-photon imaging of c-fos expression, an immediate early gene whose expression is associated with increased neural activity (Herrera and Robertson, 1996), in juvenile brains following testing in the social preference assay. Dissected brains were imaged with the dorsal surface down (bottom-up) to achieve clear views of the ventral brain structures that have been previously implicated in the social brain network (Figure 2A, also see Materials and methods). Volumes of 1.5 mm x 1.5 mm x 700 µm, with a voxel size of 1 × 1×3 µm, were acquired from 135 zebrafish brains across all experimental groups and registered to a reference brain (Marquart et al., 2017). These c-fos whole-brain functional maps were first normalised to a background intensity level (see Materials and methods) and then used to compare the neural activity patterns of different test groups. We compared the average activity map for each rearing/sociality condition with the average map acquired from similarly raised sibling fish that were placed in the behavioural assay for 30 min without any social cues (nsc, no social-cue). The resulting normalised difference stacks (e.g. (+S - nsc)/nsc) allowed us to identify changes in neural activity associated with exposure to a visual social cue (Figure 2A).

Figure 2

Download asset Open asset

Several brain areas showed strong activation or inhibition in normally raised fish upon social cue exposure. We focused on areas that have been reported as social brain areas (O'Connell and Hofmann, 2011) and show differences between our experimental groups (Figure 2B: C (+S and -S)). The caudal hypothalamus was differentially activated in pro- vs. anti-social control fish. A dorsal sub-region was significantly activated in pro-social controls (Figure 2B and D: dHc - C (+S) vs C (nsc), p=0.007, Mann-Whitney), whereas it was inhibited, along with the adjacent ventral sub-region, in anti-social controls (Figure 2B and D: vHc - C (-S) vs C (nsc), p=0.003, Mann-Whitney). The caudal hypothalamus is known to express high levels of serotonin and dopamine, as well as glutamate and histamine (Filippi et al., 2010; Kaslin and Panula, 2001). Furthermore, a segregation into distinct dorsal and ventral areas of the caudal hypothalamus has already been shown for some of these markers, such as tyrosine hydroxylase 1 and 2, (Th1 and Th2) (Yamamoto et al., 2010) and we confirmed these previous results with immunostaining (Figure 2C left), as well as for the dopamine and serotonin transporters, DAT and slc6a4b (Figure 2C right) (Filippi et al., 2010; Lillesaar, 2011). Changes in serotonin and dopamine levels have been widely documented in response to social interaction (Scerbina et al., 2012), viewing social cues (Saif et al., 2013), and social isolation (Huang et al., 2015; Shams et al., 2018; Shams et al., 2015). While the serotoninergic system has been linked to stress and arousal (Backström and Winberg, 2017), the dopamine circuitry has been shown to regulate the reward system underlying social behaviour (Teles et al., 2013). Since the caudal hypothalamus expresses both of these neurotransmitters, and our data demonstrate a pattern of activation/inhibition that is distinct for pro- and anti-social fish, then this area could be crucial in regulating social preference.

The second social brain area we investigated was the preoptic area. Our data showed a similar activation pattern for anti-social and pro-social fish characterised by a small increase in the dorsal preoptic area (dPa) and a small decrease in the ventral preoptic area (vPa). However, only anti-social control fish showed a significant change in the ventral area (Figure 2B and D: C (-S) vs C (nsc), vPa p=0.003, Mann-Whitney). The activation of the preoptic area during social behaviour is consistent with previous literature in a number of species (O'Connell and Hofmann, 2011). This area has been shown to express several neuropeptides involved in social behaviour such as arginine/vasotocin and oxytocin (Heinrichs et al., 2009; Herget and Ryu, 2015). It was recently shown that oxytocin does not seem to be responsible for social interaction (Ribeiro et al., 2019) as mutants for oxytocin receptors shows no alteration in social preference, but rather reduced social recognition. Furthermore, injections of oxytocin do not have any effect on shoaling and interaction (Langen et al., 2015). The neuropeptide vasotocin, instead, has been shown to have a specific effect on reducing social interaction (Langen et al., 2015) and not shoaling behaviour. This neuropeptide has also been shown to be involved in aggression (Teles et al., 2016) and stress by stimulating cortisol release.

We then compared the brain activity maps of anti- and pro-social control fish with fully and partially isolated fish. As described previously, anti-social control (loner) fish showed a behavioural phenotype very similar to anti-social isolated (lonely) fish. Therefore, we investigated whether their brain activity maps were also similar following the presentation of a social cue. Contrary to our hypothesis, c-fos functional maps of anti-social fully isolated fish (Figure 2B: Fi (-S)) revealed a completely different activity profile than their anti-social sibling controls (Figure 2B: C (-S)). The ventral sub-region of the caudal hypothalamus (vHc) of Fi (-S) fish was not inactivated, while the preoptic area was strongly activated in both the dorsal (dPa) and the ventral (vPa) regions, but significantly only in the dorsal (Figure 2B and D: Fi (-S) vs Fi (nsc), p=0.006 dPa; p=0.07 vPa, Mann-Whitney). Furthermore, the pro-social fully isolated fish (Figure 2B: Fi (+S)), who exhibited an increase of freezes and reduced motility compared to control fish when viewing conspecifics, showed a similar activation to pro-social controls in the caudal hypothalamus, but increased activity in the dorsal preoptic area. Interestingly, the preoptic area was activated differently in pro-social and anti-social isolated fish, with only the dorsal preoptic area strongly activated in the pro-social group (Figure 2B and D: Fi (+S) vs Fi, p=0.04 vPa, p=0.002 dPa, Man-Whitney). These data suggest that long social isolation causes abnormal neural responses during viewing of social cues.

Furthermore, anti- and pro-social fish exposed to a brief isolation for only 48 hr prior to testing, showed similar functional activity changes to fully isolated fish, albeit less strong (Figure 2B and D: Pi (-S) vs Pi (nsc), p=0.18 dHc; p=0.28 vHc; p=0.04 vPa; p=0.04 dPa, Mann-Whitney; Figure 2B and D: Pi (+S) vs Pi (nsc), p=0.17 dHc; p=0.05 vHc; p=0.007 vPa; p=0.006 dPa). Together with the behavioural data, this finding supports the idea that short term isolation is enough to induce brain activity changes similar to those observed following complete isolation, and strikingly different than those observed in anti-social controls.

We were next interested in understanding why social isolation promotes social aversion instead of increasing the drive for social interaction. An important clue was found in the pattern of brain activity changes that were unique to isolated fish. When we directly compared the normalised c-fos functional brain maps of isolated and control fish that were not exposed to social cues during the assay (Figure 3A), we found a significant increase in two interesting areas; one associated with visual processing, the optic tectum, [McDowell et al., 2004]), and one involved in stress responses, the posterior tuberal nucleus (Ziv et al., 2013).

Figure 3

Download asset Open asset

In pro-social control fish, viewing social cues resulted in a significant increase of neuronal activity in the optic tectum (Figure 3B top: C (+S) vs C (nsc), p=0.004 Mann-Whitney). However, in fully isolated fish, there was already increased neuronal activity in the optic tectum in the absence of social cues (Figure 3B top: Fi (nsc) vs C (nsc), p=0.0004, Mann-Whitney), suggesting that isolation increases visual sensitivity, as previously reported in humans (Cacioppo et al., 2015). This increased sensitivity of fully isolated fish not presented with social cues was weaker in partially isolated fish (Figure 3B top: Pi (nsc) vs C (nsc), p=0.03, Mann-Whitney). However, a much larger increase in tectal activity was observed when pro-social partially isolated fish viewed conspecifics, revealing that some visual sensitization had occurred (Figure 3B top: Pi (+S) vs C (+S), p=0.0002, Mann-Whitney). In addition, increased tectal activity was also present in both fully and partially isolated anti-social fish (Figure 3B top: Fi (-S) vs C (-S), p=0.048; Pi (-S) vs C (-S), p=0.005, Mann-Whitney), even though these fish largely avoided the chamber with visual access to conspecifics.

We also observed isolation-related activity increases in the posterior tuberal nucleus, an area associated with stress responses in zebrafish (Wee et al., 2019; Ziv et al., 2013). Full isolation caused a significant increase in posterior tuberal nucleus activity in the absence of social cues (Figure 3B bottom: Fi (nsc) vs C (nsc), p=0.015, Mann-Whitney) and in both anti-social and pro-social fish exposed to social cues (Figure 3B bottom: Fi (+S) vs C (+S), p=0.003; Fi (-S) vs C (-S), p=0.016, Mann-Whitney). Following partial isolation, posterior tuberal nucleus activity was not increased in the absence of social cues (Figure 3B bottom: Pi (nsc) vs C (nsc), p=0.29, Mann-Whitney), only slightly in pro-social fish (Figure 3B bottom: Pi (+S) vs C (+S), p=0.018), but significantly so in anti-social fish (Figure 3B bottom: Pi (-S) vs C (-S), p=0.0005).

Given these results from the optic tectum and posterior tuberal nucleus, we propose that isolation initially heightens sensitivity to social stimuli. However, when prolonged, this heightened sensitivity results in an increase of stress and anxiety levels during social viewing that leads to an aversion for social stimuli.

To test our hypothesis that reducing anxiety could reverse the anti-social behaviour observed in isolated zebrafish, we acutely treated control and partially isolated fish with Buspirone, an agonist of the auto-inhibitory 5HT_1A receptor. The choice of isolation duration was motivated by the intermediate behavioural and functional phenotype of partial isolation relative to normal-rearing and full isolation, which would allow us to more easily detect both positive and negative impacts of treatment on sociality. The choice of Buspirone was supported by the changes in activity observed in the caudal hypothalamus of isolated fish, and by the fact that the caudal hypothalamus and the preoptic area strongly express Htr1ab receptors, one of the two orthologues of the 5HT_1A receptor (Norton et al., 2008). Buspirone has been shown to reduce anxiety in humans, mice, and zebrafish (Bencan et al., 2009; Lalonde and Strazielle, 2010; Lau et al., 2011; Patel and Hillard, 2006). While it is not fully understood how Buspirone reduces anxiety, it has been shown to enhance social interaction of rats (File and Seth, 2003; Gould et al., 2011), sociability of zebrafish (Barba-Escobedo and Gould, 2012), and reduce social phobia in humans (Schneier et al., 1993; van Vliet et al., 1997). Its ability to counter the effects of social isolation in zebrafish has not been investigated.

We first tested the effects of acute exposure to Buspirone in control fish, and, as expected, we observed a small significant increase in social preference relative to untreated controls, however, a population of ~10% anti-social fish remained (Figure 4—figure supplement 1; C (no drug) vs C (30 µM), p=0.01, Mann-Whitney). We then treated partially isolated fish with 30 µM and 50 µM (Figure 4—figure supplement 1, n = 46, n = 72 fish) of Buspirone. Remarkably, the acute drug treatment was sufficient in both concentrations to reverse the anti-social phenotype caused by isolation (Figure 4A; Pi vs Pi (Buspirone 30 µM and 50 µM combined), p=2.56 e-05, Mann-Whitney).

Figure 4 with 1 supplement see all

Download asset Open asset

When we then compared the time course of this phenotype reversal by computing the VPIs for each minute throughout the 15 min of the behavioural experiment (Figure 4B). We found that the isolated fish treated with Buspirone, while initially anti-social, would rapidly recover normal social preference behaviour within the first 5 min of exposure to social cues (Figure 4B: C vs Pi (Buspirone), p=0.016, first minute; p=0.37, fourth minute, Mann-Whitney). In contrast, the VPIs of untreated isolated fish remained significantly lower than controls throughout the entire session. We next compared the time course of movement activity (Figure 4C), and found that it generally increased quickly throughout the first 5 min of the social viewing session. Notably, the activity of isolated fish treated with Buspirone was already at the level of controls from the start of the social viewing session (Figure 4B: C vs Pi (Buspirone), p=0.31, first minute, Mann-Whitney), which suggests that the recovery of normal movement activity, possibly as a result of reduced anxiety, precedes the recovery of normal social preference. Therefore, Buspirone’s impact on the rate of recovery of social preference indicates that it may do so by reducing anxiety, perhaps at the level of the preoptic and/or caudal hypothalamic area, allowing circuit plasticity to down-regulate the hypersensitivity to social stimuli acquired during the isolation period.

In summary, our results demonstrate that lonely fish, which have been isolated from social cues and show anti-social behaviour, have a completely different functional response to social stimuli than loner fish, anti-social fish found in the normal population. In addition, the functional changes caused by social deprivation are consistent with an increase in anxiety resulting from hyper-sensitization to social stimuli, similar to the effects of isolation on humans. We could reverse isolation’s effects in zebrafish with an existing anxiolytic drug that acts on the monoaminergic system. Zebrafish will thus provide a powerful new tool for studying the impact of loneliness (isolation) on brain function and exploring different strategies for reducing, or even reversing, its harm.

All the images, video, protocols, analysis scripts, and data that support the findings of this study are available on our website (www.dreo-sci.com/resources) and GitHub repository (https://github/Dreosti-Lab/Social_Zebrafish), or from the corresponding author upon request.

1. 1. Backström T
   2. Winberg S

   (2017) Serotonin coordinates responses to social Stress-What we can learn from fish

   Frontiers in Neuroscience 11:595.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00595

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
2. 1. Barba-Escobedo PA
   2. Gould GG

   (2012) Visual social preferences of lone zebrafish in a novel environment: strain and anxiolytic effects

   Genes, Brain and Behavior 11:366–373.

   https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-183X.2012.00770.x

   • Google Scholar
3. 1. Bencan Z
   2. Sledge D
   3. Levin ED

   (2009) Buspirone, chlordiazepoxide and diazepam effects in a zebrafish model of anxiety

   Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior 94:75–80.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2009.07.009

   • Google Scholar
4. 1. Brend T
   2. Holley SA

   (2009) Zebrafish whole mount High-Resolution double fluorescent in situ hybridization

   Journal of Visualized Experiments 25:29.

   https://doi.org/10.3791/1229

   • Google Scholar
5. 1. Cacioppo JT
   2. Cacioppo S
   3. Capitanio JP
   4. Cole SW

   (2015) The neuroendocrinology of social isolation

   Annual Review of Psychology 66:733–767.

   https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015240

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
6. 1. Dreosti E
   2. Lopes G
   3. Kampff AR
   4. Wilson SW

   (2015) Development of social behavior in young zebrafish

   Frontiers in Neural Circuits 9:39.

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fncir.2015.00039

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
7. Software

   1. Dreosti E

   (2020) Analysis code used in Tunbak et al. 2020, version d80c2f4

   GitHub.

   https://github.com/Dreosti-Lab/Lonely_Fish_2020
8. 1. Egan RJ
   2. Bergner CL
   3. Hart PC
   4. Cachat JM
   5. Canavello PR
   6. Elegante MF
   7. Elkhayat SI
   8. Bartels BK
   9. Tien AK
   10. Tien DH
   11. Mohnot S
   12. Beeson E
   13. Glasgow E
   14. Amri H
   15. Zukowska Z
   16. Kalueff AV

   (2009) Understanding behavioral and physiological phenotypes of stress and anxiety in zebrafish

   Behavioural Brain Research 205:38–44.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2009.06.022

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
9. 1. Engeszer RE
   2. Ryan MJ
   3. Parichy DM

   (2004) Learned social preference in zebrafish

   Current Biology 14:881–884.

   https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2004.04.042

   • PubMed
   • Google Scholar
10. 1. File SE
    2. Seth P

    (2003) A review of 25 years of the social interaction test

    European Journal of Pharmacology 463:35–53.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-2999(03)01273-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
11. 1. Filippi A
    2. Mahler J
    3. Schweitzer J
    4. Driever W

    (2010) Expression of the paralogous tyrosine hydroxylase encoding genes th1 and th2 reveals the full complement of dopaminergic and noradrenergic neurons in zebrafish larval and juvenile brain

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 518:423–438.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22213

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
12. 1. Giacomini AC
    2. de Abreu MS
    3. Koakoski G
    4. Idalêncio R
    5. Kalichak F
    6. Oliveira TA
    7. da Rosa JG
    8. Gusso D
    9. Piato AL
    10. Barcellos LJ

    (2015) My stress, our stress: blunted cortisol response to stress in isolated housed zebrafish

    Physiology & Behavior 139:182–187.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.11.035

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
13. 1. Gould GG
    2. Hensler JG
    3. Burke TF
    4. Benno RH
    5. Onaivi ES
    6. Daws LC

    (2011) Density and function of central serotonin (5-HT) transporters, 5-HT1A and 5-HT2A receptors, and effects of their targeting on BTBR T+tf/J mouse social behavior

    Journal of Neurochemistry 116:291–303.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.07104.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
14. 1. Heinrichs M
    2. von Dawans B
    3. Domes G

    (2009) Oxytocin, vasopressin, and human social behavior

    Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 30:548–557.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2009.05.005

    • Google Scholar
15. 1. Herget U
    2. Ryu S

    (2015) Coexpression analysis of nine neuropeptides in the neurosecretory preoptic area of larval zebrafish

    Frontiers in Neuroanatomy 9:2.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2015.00002

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
16. 1. Herrera DG
    2. Robertson HA

    (1996) Activation of c-fos in the brain

    Progress in Neurobiology 50:83–107.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-0082(96)00021-4

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
17. 1. Huang C-C
    2. Lu R-B
    3. Yen C-H
    4. Yeh Y-W
    5. Chou H-W
    6. Kuo S-C
    7. Chen C-Y
    8. Chang C-C
    9. Chang H-A
    10. Ho P-S
    11. Liang C-S
    12. Cheng S
    13. Shih M-C
    14. Huang S-Y

    (2015) Dopamine transporter gene may be associated with bipolar disorder and its personality traits

    European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience 265:281–290.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-014-0570-0

    • Google Scholar
18. 1. Kaslin J
    2. Panula P

    (2001) Comparative anatomy of the histaminergic and other aminergic systems in zebrafish (Danio rerio)

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 440:342–377.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.1390

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
19. 1. Lalonde R
    2. Strazielle C

    (2010) Relations between open-field, elevated plus-maze, and emergence tests in C57BL/6J and BALB/c mice injected with GABA- and 5HT-anxiolytic agents

    Fundamental & Clinical Pharmacology 24:365–376.

    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1472-8206.2009.00772.x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
20. 1. Langen EMA
    2. Lindeyer CM
    3. Reader SM
    4. Swaney WT

    (2015) Nonapeptide influences on social behaviour: effects of vasotocin and isotocin on shoaling and interaction in zebrafish

    Behaviour 152:897–915.

    https://doi.org/10.1163/1568539X-00003261

    • Google Scholar
21. 1. Lau BY
    2. Mathur P
    3. Gould GG
    4. Guo S

    (2011) Identification of a brain center whose activity discriminates a choice behavior in zebrafish

    PNAS 108:2581–2586.

    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1018275108

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
22. 1. Lillesaar C

    (2011) The serotonergic system in fish

    Journal of Chemical Neuroanatomy 41:294–308.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jchemneu.2011.05.009

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
23. 1. Marquart GD
    2. Tabor KM
    3. Horstick EJ
    4. Brown M
    5. Geoca AK
    6. Polys NF
    7. Nogare DD
    8. Burgess HA

    (2017) High-precision registration between zebrafish brain atlases using symmetric diffeomorphic normalization

    GigaScience 6:1–15.

    https://doi.org/10.1093/gigascience/gix056

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
24. 1. McDowell AL
    2. Dixon LJ
    3. Houchins JD
    4. Bilotta J

    (2004) Visual processing of the zebrafish optic tectum before and after optic nerve damage

    Visual Neuroscience 21:97–106.

    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0952523804043019

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
25. 1. Norton WH
    2. Folchert A
    3. Bally-Cuif L

    (2008) Comparative analysis of serotonin receptor (HTR1A/HTR1B families) and transporter (slc6a4a/b) gene expression in the zebrafish brain

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 511:521–542.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.21831

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
26. 1. O'Connell LA
    2. Hofmann HA

    (2011) The vertebrate mesolimbic reward system and social behavior network: a comparative synthesis

    The Journal of Comparative Neurology 519:3599–3639.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/cne.22735

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
27. 1. Patel S
    2. Hillard CJ

    (2006) Pharmacological evaluation of cannabinoid receptor ligands in a mouse model of anxiety: further evidence for an anxiolytic role for endogenous cannabinoid signaling

    Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 318:304–311.

    https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.106.101287

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
28. 1. Ribeiro J
    2. Davids K
    3. Araújo D
    4. Guilherme J
    5. Silva P
    6. Garganta J

    (2019) Exploiting Bi-Directional Self-Organizing tendencies in team sports: the role of the game model and tactical principles of play

    Frontiers in Psychology 10:213.

    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02213

    • Google Scholar
29. 1. Rogers-Carter MM
    2. Varela JA
    3. Gribbons KB
    4. Pierce AF
    5. McGoey MT
    6. Ritchey M
    7. Christianson JP

    (2018) Insular cortex mediates approach and avoidance responses to social affective stimuli

    Nature Neuroscience 21:404–414.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-018-0071-y

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
30. 1. Saif M
    2. Chatterjee D
    3. Buske C
    4. Gerlai R

    (2013) Sight of conspecific images induces changes in neurochemistry in zebrafish

    Behavioural Brain Research 243:294–299.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.01.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
31. 1. Scerbina T
    2. Chatterjee D
    3. Gerlai R

    (2012) Dopamine receptor antagonism disrupts social preference in zebrafish: a strain comparison study

    Amino Acids 43:2059–2072.

    https://doi.org/10.1007/s00726-012-1284-0

    • Google Scholar
32. 1. Schneier FR
    2. Saoud JB
    3. Campeas R
    4. Fallon BA
    5. Hollander E
    6. Coplan J
    7. Liebowitz MR

    (1993) Buspirone in social phobia

    Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 13:251???256–256.

    https://doi.org/10.1097/00004714-199308000-00004

    • Google Scholar
33. 1. Shams S
    2. Chatterjee D
    3. Gerlai R

    (2015) Chronic social isolation affects thigmotaxis and whole-brain serotonin levels in adult zebrafish

    Behavioural Brain Research 292:283–287.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2015.05.061

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
34. 1. Shams S
    2. Seguin D
    3. Facciol A
    4. Chatterjee D
    5. Gerlai R

    (2017) Effect of social isolation on anxiety-related behaviors, cortisol, and monoamines in adult zebrafish

    Behavioral Neuroscience 131:492–504.

    https://doi.org/10.1037/bne0000220

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
35. 1. Shams S
    2. Amlani S
    3. Buske C
    4. Chatterjee D
    5. Gerlai R

    (2018) Developmental social isolation affects adult behavior, social interaction, and dopamine metabolite levels in zebrafish

    Developmental Psychobiology 60:43–56.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/dev.21581

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
36. 1. Sloan Wilson D
    2. Clark AB
    3. Coleman K
    4. Dearstyne T

    (1994) Shyness and boldness in humans and other animals

    Trends in Ecology & Evolution 9:442–446.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(94)90134-1

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
37. 1. Teles MC
    2. Dahlbom SJ
    3. Winberg S
    4. Oliveira RF

    (2013) Social modulation of brain monoamine levels in zebrafish

    Behavioural Brain Research 253:17–24.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2013.07.012

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
38. 1. Teles MC
    2. Gozdowska M
    3. Kalamarz-Kubiak H
    4. Kulczykowska E
    5. Oliveira RF

    (2016) Agonistic interactions elicit rapid changes in brain nonapeptide levels in zebrafish

    Hormones and Behavior 84:57–63.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2016.05.020

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
39. 1. van Vliet IM
    2. den Boer JA
    3. Westenberg HG
    4. Pian KL

    (1997) Clinical effects of buspirone in social phobia: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

    The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry 58:164–168.

    https://doi.org/10.4088/jcp.v58n0405

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
40. 1. Wee CL
    2. Nikitchenko M
    3. Wang WC
    4. Luks-Morgan SJ
    5. Song E
    6. Gagnon JA
    7. Randlett O
    8. Bianco IH
    9. Lacoste AMB
    10. Glushenkova E
    11. Barrios JP
    12. Schier AF
    13. Kunes S
    14. Engert F
    15. Douglass AD

    (2019) Zebrafish oxytocin neurons drive nocifensive behavior via brainstem premotor targets

    Nature Neuroscience 22:1477–1492.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/s41593-019-0452-x

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
41. 1. Winslow JT

    (2003) Mouse social recognition and preference

    Current Protocols in Neuroscience 22:8.16.1–8.16.8.

    https://doi.org/10.1002/0471142301.ns0816s22

    • Google Scholar
42. 1. Yamamoto K
    2. Ruuskanen JO
    3. Wullimann MF
    4. Vernier P

    (2010) Two tyrosine hydroxylase genes in vertebrates new dopaminergic territories revealed in the zebrafish brain

    Molecular and Cellular Neurosciences 43:394–402.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcn.2010.01.006

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar
43. 1. Zellner D
    2. Padnos B
    3. Hunter DL
    4. MacPhail RC
    5. Padilla S

    (2011) Rearing conditions differentially affect the locomotor behavior of larval zebrafish, but not their response to valproate-induced developmental neurotoxicity

    Neurotoxicology and Teratology 33:674–679.

    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ntt.2011.06.007

    • Google Scholar
44. 1. Ziv L
    2. Muto A
    3. Schoonheim PJ
    4. Meijsing SH
    5. Strasser D
    6. Ingraham HA
    7. Schaaf MJ
    8. Yamamoto KR
    9. Baier H

    (2013) An affective disorder in zebrafish with mutation of the glucocorticoid receptor

    Molecular Psychiatry 18:681–691.

    https://doi.org/10.1038/mp.2012.64

    • PubMed
    • Google Scholar

Author details

1. Hande Tunbak

   The Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University Street, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3180-1401

2. Mireya Vazquez-Prada

   The Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University Street, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Data curation

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-7964-7576

3. Thomas Michael Ryan

   The Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University Street, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9469-4135

4. Adam Raymond Kampff

   Sainsbury Wellcome Centre, Howland Street, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Software, Formal analysis, Visualization, Writing - review and editing

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3079-019X

5. Elena Dreosti

   The Wolfson Institute for Biomedical Research, University Street, University College London, London, United Kingdom

   Contribution

   Conceptualization, Resources, Data curation, Software, Formal analysis, Supervision, Funding acquisition, Validation, Investigation, Visualization, Methodology, Writing - original draft, Project administration, Writing - review and editing

   For correspondence

   e.dreosti@ucl.ac.uk

   Competing interests

   No competing interests declared

   "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-6738-7057

• 6,623

  views

• 805

  downloads

• 46

  citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.