Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2024 May 2;19(5):e0300227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300227

Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain dependent changes in bottom dwelling and thigmotaxis

Jacob Hudock 1, Justin W Kenney 1,*
Editor: Manabu Sakakibara2
PMCID: PMC11065237  PMID: 38696419

Abstract

Aging is associated with a wide range of physiological and behavioral changes in many species. Zebrafish, like humans, rodents, and birds, exhibits gradual senescence, and thus may be a useful model organism for identifying evolutionarily conserved mechanisms related to aging. Here, we compared behavior in the novel tank test of young (6-month-old) and middle aged (12-month-old) zebrafish from two strains (TL and TU) and both sexes. We find that this modest age difference results in a reduction in locomotor activity in male fish. We also found that background strain modulated the effects of age on predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety: older female TL fish increased bottom dwelling whereas older male TU fish decreased thigmotaxis. Although there were no consistent effects of age on either short-term (within session) or long-term (next day) habituation to the novel tank, strain affected the habituation response. TL fish tended to increase their distance from the bottom of the tank whereas TU fish had no changes in bottom distance but instead tended to increase thigmotaxis. Our findings support the use of zebrafish for the study of how age affects locomotion and how genetics interacts with age and sex to alter exploratory and emotional behaviors in response to novelty.

Introduction

The challenge of understanding the biological and behavioral effects of age is of central concern in medicine and biology and is facilitated by the comparative study of aging across species [1, 2]. Zebrafish, like humans, display gradual senescence, despite their indeterminate growth [3]. With advancing age, zebrafish have reduced regenerative capacity, accumulation of DNA damage, shortening of telomeres, and cardiovascular impairment [46]. This is in contrast to other species with indeterminate growth, like many reptiles and sea urchins, that tend to age very slowly [7, 8]. The shared consequences of aging in humans and zebrafish, combined with the low cost of housing zebrafish for extended periods, suggests that zebrafish could serve as a valuable model organism in the study of aging.

In humans, many behaviors vary across the lifespan, such as emotional regulation and anxiety [911]. The trajectory of these behaviors is shaped by the complex interplay of environmental factors with genetics and sex [11, 12]. Untangling the web of interactions between age, genetics, and sex, is facilitated by use of model organisms for which many molecular genetic tools are available, like zebrafish. Although there has been a large increase in the study of zebrafish behavior in the past twenty years [13, 14], only a handful of reports have explored age-associated behavioral alterations. These studies have found that older fish have changes in circadian rhythms, decreased associative learning, reduced locomotion, and elevated bottom dwelling [5, 1521]. However, it is unknown if genetics and sex interact with age to affect commonly studied behaviors related to emotional regulation and exploration in zebrafish.

One of the most widely used behavioral tasks to study exploratory and emotional behavior in zebrafish is the novel tank test (NTT). In this test, animals are placed into a tank with which they have no prior experience. Spending time near the bottom or periphery of the tank are typically interpreted as fearful predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety [2226]. Non-associative memory can also be assessed by measuring how behavior habituates within session (short-term memory) or between daily sessions (long-term memory). To determine whether age affects behavior in the NTT, and if the effects of age are modulated by sex and genetics, we examined behavior in young (6 months old) and middle aged (12 months old) fish from two strains (TL and TU) and both sexes. We find that this modest difference in age is sufficient to alter several behaviors such as locomotion and predator avoidance.

Results

The effects of age on bottom dwelling and thigmotaxis

We measured behavior during exploration of a novel tank in young (6 mpf) and old (12 mpf) zebrafish from both sexes and two strains, TLs and TUs. Distance from the bottom of the tank is considered a predator avoidance response that is one of the most widely studied behaviors in zebrafish [24, 27]. This behavior has also been interpreted as ‘anxiety-like’, where spending more time near the bottom of the tank indicates greater anxiety [26]. In TL fish, there was a medium sized effect of age on distance from the bottom of the tank (Fig 1A, top; P = 0.035, η2 = 0.08) where older fish had greater anxiety-like behavior, spending more time near the bottom of the tank. There was no effect of sex (P = 0.36) or an interaction (P = 0.21). Post-hoc tests within sex found the effect of age on bottom dwelling to be present in females (P = 0.033, d = 0.90), but not males (P = 0.51). In TU fish, age did not affect bottom dwelling (Fig 1B, bottom, P = 0.14) and there was no effect of sex (P = 0.23) or an interaction (P = 0.30).

Fig 1.

Fig 1

Behavior during an initial exposure to a novel tank in young (6 mpf) and old (12 mpf) TL (top) and TU (bottom) fish of both sexes. Behaviors assessed were (A) bottom distance, (B) center distance, (C) distance travelled and (D) percent of the tank explored. Boxplot center line is the median, hinges are the interquartile range, and whiskers are hinges ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. *P < 0.05, †P < 0.10 from FDR corrected post-hoc t-tests within sex.

Thigmotaxis (i.e. time spent near the periphery) of a tank is also commonly interpreted as a predator avoidance response in zebrafish, although this interpretation has recently come under question (see discussion section). In TL fish (Fig 1B, top), there were no effects of age (P = 0.68), sex (P = 0.96) or an interaction (P = 0.23) on center distance. However, in TU fish (Fig 1B, bottom), there was a medium-sized effect of age (P = 0.013, η2 = 0.12) where older fish spent more time in the center of the tank than younger fish. There was no effect of sex (P = 0.92) or an interaction (P = 0.12). Post-hoc tests within sex identified that the effect of age on center distance was limited to males, where older males spent more time closer to the center of the tank than young males (P = 0.045, d = 1.13); there was no difference in females (P = 0.44). Taken together with the findings on bottom distance, the effects of age on predator avoidance/anxiety-like behaviors depends on the strain of the fish: older TL fish, especially females, spend more time near the bottom of the tank whereas older TU fish, particularly males, spend more time in the center of the tank.

The effects of age on locomotion and exploration

Aging in zebrafish has been associated with a decrease in activity levels [17]. To determine if this also occurred during the NTT, we measured how far fish travelled during their exposure to the novel tank (Fig 1C). In TL fish, there was a strong trend towards a medium-sized effect of older fish swimming less than younger fish (P = 0.057, η2 = 0.064) with no effect of sex (P = 0.32) or an interaction (P = 0.12). Post-hoc tests indicated a strong trend towards reduced locomotion due to age in males (P = 0.057, d = 0.93), but not females (P = 0.78). In TU fish, there was a medium-sized effect of age (P = 0.044, η2 = 0.077) with older fish also swimming less than younger fish. There was also an effect of sex in TUs (P = 0.022, η2 = 0.10) where males swam further than females; there was no interaction between age and sex (P = 0.17). Post-hoc tests within sex found that young male TU fish swam further than their older counterparts (P = 0.009, d = 1.24) with no effect in females (P = 0.68). Thus, older fish, particularly males, swim less than their younger counterparts, an effect that is largely independent of strain.

To determine if age influences how much of the novel tank fish choose to explore, we measured the percentage of the tank visited by fish (Fig 1D). In TL fish, there was a strong effect of older fish exploring less of the tank than younger fish (P = 0.0052, η2 = 0.14). There was no effect of sex (P = 0.79) or an interaction (P = 0.61). Post-hoc tests indicated that the effect of age is more prominent in female fish (P = 0.029, d = 0.93) than male animals (P = 0.10, d = 0.64). In TU fish, there was no effect of age (P = 0.14) or sex (P = 0.54) on percent explored. There was a trend towards a small interaction (P = 0.10, η2 = 0.055), although post-hoc tests did not uncover any differences. These findings suggest that background strain strongly modulates the influence of age on the willingness to explore a new environment, having a bigger impact on TLs than TUs. This is unlikely to be due entirely to less locomotor activity in older fish because older TU fish swam less than their younger counterparts with no impact on percent explored.

The effects of age on short-term habituation

When exposed to a novel environment many animals, including fish, habituate such that their behaviors change within session [25, 28, 29]. To determine if habituation occurred during exposure to the novel tank, and whether this habituation was affected by age, we looked at how predator avoidance behaviors and locomotion changed between the first two and last two minutes in the novel tank (Fig 2). For changes in bottom distance in TL fish (Fig 2B, top), we found no effects of age (P = 0.40), sex (P = 0.66) or an interaction (P = 0.86). When compared to zero (i.e., no change), we did find a strong effect in older male animals, which increased their bottom distance over time (P = 0.0094, d = 1.1), while younger males and older females had trends towards medium sized increases in bottom distance (P’s = 0.063 & 0.065, d’s = 0.59 & 0.64, respectively) and young females did not change (P = 0.16). The lack of effect in young TL females may reflect the fact that they had high bottom distance from the beginning of the trial (Fig 2A). In TU fish, there were medium size effects of age (P = 0.030, η2 = 0.094) and sex (P = 0.045, η2 = 0.079) with no interaction (P = 0.59): older fish increased bottom dwelling over time (Fig 2B, bottom). When comparing the difference to zero, however, the results were less clear. Older female fish had a trend towards a strong effect of decreasing bottom distance (P = 0.066, d = 0.93) whereas young females (P = 0.84), young males (P = 0.27), and older males (P = 0.84) did not change their bottom dwelling behavior over time.

Fig 2. Behavior across time during exploration of a novel tank in young (6 mpf) and old (12 mpf) TL and TU fish of both sexes.

Fig 2

Behaviors assessed were (A) minute-by-minute bottom distance, (B) difference in bottom distance during the last two minutes compared to the first two minutes, (C) minute-by-minute center distance, (D) difference in center distance during the last two minutes compared to the first two minutes, (E) minute-by-minute distance travelled, (F) difference in distance travelled during the last two minutes compared to the first two minutes. Boxplot center line is the median, hinges are the interquartile range, and whiskers are hinges ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. *P < 0.05, †P < 0.10 compared to zero using one-sample t-tests with FDR corrections.

For change in distance from the center of the tank over time, TL fish did not appear to habituate whereas TU fish increased center distance over time (Fig 2C). In examining the change in center distance between the first two and last two minutes, in TL fish (Fig 2D, top) there were no effects of age (P = 0.40), sex (P = 0.66), or an interaction (P = 0.42). Furthermore, none of the TL fish showed changes in center distance over time (P’s > 0.84). Likewise, in TU fish (Fig 2D, bottom), there were also no effects of age (P = 0.44), sex (P = 0.50) or an interaction (P = 0.99). However, in contrast to the TL fish, in all groups of the TU fish there were large effects of increased center distance over time (P’s < 0.01, d’s > 1).

Locomotor activity has also been found to change during exposure to a novel environment [25, 30]. An initial look at the minute-by-minute data (Fig 2E) suggests that TL and TU fish differ in that TL fish decreased distance travelled over time whereas TU fish increased distance travelled. In TL fish, there were no effects of age (P = 0.29), sex (P = 0.52) or an interaction (P = 0.44) on the change in distance travelled over time (Fig 2F, top). Only older male fish significantly decreased over time (P = 0.024, d = 0.98; all other P’s > 0.15). In TU fish, there was a medium sized effect of age (P = 0.039, η2 = 0.092) on the change in distance travelled (Fig 2F, bottom) such that older fish increased their distance travelled between the beginning and end of the session more than younger fish. There was no effect of sex (P = 0.49) or an interaction (P = 0.73). When comparing distance travelled in the first two minutes to the last two minutes, there were strong effects of increased locomotor activity over time in young female (P = 0.012, d = 0.87), older female (P = 0.012, d = 1.14) and older male fish (P = 0.027, d = 0.89). There was no change in young male fish (P = 0.20).

The effect of age on bottom dwelling and thigmotaxis during a second exposure to the novel tank

We next sought to determine if the effects of age we saw during the initial exposure to the novel tank persisted during a second exposure 24 hours later. For bottom distance in TL fish (Fig 3A, top), there was no longer a main effect of age (P = 0.20). There was also no effect of sex (P = 0.29), but there was a strong trend towards a medium-sized interaction between age and sex (P = 0.055, η2 = 0.069) where older female fish had lower bottom distance than their younger counterparts with the opposite trend in males. Following up the interaction with post-hoc tests within sex indicated a trend towards a large effect in older versus younger TL females (P = 0.088, d = 0.80) and no effect in males (P = 0.58). Thus, the higher anxiety-like behavior in older females weakly persisted from day 1 to day 2 in TL fish. In TU fish, there were no effects of age (P = 0.51) or sex (P = 0.46) on bottom distance on the second day, although there was a trend towards a medium-sized interaction between age and sex (P = 0.081, η2 = 0.067; Fig 3A, bottom) mirroring what was observed in TL fish. However, post-hoc tests within sex found no differences between young and old fish in either females (P = 0.43) or males (P = 0.28).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

Behavior during a second exposure to the tank in young (6 mpf) and old (12 mpf) TL (top) and TU (bottom) fish of both sexes. Behaviors assessed were (A) bottom distance, (B) center distance, (C) distance travelled and (D) percent of the tank explored. Boxplot center line is the median, hinges are the interquartile range, and whiskers are hinges ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. †P < 0.10 from FDR corrected post-hoc t-tests within sex.

In TL fish on day 2, center distance (Fig 3B, top) was not influenced by age (P = 0.92), sex (P = 0.90) nor was there an interaction between age and sex (P = 0.75). In TUs, there was no longer an effect of age on center distance on day 2 (P = 0.13), nor was there an effect of sex (P = 0.76) or an interaction (P = 0.33).

The effects of age on locomotion and exploration during a second exposure to the tank

In TL fish, as on the first day, there was a trend towards a medium-sized effect of age on distance travelled (P = 0.054, η2 = 0.068) where older fish swam less than younger fish. There was no effect of sex (P = 0.34) or an interaction (P = 1; Fig 3C, top), and post-hoc tests within sex were not significant in either females (P = 0.24) or males (P = 0.17). The effects of age on locomotor activity in TU fish also persisted to the second day (Fig 3C, bottom): there was a medium-sized effect of age (P = 0.049, η2 = 0.074) such that older fish swam less than younger fish. There was also a large effect of sex (P = 0.011, η2 = 0.14) with male fish swimming further than female fish. There was no interaction between age and sex (P = 0.64). Post-hoc tests within sex found no effect in female TU fish (P = 0.36), and only a trend in males (P = 0.096, d = 0.84). Overall, the main effects of age on locomotor activity observed on day 2 were largely consistent with what was seen on day 1, suggesting these behavioral differences are particularly stable.

The exploration of an environment may also change upon repeated exposure due to increased familiarity. During the second exposure to the tank, in TL fish, there were trends towards small effects of age (P = 0.10, η2 = 0.046) and sex (P = 0.068, η2 = 0.058) with no interaction (P = 0.16; Fig 3D). Post-hoc tests found that only young female TLs had a trend towards greater exploration than their older counterparts (P = 0.076, d = 0.80) with no effect in males (P = 0.87). On the second day in TU fish, there were no effects of age (P = 0.24), sex (P = 0.81) or an interaction (P = 0.98). Taken together, as we saw on day 1, the influence of age on exploration of the novel tank was more prominent in TLs, albeit with smaller effect sizes than observed on day 1.

The effects of age on long-term habituation

To determine if fish exhibited long-term habituation, we calculated how their behavior changed on day 2 compared to day 1 (Fig 4). In TL fish, we found that all groups of animals increased their bottom distance on the second day (P’s ≤ 0.026, d’s: 0.74–1.23; Fig 4A, top). There were no effects of age (P = 0.88), sex (P = 0.64) or an interaction (P = 0.24) on the change in distance from bottom. In contrast, bottom distance in TU fish did not habituate on the second day (P’s > 0.47; Fig 4A, bottom), and there were no effects of age (P = 0.22), sex (P = 0.43) or an interaction (P = 0.46). This lack of an effect in TUs may represent a ceiling effect as they had higher baseline bottom distance on day 1 (Fig 1A, bottom).

Fig 4.

Fig 4

Change in behavior between the first and second days of exposure to a novel tank in young (6 mpf) and old (12 mpf) TL (top) and TU (bottom) fish of both sexes. Behaviors assessed were changes in (A) bottom distance, (B) center distance, (C) distance travelled and (D) percent of the tank explored. Boxplot center line is the median, hinges are the interquartile range, and whiskers are hinges ± 1.5 times the interquartile range. *P < 0.05, †P < 0.10 from one-sample t-tests compared to zero with FDR corrections.

For long-term habituation of center distance, all groups of TL fish had medians below zero, decreasing their center distance (Fig 4B, top), although only males of both ages approached statistical significance (P’s = 0.084; d’s = 0.64 and 0.66 for young and old males, respectively; females: P’s ≥ 0.13). There were no effects of age (P = 0.59), sex (P = 0.86) or an interaction (P = 0.33) on the change in center distance in TL fish. In contrast, most TU fish increased their center distance on day 2 (Fig 4B, bottom). There were trends towards medium-sized effects in females (P’s = 0.070, d = 0.63 & 0.80 for young and older females, respectively) and older males (P = 0.084, d = 0.67), but not younger males (P = 0.94). There was also a trend towards a medium-sized effect of age on the change in center distance (P = 0.057, η2 = 0.73) such that older animals had a greater increase in center distance than younger animals. There were no effects of sex (P = 0.43) or an interaction (P = 0.28). Post-hoc tests within sex did not uncover any significant differences (female: P = 0.54, male: P = 0.17).

The median locomotor activity in TL fish also trended towards a decrease on the second day (Fig 4C, top), although there was only a significant decrease in young males (P = 0.031, d = 0.77) and a trend in older females (P = 0.058, d = 0.72) with no effect in younger females (P = 0.38) or older males (P = 0.74). When comparing the groups to each other, there were no main effects of age (P = 0.55) or sex (P = 0.73), but there was a trend towards a medium sized interaction of age and sex (P = 0.070, η2 = 0.062) where, compared to their younger counterparts, older female fish decreased, and older male fish increased, locomotor activity from day 1 to day 2. However, follow-up post-hoc tests within sex found no differences in females (P = 0.32) or males (P = 0.28). Like the TLs, young TU males had a trend towards a decrease in locomotor activity on the second day (P = 0.085, d = 0.70) with no change in any other groups (P’s ≥ 0.86; Fig 4C, bottom). The change in locomotion in TUs was not affected by age (P = 0.31) or sex (P = 0.63), and there was no interaction (P = 0.13).

The percentage of the tank explored on the second day changed little in both TL and TU fish (Fig 4D; P’s > 0.24) except for older male TL’s (P = 0.042, d = 0.89). In TL fish there was a trend towards a medium-sized effect of sex on the change in percent explored (P = 0.055, η2 = 0.069) where males, irrespective of age, increased their percent explored compared to females. There were no effects of age (P = 0.12) or an interaction (P = 0.45), and post-hoc tests found no differences within each sex (female: P = 0.55, male: P = 0.21). In TU fish, there was no effect of age (P = 0.58) or sex (P = 0.30). There was a medium-sized interaction (P = 0.047, η2 = 0.87) where young female and older male TUs increased their exploration compared to older females and younger males, however, follow-up post-hoc tests within sex found no differences in females (P = 0.35) or males (P = 0.19).

Discussion

The behavior of an organism arises through an interaction between environmental conditions and biological factors like genetics, sex, and age. Understanding how these factors interact to influence behavior represents a major challenge in behavioral neurobiology that has important implications for improving human health. Here, we found behavioral changes during exploration of a novel tank in zebrafish that differed in age by only six-months (6 mpf versus 12 mpf). The most consistent behavioral change was a decrease in locomotor activity in older male animals. The effects of age on predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety were more complex as they were sensitive to genetic background and prior exposure to the tank. There were no clear effects of aging on either short-term or long-term habituation.

We found that age-related changes in the anxiety-related exploratory behavior of zebrafish are modulated by background strain: older TL fish had increased bottom dwelling (i.e., elevated anxiety-like behavior), whereas older TU fish had a decrease in thigmotaxis (i.e., decreased anxiety-like behavior, but see discussion below on challenges for interpreting thigmotaxis in zebrafish). Our findings with bottom dwelling are consistent with prior work in zebrafish where older animals spent more time near the bottom of a novel tank [15, 16, 19]. The complexity of how genetics interacts with age in anxiety-related behaviors has also been found in other model organisms, such as mice, where age is associated with both increases and decreases in anxiety, depending on the specific measure or test, [31], and genetic background [3234]. These findings in animals mirror some of the complexity observed in humans, where genetic contributions to fear and anxiety vary across anxiety phenotypes [35]. Thus, the present study suggests that zebrafish can be used to model how genetics influences the aging process.

We found that older male TU fish had a decrease in thigmotaxis (i.e., spent more time closer to the center of the tank). Thigmotaxis in zebrafish has typically been interpreted as predator avoidance and thus anxiety-related based on its similarity to behavior in rodents [22, 24, 26]. However, recent findings call this interpretation into question. For example, bottom dwelling is better established as a predator avoidance behavior related to anxiety [24, 26, 27, 36], and when measured concurrently with thigmotaxis, these two parameters do not consistently correlate with each other [37]. Furthermore, several studies have found that animals with high levels of freezing or immobility, another well-defined index of fear and anxiety [26, 38], spend more time in the center of the tank than the periphery [39, 40]. We, and others, have also found thigmotaxis to increase over time in a novel environment in some fish strains (Fig 2C) [22, 37, 41], which is the opposite of what would be expected as animals habituate. Finally, the anxiolytic and anxiogenic effects of drugs often have the expected effects on bottom dwelling without altering thigmotaxis [42, 43]. Thus, the interpretation of thigmotaxis in zebrafish is not straightforward. The present study suggests the interesting possibility that whether thigmotaxis is indicative of predator-avoidance and anxiety may be related to genetic background: TU fish display several changes in thigmotaxis (e.g., short-term habituation [Fig 2C], long-term habituation [Fig 4B], and the effects of age [Fig 1B]) whereas effects in TL fish are largely confined to bottom dwelling. When TL fish do have changes in thigmotaxis (i.e., long-term habituation, Fig 4B) it is reduced instead of increased like it is in TU fish. This idea that genetic background may influence the interpretation of thigmotaxis in zebrafish warrants further study.

The most consistent effect of age we observed was decreased locomotion in older fish, particularly in males. This effect was present in both strains and both days that animals were placed in the tank and is in line with prior work [5, 16, 17, 20]. Indeed, age related decreases in locomotion have been observed in a wide range of species such as fruit flies [4446], mice [31], and humans [4749]. This makes decreased locomotor activity a particularly consistent aging biomarker that can facilitate comparative work [50]. In zebrafish, age-related decreases in locomotor activity are associated with reduced endurance and swim performance, likely due to sarcopenia (i.e., the loss of muscle mass and strength) [5, 51]. In humans, sarcopenia is also thought to be a key driver of age-related reductions in locomotor activity [52, 53]. Given the overlap in the structure and development of skeletal muscle in zebrafish and mammals [51, 54], our findings lend further support to the use of zebrafish, especially males, as a model system for studying the effects of aging on muscle function and performance.

Aging is thought to be caused by the accumulation of damage to cells over time due to many processes such as telomere shortening and cellular senescence [55]. Telomeres are structures found on the end of chromosomes that protect DNA from degradation and tend to shorten over time [56, 57]. Zebrafish, like mammals, suffer from age-related reductions in telomere length that varies across tissue types [58, 59]. Of interest to the present study, age-related telomere shortening occurs in both the brain and muscles of zebrafish [15, 59]. Telomere shortening is thought to be a key driver of cellular senescence [60], a cellular state marked by loss of proliferative potential and functional changes that contribute to tissue dysfunction [61]. It may be the case that the changes in behavior and locomotor activity we observed are driven by telomere shortening in the brain and muscles. Some of the sex differences in aging may also be explained by telomere shortening. Females of many animals (e.g., humans, reptiles and medaka fish), have longer telomeres than males [6264]. In zebrafish, no sex differences in telomere length was observed in the brain or heart [15]. However, given that telomere length varies considerably across tissues [59] and between regions and cell types in the brain [65, 66], it may be the case that that sex differences in telomere length are present in skeletal muscle or vary across brain regions to drive some of the age-related sexual dimorphisms observed in the present study. Unraveling the potential contributions of changes in telomeres to the behavioral effects of aging would be a fruitful area for future research.

We did not observe any clear effects of age on either short-term or long-term habituation memory in our study. This is in contrast to prior work that found older zebrafish had deficits in associative learning [18, 20]. This discrepancy may be due to the use of different ages. Prior work used animals ranging in age from 1 to 3 years of age whereas in the present study animals ranged in age from 6 to 12 months. It may be the case that the age difference needs to be larger to see changes in learning. Alternatively, it may be that associative learning is more sensitive to the effects of age in zebrafish than the non-associative habituation learning examined in the present study.

As zebrafish grow in prominence as a model organism in behavioral neurobiology [13, 14] it is critical to understand how biological factors influence their behavior. This is essential for not only identifying what aspects of human behavior can be modeled, but also for deciding what age, sex, and strain of animal may be best suited to address a specific question. The findings of the present study, that a 6 month difference in age can result in behavioral changes, suggests zebrafish may prove to be a useful model organism for studying the interplay of sex and genetics with aging.

Methods

Subjects

Animals were female or male TL or TU zebrafish either 6 months post-fertilization (mpf; 24–32 weeks of age) or 12 mpf (52–58 weeks of age). The number of fish per group are as follows with the same number of male and female fish per group: TLs, 6mpf: n’s = 16; TLs, 12mpf: n’s = 12, TU, 6mpf: n’s = 14, TU, 12mpf: n’s = 10. All animals were bred and raised at Wayne State University and were within two generations from fish obtained from the Zebrafish International Resource Center at the University of Oregon. Animals were housed on high density racks using standard conditions (temperature: 27.5 ± 0.5 ⁰C, salinity: 500 ± 10 μS, pH: 7.4 ± 0.2, hardness: 100 mg / L, dissolved oxygen: 97%) and a 14:10 light:dark cycle (lights on at 8:00AM). Water was sourced from the city of Detroit and subject to carbon filtration and water softening prior to reverse osmosis filtration (Evoqua Water Technologies, Troy, MI, USA). Salinity and pH were maintained by the addition of sea salts (Instant Ocean, Blacksburg, VA, USA) and sodium bicarbonate (Aquatic Solutions, Des Moines, IA, USA), respectively. Feeding was twice daily with a dry feed (Gemma 300, Skretting, Westbrook, ME, USA) in the morning and brine shrimp (Artemia salina, Brine Shrimp Direct, Ogden, UT, USA) in the afternoon.

Fish were sexed using three secondary sex characteristics: color, shape, and presence of pectoral fin tubercles in males [67]. After experiments, animals were euthanized via immersion in cold water. All procedures were approved by the Wayne State University Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

Novel tank test

At least one week prior to behavioral testing, fish were dual housed as female/male pairs. Two-liter tanks were divided in half using a transparent barrier and pairs of fish were placed in each section of the tank. One hour prior to testing in the novel tank, fish were removed from the racks and allowed to habituate in the procedure room. Fish were then placed individually into the novel tank for six minutes. Water in the testing tank was changed between animals. Following testing, fish remained in the procedure room for an hour prior to being returned to their racks.

The novel tank test was performed in five-sided tanks (15 ˣ 15 ˣ 15 cm) made from frosted acrylic (TAP Plastics, Stockton, CA, USA) and filled with 2.5 L of fish facility water (to a height of 12 cm). Tanks were open from above and placed in an enclosure of white plasticore to prevent the influence of external stimuli and to diffuse light. Videos were recorded using D435 Intel RealSenseTM depth-sensing cameras (Intel, Santa Clara, CA, USA) connected to Linux workstations. Cameras were mounted 20 cm above the tanks.

Animal tracking and behavior

Color videos were extracted from files generated by the Intel RealSenseTM D435 cameras and five points along the fish were tracked using DeepLabCut [68]. Using custom written Python code, tracking was overlaid with the depth video from the cameras to generate three-dimensional swim traces for each fish. Four behavioral parameters were extracted as previously described [37]: (1) distance of fish from the bottom of the tank was measured by fitting a plane to the tank bottom and calculating the distance between the plane and the fish, (2) center distance was measured by calculating the distance of the fish from an imaginary line down the center of the tank and the fish, (3) distance travelled was calculated using Euclidean distance between points, and (4) percent of the tank explored was calculated by dividing the tank into one thousand equally spaced voxels and determining the proportion of voxels visited. Prior to calculations, swim traces were smoothed using a Savitzky-Golay filter with an order of three and a length of seven frames [69].

Statistical analysis

Analysis was done using R version 4.3.0 [70] and visualized using ggplot2 [71]. Data were analyzed for significance using 2 ˣ 2 (age ˣ sex) ANOVAs as appropriate. Significant effects were followed up with independent samples t-tests within sex and corrected for multiple comparisons using the false discovery rate [72]. When assessing how behavior changed over time, we used one-sample t-tests (μ = 0) and corrected for multiple comparisons as above. Effect sizes are reported as η2 for ANOVAs and Cohen’s d for t-tests and interpreted as small (0.01 < η2 < 0.06; 0.2 < d < 0.5), medium (0.06 ≤ η2 < 0.14; 0.5 ≤ d < 0.8) or large (η2 ≥ 0.14; d ≥ 0.8) based on [73].

Supporting information

S1 Data

(CSV)

pone.0300227.s001.csv (91.2KB, csv)

Data Availability

We have uploaded a CSV file containing all the underlying data as a supplemental file.

Funding Statement

This work was funded by the NIGMS, R35GM142566. The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Arking R. Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles. Oxford University Press, USA; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Austad SN. Comparative Biology of Aging. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2009;64A: 199–201. doi: 10.1093/gerona/gln060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kishi S, Slack BE, Uchiyama J, Zhdanova IV. Zebrafish as a Genetic Model in Biological and Behavioral Gerontology: Where Development Meets Aging in Vertebrates–A Mini-Review. Gerontology. 2009;55: 430–441. doi: 10.1159/000228892 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Carneiro MC, de Castro IP, Ferreira MG. Telomeres in aging and disease: lessons from zebrafish. Disease Models & Mechanisms. 2016;9: 737–748. doi: 10.1242/dmm.025130 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Gilbert MJH, Zerulla TC, Tierney KB. Zebrafish (Danio rerio) as a model for the study of aging and exercise: Physical ability and trainability decrease with age. Experimental Gerontology. 2014;50: 106–113. doi: 10.1016/j.exger.2013.11.013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Sun Y, Fang Y, Xu X, Lu G, Chen Z. Evidence of an Association between Age-Related Functional Modifications and Pathophysiological Changes in Zebrafish Heart. Gerontology. 2014;61: 435–447. doi: 10.1159/000369094 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Bodnar AG. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of negligible senescence: insight from the sea urchin. Invertebrate Reproduction & Development. 2015;59: 23–27. doi: 10.1080/07924259.2014.938195 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hoekstra LA, Schwartz TS, Sparkman AM, Miller DAW, Bronikowski AM. The untapped potential of reptile biodiversity for understanding how and why animals age. Functional Ecology. 2020;34: 38–54. doi: 10.1111/1365-2435.13450 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.John OP, Gross JJ. Healthy and Unhealthy Emotion Regulation: Personality Processes, Individual Differences, and Life Span Development. Journal of Personality. 2004;72: 1301–1334. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2004.00298.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Lenze EJ, Wetherell JL. A lifespan view of anxiety disorders. Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience. 2011;13: 381–399. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2011.13.4/elenze [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Nivard MG, Dolan CV, Kendler KS, Kan K-J, Willemsen G, van Beijsterveldt CEM, et al. Stability in symptoms of anxiety and depression as a function of genotype and environment: a longitudinal twin study from ages 3 to 63 years. Psychological Medicine. 2015;45: 1039–1049. doi: 10.1017/S003329171400213X [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Singh PP, Demmitt BA, Nath RD, Brunet A. The Genetics of Aging: A Vertebrate Perspective. Cell. 2019;177: 200–220. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2019.02.038 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Gerlai R. Zebrafish (Danio rerio): A newcomer with great promise in behavioral neuroscience. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2023;144: 104978. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kenney JW. Associative and nonassociative learning in adult zebrafish. Behavioral and Neural Genetics of Zebrafish. Elsevier; 2020. pp. 187–204. doi: [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Evans JR, Torres-Pérez JV, Miletto Petrazzini ME, Riley R, Brennan CH. Stress reactivity elicits a tissue-specific reduction in telomere length in aging zebrafish (Danio rerio). Sci Rep. 2021;11: 339. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-79615-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Kacprzak V, Patel NA, Riley E, Yu L, Yeh J-RJ, Zhdanova IV. Dopaminergic control of anxiety in young and aged zebrafish. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2017;157: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.01.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Philpott C, Donack CJ, Cousin MA, Pierret C. Reducing the noise in behavioral assays: sex and age in adult zebrafish locomotion. Zebrafish. 2012;9: 191–194. doi: 10.1089/zeb.2012.0764 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Ruhl T, Jonas A, Seidel NI, Prinz N, Albayram O, Bilkei-Gorzo A, et al. Oxidation and Cognitive Impairment in the Aging Zebrafish. Gerontology. 2015;62: 47–57. doi: 10.1159/000433534 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Vasconcelos RO, Gordillo-Martinez F, Ramos A, Lau IH. Effects of Noise Exposure and Ageing on Anxiety and Social Behaviour in Zebrafish. Biology. 2023;12: 1165. doi: 10.3390/biology12091165 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Yu L, Tucci V, Kishi S, Zhdanova IV. Cognitive aging in zebrafish. Miall C, editor. PLoS ONE. 2006;1: e14. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0000014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Zhdanova IV, Yu L, Lopez-Patino M, Shang E, Kishi S, Guelin E. Aging of the circadian system in zebrafish and the effects of melatonin on sleep and cognitive performance. Brain Research Bulletin. 2008;75: 433–441. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2007.10.053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Champagne DL, Hoefnagels CCM, de Kloet RE, Richardson MK. Translating rodent behavioral repertoire to zebrafish (Danio rerio): Relevance for stress research. Behavioural Brain Research. 2010;214: 332–342. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.06.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Gerlai R, Lahav M, Guo S, Rosenthal A. Drinks like a fish: Zebra fish (Danio rerio) as a behavior genetic model to study alcohol effects. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2000;67: 773–782. doi: 10.1016/s0091-3057(00)00422-6 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kalueff AV, Gebhardt M, Stewart AM, Cachat JM, Brimmer M, Chawla JS, et al. Towards a comprehensive catalog of zebrafish behavior 1.0 and beyond. Zebrafish. 2013;10: 70–86. doi: 10.1089/zeb.2012.0861 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Levin ED, Bencan Z, Cerutti DT. Anxiolytic effects of nicotine in zebrafish. Physiology and Behavior. 2007;90: 54–58. doi: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.08.026 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Maximino C, de Brito TM, da Silva Batista AW, Herculano AM, Morato S, Gouveia A. Measuring anxiety in zebrafish: A critical review. Behavioural Brain Research. 2010;214: 157–171. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2010.05.031 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Gerlai R. Zebrafish antipredatory responses: A future for translational research? Behavioural Brain Research. 2010;207: 223–231. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.10.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Rankin CH, Abrams T, Barry RJ, Bhatnagar S, Clayton DF, Colombo J, et al. Habituation revisited: An updated and revised description of the behavioral characteristics of habituation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. 2009;92: 135–138. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2008.09.012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wong K, Elegante M, Bartels B, Elkhayat S, Tien D, Roy S, et al. Analyzing habituation responses to novelty in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Brain Research. 2010;208: 450–457. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Gerlai R, Lee V, Blaser R. Effects of acute and chronic ethanol exposure on the behavior of adult zebrafish (Danio rerio). Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2006;85: 752–761. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2006.11.010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Shoji H, Takao K, Hattori S, Miyakawa T. Age-related changes in behavior in C57BL/6J mice from young adulthood to middle age. Molecular Brain. 2016;9: 11. doi: 10.1186/s13041-016-0191-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Eltokhi A, Kurpiers B, Pitzer C. Behavioral tests assessing neuropsychiatric phenotypes in adolescent mice reveal strain- and sex-specific effects. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 11263. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-67758-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Griebel G, Belzung C, Perrault G, Sanger DJ. Differences in anxiety-related behaviours and in sensitivity to diazepam in inbred and outbred strains of mice. Psychopharmacology. 2000;148: 164–170. doi: 10.1007/s002130050038 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Milner LC, Crabbe JC. Three murine anxiety models: results from multiple inbred strain comparisons. Genes, Brain and Behavior. 2008;7: 496–505. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-183X.2007.00385.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Shimada-Sugimoto M, Otowa T, Hettema JM. Genetics of anxiety disorders: Genetic epidemiological and molecular studies in humans. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences. 2015;69: 388–401. doi: 10.1111/pcn.12291 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Levin ED, Cerutti DT. Behavioral neuroscience of zebrafish. 2nd ed. CRC Press/Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton (FL); 2009. Available: http://europepmc.org/books/NBK5216 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Rajput N, Parikh K, Kenney JW. Beyond bold versus shy: Zebrafish exploratory behavior falls into several behavioral clusters and is influenced by strain and sex. Biology Open. 2022;11: bio059443. doi: 10.1242/bio.059443 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Blaser RE, Chadwick L, McGinnis GC. Behavioral measures of anxiety in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behavioural Brain Research. 2010;208: 56–62. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.11.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wong RY, Perrin F, Oxendine SE, Kezios ZD, Sawyer S, Zhou L, et al. Comparing behavioral responses across multiple assays of stress and anxiety in zebrafish (Danio rerio). Behaviour. 2012;149: 1205–1240. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Ziv L, Muto A, Schoonheim PJ, Meijsing SH, Strasser D, Ingraham HA, et al. An affective disorder in zebrafish with mutation of the glucocorticoid receptor. Mol Psychiatry. 2013;18: 681–691. doi: 10.1038/mp.2012.64 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Shams S, Chatterjee D, Gerlai R. Chronic social isolation affects thigmotaxis and whole-brain serotonin levels in adult zebrafish. Behavioural Brain Research. 2015;292: 283–287. doi: 10.1016/j.bbr.2015.05.061 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Ochocki AJ, Kenney JW. A gelatin-based feed for precise and non-invasive drug delivery to adult zebrafish. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2023;226: jeb245186. doi: 10.1242/jeb.245186 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Rosa LV, Ardais AP, Costa FV, Fontana BD, Quadros VA, Porciúncula LO, et al. Different effects of caffeine on behavioral neurophenotypes of two zebrafish populations. Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior. 2018;165: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.pbb.2017.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Grotewiel MS, Martin I, Bhandari P, Cook-Wiens E. Functional senescence in Drosophila melanogaster. Ageing Research Reviews. 2005;4: 372–397. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2005.04.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Leffelaar D, Grigliatti T. Age-dependent behavior loss in adult Drosophila melanogaster. Developmental Genetics. 1983;4: 211–227. doi: 10.1002/dvg.1020040307 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Overman KE, Choi DM, Leung K, Shaevitz JW, Berman GJ. Measuring the repertoire of age-related behavioral changes in Drosophila melanogaster. PLOS Computational Biology. 2022;18: e1009867. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009867 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Iosa M, Fusco A, Morone G, Paolucci S. Development and Decline of Upright Gait Stability. Frontiers in Aging Neuroscience. 2014;6. Available: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnagi.2014.00014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Moore DH. A study of age group track and field records to relate age and running speed. Nature. 1975;253: 264–265. doi: 10.1038/253264a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Vandervoort AA. Aging of the human neuromuscular system. Muscle & Nerve. 2002;25: 17–25. doi: 10.1002/mus.1215 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Marck A, Berthelot G, Foulonneau V, Marc A, Antero-Jacquemin J, Noirez P, et al. Age-Related Changes in Locomotor Performance Reveal a Similar Pattern for Caenorhabditis elegans, Mus domesticus, Canis familiaris, Equus caballus, and Homo sapiens. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A. 2017;72: 455–463. doi: 10.1093/gerona/glw136 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Daya A, Donaka R, Karasik D. Zebrafish models of sarcopenia. Disease Models & Mechanisms. 2020;13: dmm042689. doi: 10.1242/dmm.042689 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Cruz-Jentoft AJ, Landi F, Schneider SM, Zúñiga C, Arai H, Boirie Y, et al. Prevalence of and interventions for sarcopenia in ageing adults: a systematic review. Report of the International Sarcopenia Initiative (EWGSOP and IWGS). Age and Ageing. 2014;43: 748–759. doi: 10.1093/ageing/afu115 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Doherty TJ. Invited Review: Aging and sarcopenia. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2003;95: 1717–1727. doi: 10.1152/japplphysiol.00347.2003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Keenan SR, Currie PD. The Developmental Phases of Zebrafish Myogenesis. Journal of Developmental Biology. 2019;7: 12. doi: 10.3390/jdb7020012 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.López-Otín C, Blasco MA, Partridge L, Serrano M, Kroemer G. The Hallmarks of Aging. Cell. 2013;153: 1194–1217. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013.05.039 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Blackburn EH. Structure and function of telomeres. Nature. 1991;350: 569–573. doi: 10.1038/350569a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Chakravarti D, LaBella KA, DePinho RA. Telomeres: history, health, and hallmarks of aging. Cell. 2021;184: 306–322. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.12.028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Anchelin M, Murcia L, Alcaraz-Pérez F, García-Navarro EM, Cayuela ML. Behaviour of Telomere and Telomerase during Aging and Regeneration in Zebrafish. PLOS ONE. 2011;6: e16955. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0016955 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Carneiro MC, Henriques CM, Nabais J, Ferreira T, Carvalho T, Ferreira MG. Short Telomeres in Key Tissues Initiate Local and Systemic Aging in Zebrafish. PLOS Genetics. 2016;12: e1005798. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005798 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Victorelli S, Passos JF. Telomeres and Cell Senescence—Size Matters Not. eBioMedicine. 2017;21: 14–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2017.03.027 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Acosta JC, Banito A, Wuestefeld T, Georgilis A, Janich P, Morton JP, et al. A complex secretory program orchestrated by the inflammasome controls paracrine senescence. Nat Cell Biol. 2013;15: 978–990. doi: 10.1038/ncb2784 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.Gopalakrishnan S, Cheung NK, Yip BW, Au DW. Medaka fish exhibits longevity gender gap, a natural drop in estrogen and telomere shortening during aging: a unique model for studying sex-dependent longevity. Frontiers in Zoology. 2013;10: 78. doi: 10.1186/1742-9994-10-78 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 63.Lansdorp PM. Sex differences in telomere length, lifespan, and embryonic dyskerin levels. Aging Cell. 2022;21: e13614. doi: 10.1111/acel.13614 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Rollings N, Friesen CR, Whittington CM, Johansson R, Shine R, Olsson M. Sex- And tissue-specific differences in telomere length in a reptile. Ecology and Evolution. 2019;9: 6211–6219. doi: 10.1002/ece3.5164 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Mamdani F, Rollins B, Morgan L, Myers RM, Barchas JD, Schatzberg AF, et al. Variable telomere length across post-mortem human brain regions and specific reduction in the hippocampus of major depressive disorder. Transl Psychiatry. 2015;5: e636–e636. doi: 10.1038/tp.2015.134 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Tomita K, Aida J, Izumiyama-Shimomura N, Nakamura K, Ishikawa N, Matsuda Y, et al. Changes in telomere length with aging in human neurons and glial cells revealed by quantitative fluorescence in situ hybridization analysis. Geriatrics & Gerontology International. 2018;18: 1507–1512. doi: 10.1111/ggi.13500 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.McMillan StephanieC, Géraudie J, Akimenko M-A. Pectoral Fin Breeding Tubercle Clusters: A Method to Determine Zebrafish Sex. Zebrafish. 2015;12: 121–123. doi: 10.1089/zeb.2014.1060 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Mathis A, Mamidanna P, Cury KM, Abe T, Murthy VN, Mathis MW, et al. DeepLabCut: markerless pose estimation of user-defined body parts with deep learning. Nature Neuroscience. 2018;21: 1281–1289. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0209-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Press WH, Teukolsky SA. Savitzky-Golay smoothing filters. Computers in Physics. 1990;4: 669–672. [Google Scholar]
  • 70.R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. 2016;1: 409. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-74686-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Wickham H. Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis. Media. Springer; 2015. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B (Methodological). 1995;57: 289–300. doi: 10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge; 1988. doi: 10.4324/9780203771587 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Manabu Sakakibara

2 Jan 2024

PONE-D-23-37201Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain-dependent changes in predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety.PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kenney,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Two experts in the field have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled, "Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain-dependent changes in predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety." Their comments are appended below.

The first reviewer acknowledged the manuscript is fairly well written, however, the second one points out several serious critiques which preclude its acceptance as it stands. This Academic Editor strongly suggests that the authors would rewrite according to the comments and looks forwards to receiving the necessary replies to each concerns and the revised manuscript.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 16 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Manabu Sakakibara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please update your submission to use the PLOS LaTeX template. The template and more information on our requirements for LaTeX submissions can be found at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/latex.

3. Did you know that depositing data in a repository is associated with up to a 25% citation advantage (https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0230416)? If you’ve not already done so, consider depositing your raw data in a repository to ensure your work is read, appreciated and cited by the largest possible audience. You’ll also earn an Accessible Data icon on your published paper if you deposit your data in any participating repository (https://plos.org/open-science/open-data/#accessible-data).

4. To comply with PLOS ONE submissions requirements, in your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the experiments involving animals and ensure you have included details on methods of euthanasia.

5. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

NIGMS R35GM142566

  

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

6. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

This work was funded by the National Institutes of Health (R35GM142566) to J.W.K

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

NIGMS R35GM142566

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This paper presents a highly intriguing study and unveils some fascinating findings. The authors investigated on zebrafish behaviors in the novel tank test, with a specific focus on the impact of age and fish strain. The results revealed that even slight differences in age lead to reduced locomotor activity, while strain-dependent variations were observed in predator avoidance behaviors associated with anxiety. Older TL fish exhibited increased bottom dwelling tendencies, whereas older TU fish displayed decreased thigmotaxis. Overall, this paper was well organized and written. I have only several minor comments as below.

1. I am uncertain about PLOS ONE's specific requirements regarding manuscript line numbers. However, it is common for journals to request authors to include line numbers in their submissions as this can aid the review process.

2. The sentences, such as "The distance from the bottom of the tank is considered a predator avoidance response, which has been extensively investigated in zebrafish (Gerlai, 2010; Kalueff et al., 2013)," and "This behavior has also been interpreted as 'anxiety-like,' where spending more time near the bottom of the tank indicates higher levels of anxiety (Maximino et al., 2010) (page 4, first paragraph in the results section)," were not actually presented as interpretations of the results. Therefore, I would suggest that these sentences be included in the discussion section.

3. “Thigmotaxis (i.e. time spent near the periphery) of a tank is also commonly interpreted as a predator avoidance response in zebrafish, although this interpretation has recently come under question”. What is the problem with use of thigmotaxis as an indicator for predator avoidance response? It is necessary to clarify why this approach is still employed in this study despite its questionable reliability.

Reviewer #2: Behavioral changes induced by aging is an interesting topic, and the specific associations remain unexplored. It is essential that the authors systematically assessed a wide range of behavioral changes in zebrafish of different strains, sexes, and ages, by using zebrafish as a model organism. However, in my opinion, this work lacks a deep investigation of the molecular mechanisms involved. Therefore, I suggest that this manuscript needs major revisions before it can be accepted for publication. Specific comments follow:

1. Continuous line numbers in manuscripts are necessary.

2. Abstract. The fact that the zebrafish may be a useful model organism does not seem to be attributable to the fact that, like humans, it also ages, so please rewrite.

3. Please add the information on behavioral changes in zebrafish of different sexes in the Abstract.

4. The significance labeling in all the figures is not explicit enough, please replace the significance labeling with a clearer one.

5. In general, the authors only compare phenotypic behavioral differences between zebrafish of different ages, sexes, and strains, and I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms involved.

6. Neurobehavioral changes are a hot topic today, but the publications cited throughout the manuscript are too old, so please update the citations.

7. Information on the level of dissolved oxygen and hardness in water is necessary.

8. The author mentions that the sex of the fish is finally determined on the basis of the presence or absence of eggs after dissection, which in my opinion is misleading to the reader. Please delete it.

9. The authors are requested to provide a detailed description of how each behavioral indicator is assessed.

10. The authors should provide details on the origin of the water used for the behavioral tests, as changes in water quality can seriously affect the locomotor behavior of zebrafish.

11. Overall, this work systematically evaluates behavioral indicators in zebrafish of different strains, sexes, and ages. However, so far, it seems to me that this work does not highlight the need for zebrafish as a test subject. In other words, zebrafish are widely used by scholars because of their well-defined and highly homologous genome and conserved disease signaling pathways, but this work does not explore in depth the molecular mechanisms involved in the behavioral changes. I think this section will be of interest to future readers.

12. The discussion section lacks depth, it is more of a summary of the published paper, please rewrite.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2024 May 2;19(5):e0300227. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300227.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


12 Feb 2024

Dear Dr. Manabu Sakakibara,

Thank you for taking the time to serve as editor for our recently submitted manuscript, “Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain-dependent changes in predator avoidance behaviors related to anxiety” at PLoS One. We were pleased to learn that the reviewers found our work “highly intriguing”, “well organized”, and an “interesting topic”.

Below, we have described how we addressed reviewer comments. Comments are in bold with our responses in italics. In the modified manuscript file, changes made are in red. I would also like to note that we made a modest change to the title of the manuscript so that it is more descriptive. It is now:

“Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain-dependent changes in bottom dwelling and thigmotaxis.”

Reviewer #1

I am uncertain about PLOS ONE's specific requirements regarding manuscript line numbers. However, it is common for journals to request authors to include line numbers in their submissions as this can aid the review process.

We apologize for the oversight of not including line numbers. They have now been included.

The sentences, such as “The distance from the bottom of the tank is considered a predator avoidance response, which has been extensively investigated in zebrafish (Gerlai, 2010; Kalueff et al., 2013),” and “This behavior has also been interpreted as ‘anxiety-like,’ where spending more time near the bottom of the tank indicates higher levels of anxiety (Maximino et al., 2010) (page 4, first paragraph in the results section),” were not actually presented as interpretations of the results. Therefore, I would suggest that these sentences be included in the discussion section.

We discuss the interpretation of our data in the context of anxiety in the second paragraph of the discussion (lines 309-322).

“Thigmotaxis (i.e. time spent near the periphery) of a tank is also commonly interpreted as a predator avoidance response in zebrafish, although this interpretation has recently come under question”. What is the problem with use of thigmotaxis as an indicator for predator avoidance response? It is necessary to clarify why this approach is still employed in this study despite its questionable reliability.

We expand on this point in more depth in the discussion (lines 323-345). After this sentence, we have now added a parenthetical reference to the discussion (line 127).

Briefly, in the third paragraph of the discussion we lay out the challenges with the interpretation of thigmotaxis. The issue is that thigmotaxis does not correlate well with other more well-established markers of predator avoidance or anxiety (e.g., freezing or bottom dwelling). Thigmotaxis also does not change within session as would be expected of an anxiety-like/predator avoidance behavior (and how bottom dwelling often does). At the end of the paragraph, we also discuss a novel interpretation of the thigmotaxis data, i.e., that genetic background, perhaps through the natural history of the strain, may mean that some strains of fish express predator avoidance through thigmotaxis, but others do not (lines 339-345).

Reviewer #2

Continuous line numbers in manuscripts are necessary.

This has now been included. We apologize for the oversight.

Abstract. The fact that the zebrafish may be a useful model organism does not seem to be attributable to the fact that, like humans, it also ages, so please rewrite.

The abstract indicates that zebrafish may be a useful model for human aging because they age gradually, not simply because they age. This contrasts with the very slow to negligible aging in other animals of indeterminate growth (e.g. many reptiles and sea urchins). To make this point more prominent, we have added a couple of lines to the beginning of the introduction (lines 57-59).

Please add the information on behavioral changes in zebrafish of different sexes in the Abstract.

This has now been included in the abstract

The significance labeling in all the figures is not explicit enough, please replace the significance labeling with a clearer one.

We agree with the reviewer that the significance labeling for the results of the ANOVAs was not particularly clear. To improve the labelling, we now only refer to the ANOVA results in the text, and the figures only include the results of post-hoc tests within sex that we performed after significant ANOVAs or the one-sample t-tests. We have also updated the text accordingly. We have also updated the conclusions and abstract to match the more refined results of the post-hoc tests. We appreciate the suggestion as it has enhanced the readability and interpretation of the results.

In general, the authors only compare phenotypic behavioral differences between zebrafish of different ages, sexes, and strains, and I'm more interested in the specific mechanisms involved.

Identifying the underlying mechanisms are of interest to us as well. However, we do not have the resources at the moment to do this research. Nonetheless, we believe our behavioral findings are worth reporting as they may spur others to use zebrafish as a model to uncover the molecular mechanisms that underlie the effects of aging on behavior.

Neurobehavioral changes are a hot topic today, but the publications cited throughout the manuscript are too old, so please update the citations.

We have added some updated citations (lines 314-315, 318, 348, 351). Nonetheless, we kept many of the older citations because we believe it is important to give credit to those who first made a discovery.

Information on the level of dissolved oxygen and hardness in water is necessary.

This has now been added to the methods section (lines 429-430).

The author mentions that the sex of the fish is finally determined on the basis of the presence or absence of eggs after dissection, which in my opinion is misleading to the reader. Please delete it.

This line has now been removed.

The authors are requested to provide a detailed description of how each behavioral indicator is assessed.

This has now been included on lines 457-469

The authors should provide details on the origin of the water used for the behavioral tests, as changes in water quality can seriously affect the locomotor behavior of zebrafish.

We have now included this in the methods section (lines 431-434). Briefly, water from the city of Detroit was filtered through a carbon filter and water softener before being reverse osmosis filtered. Sea salts and sodium bicarbonate are then added to the water to maintain the pH and salinity at the desired levels.

Overall, this work systematically evaluates behavioral indicators in zebrafish of different strains, sexes, and ages. However, so far, it seems to me that this work does not highlight the need for zebrafish as a test subject. In other words, zebrafish are widely used by scholars because of their well-defined and highly homologous genome and conserved disease signaling pathways, but this work does not explore in depth the molecular mechanisms involved in the behavioral changes. I think this section will be of interest to future readers.

The discussion section lacks depth, it is more of a summary of the published paper, please rewrite.

In our discussion we try not to speculate too much beyond what our data supports. However, we do offer some novel ideas, such as the discussion on thigmotaxis (lines 323-345) where we suggest that whether thigmotaxis indicates an anxiety-like state in zebrafish may depend on the background strain of the animals. We also suggest that sarcopenia (i.e., muscle loss) may contribute to the changes in locomotor activity we observe (lines 354-362). Nonetheless, we added a paragraph on the potential role that telomere biology may play in the interplay between sex and aging we observed (lines 362-383).

Sincerely,

Justin W. Kenney & Jacob Hudock

Decision Letter 1

Manabu Sakakibara

26 Feb 2024

Aging in zebrafish is associated with reduced locomotor activity and strain dependent changes in bottom dwelling and thigmotaxis

PONE-D-23-37201R1

Dear Dr. Kenney,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Manabu Sakakibara, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: All of the issues I concerned have been well addressed. The manuscript has been improved a lot, and I have no further suggestion.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Manabu Sakakibara

17 Mar 2024

PONE-D-23-37201R1

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kenney,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Manabu Sakakibara

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Data

    (CSV)

    pone.0300227.s001.csv (91.2KB, csv)

    Data Availability Statement

    We have uploaded a CSV file containing all the underlying data as a supplemental file.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES