Abstract: Concerning hunting in chimpanzees, cooperation has generally been attributed to the behaviour of two or more individuals acting together to achieve a common goal (Boesch and Boesch, 1989). The common goal is often considered as the concrete result of a common action by two or several individuals. Although this result could be used as a criterion for cooperation, it could also be an outcome due to chance. We suggest that the goal, viewed as a concrete benefit shared by the partners, is not a requisite of cooperation but rather a possible consequence of a common action largely submitted to social constraints. Individuals engaged in a cooperative task in order to solve a problem have to exchange information to adjust to each other's behaviour. However, evidence of communication between partners during simultaneous cooperation is rare. An experiment in which two chimpanzees each had to simultaneously pull a handle to get a fruit was performed. We analysed not only the concrete result of the partners' activity but also what the individuals took into account before pulling a handle. We tried to specify what the chimpanzees learned by means of a series of logical propositions which we were able to confront the experimental results.

Abstract: Lipid-lowering fibrate drugs function as agonists for the nuclear receptor peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor alpha (PPARalpha). Sustained activation of PPARalpha leads to the development of liver tumors in rats and mice. However, humans appear to be resistant to the induction of peroxisome proliferation and the development of liver cancer by fibrate drugs. The molecular basis of this species difference is not known. To examine the mechanism determining species differences in peroxisome proliferator response between mice and humans, a PPARalpha-humanized mouse line was generated in which the human PPARalpha was expressed in liver under control of the tetracycline responsive regulatory system. The PPARalpha-humanized and wild-type mice responded to treatment with the potent PPARalpha ligand Wy-14643 as revealed by induction of genes encoding peroxisomal and mitochondrial fatty acid metabolizing enzymes and resultant decrease of serum triglycerides. However, surprisingly, only the wild-type mice and not the PPARalpha-humanized mice exhibited hepatocellular proliferation as revealed by elevation of cell cycle control genes, increased incorporation of 5-bromo-2'-deoxyuridine into hepatocyte nuclei, and hepatomegaly. These studies establish that following ligand activation, the PPARalpha-mediated pathways controlling lipid metabolism are independent from those controlling the cell proliferation pathways. These findings also suggest that structural differences between human and mouse PPARalpha are responsible for the differential susceptibility to the development of hepatocarcinomas observed after treatment with fibrates. The PPARalpha-humanized mice should serve as models for use in drug development and human risk assessment and to determine the mechanism of hepatocarcinogenesis of peroxisome proliferators.

Abstract: REASONS FOR PERFORMING STUDY: Responses of horses in frightening situations are important for both equine and human safety. Considerable scientific interest has been shown in development of reactivity tests, but little effort has been dedicated to the development of appropriate training methods for reducing fearfulness. OBJECTIVES: To investigate which of 3 different training methods (habituation, desensitisation and counter-conditioning) was most effective in teaching horses to react calmly in a potentially frightening situation. HYPOTHESES: 1) Horses are able to generalise about the test stimulus such that, once familiar with the test stimulus in one situation, it appears less frightening and elicits a reduced response even when the stimulus intensity is increased or the stimulus is presented differently; and 2) alternative methods such as desensitisation and counter-conditioning would be more efficient than a classic habituation approach. METHODS: Twenty-seven naive 2-year-old Danish Warmblood stallions were trained according to 3 different methods, based on classical learning theory: 1) horses (n = 9) were exposed to the full stimulus (a moving, white nylon bag, 1.2 x 0.75 m) in 5 daily training sessions until they met a predefined habituation criterion (habituation); 2) horses (n = 9) were introduced gradually to the stimulus and habituated to each step before the full stimulus was applied (desensitisation); 3) horses (n = 9) were trained to associate the stimulus with a positive reward before being exposed to the full stimulus (counter-conditioning). Each horse received 5 training sessions of 3 min per day. Heart rate and behavioural responses were recorded. RESULTS: Horses trained with the desensitisation method showed fewer flight responses in total and needed fewer training sessions to learn to react calmly to test stimuli. Variations in heart rate persisted even when behavioural responses had ceased. In addition, all horses on the desensitisation method eventually habituated to the test stimulus whereas some horses on the other methods did not. CONCLUSIONS AND POTENTIAL RELEVANCE: Desensitisation appeared to be the most effective training method for horses in frightening situations. Further research is needed in order to investigate the role of positive reinforcement, such as offering food, in the training of horses.

Abstract: Pigeons prefer signals for reinforcement that require greater effort (or time) to obtain over those that require less effort to obtain (T. S. Clement, J. Feltus, D. H. Kaiser, & T. R. Zentall, 2000). Preference was attributed to contrast (or to the relatively greater improvement in conditions) produced by the appearance of the signal when it was preceded by greater effort. In Experiment 1, the authors of the present study demonstrated that the expectation of greater effort was sufficient to produce such a preference (a second-order contrast effect). In Experiments 2 and 3, low versus high probability of reinforcement was substituted for high versus low effort, respectively, with similar results. In Experiment 3, the authors found that the stimulus preference could be attributed to positive contrast (when the discriminative stimuli represented an improvement in the probability of reinforcement) and perhaps also negative contrast (when the discriminative stimuli represented reduction in the probability of reinforcement).