Abstract: Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor gamma (PPARgamma), a member of the nuclear receptor superfamily, plays a role in adipocyte differentiation, type II diabetes, macrophage response to inflammation and is suggested to influence carcinogen-induced colon cancer. Studies done in vitro and in vivo also revealed that PPARgamma ligands might promote differentiation and/or regression of mammary tumors. To directly evaluate the role of PPARgamma in mammary carcinogenesis, PPARgamma wild-type (+/+) or heterozygous (+/-) mice were administered 1 mg 7,12-dimethylbenz[a]anthracene (DMBA) by gavage once a week for 6 weeks and followed for a total of 25 weeks. Compared with congenic PPARgamma(+/+) littermate controls, PPARgamma(+/-) mice had early evidence for increased susceptibility to DMBA-mediated carcinogenesis based on a 1.6-fold increase in the percentage of mice with skin papillomas, as well as a 1.7-fold increase in the numbers of skin papillomas per mouse (P < 0.05). Similarly, PPARgamma(+/-) mice also had a 1.5-fold decreased survival rate (P = 0.059), and a 1.7-fold increased incidence of total tumors per mouse (P < 0.01). Moreover, PPARgamma(+/-) mice had an almost 3-fold increase in mammary adenocarcinomas (P < 0.05), an over 3-fold increase in ovarian granulosa cell carcinomas (P < 0.05), an over 3-fold increase in malignant tumors (P < 0.02) and a 4.6-fold increase in metastatic incidence. These results are the first to demonstrate an increased susceptibility in vivo of PPARgamma haploinsufficiency to DMBA-mediated carcinogenesis and suggest that PPARgamma may act as a tumor modifier of skin, ovarian and breast cancers. The data also support evidence suggesting a beneficial role for PPARgamma-specific ligands in the chemoprevention of mammary, ovarian and skin carcinogenesis.

Abstract: Psychologists, economists, and advertising moguls have long known that human decision-making is strongly influenced by the behavior of others. A rapidly accumulating body of evidence suggests that the same is true in animals. Individuals can use information arising from cues inadvertently produced by the behavior of other individuals with similar requirements. Many of these cues provide public information about the quality of alternatives. The use of public information is taxonomically widespread and can enhance fitness. Public information can lead to cultural evolution, which we suggest may then affect biological evolution.

Abstract: In 2001, Xitco et al. (Anim Cogn 4:115-123) described spontaneous behaviors in two bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) that resembled pointing and gaze alternation. The dolphins' spontaneous behavior was influenced by the presence of a potential receiver, and the distance between the dolphin and the receiver. The present study adapted the technique of Call and Tomasello [(1994) J Comp Psychol 108:307-317], used with orangutans to test the effect of the receiver's orientation on pointing in these same dolphins. The dolphins directed more points and monitoring behavior at receivers whose orientation was consistent with attending to the dolphins. The results demonstrated that the dolphins' pointing and monitoring behavior, like that of apes and infants, was linked to the attentional behavior of the receiver.

Abstract: Dogs can use a variety of experimenter-given cues such as pointing, head direction, and eye direction to locate food hidden under one of several containers. Some authors have proposed that this is a result of the domestication process. In this study we tested four captive fur seals in a two alternative object choice task in which subjects had to use one of the following experimenter-given cues to locate the food: (1) the experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects, (2) the experimenter pointed at only one of the objects, (3) the experimenter gazed at only one of the objects, (4) the experimenter glanced at only one of the objects, (5) the experimenter pointed and gazed at one of the objects but was sitting closer to one object than to the other, (6) the experimenter pointed only with the index finger at one of the objects, (7) the experimenter presented a replica of one of the objects. The fur seals were able to use cues which involved a fully exposed arm or a head direction, but failed to use glance only, the index finger pointing and the object replica cues. The results showed that a domestication process was not necessary to develop receptive skills to cues given by an experimenter. Instead, we hypothesize that close interactions with humans prior to testing enabled fur seals to uses ome gestural cues without formal training. We also analyzed the behavior of the seals depending on the level of difficulty of the task. Behavioral signs of hesitation increased with task difficulty. This suggests that the fur seals were sensitive to task difficulty.

Abstract: A number of animal species have evolved the cognitive ability to detect when they are being watched by other individuals. Precisely what kind of information they use to make this determination is unknown. There is particular controversy in the case of the great apes because different studies report conflicting results. In experiment 1, we presented chimpanzees, orangutans, and bonobos with a situation in which they had to request food from a human observer who was in one of various attentional states. She either stared at the ape, faced the ape with her eyes closed, sat with her back towards the ape, or left the room. In experiment 2, we systematically crossed the observer's body and face orientation so that the observer could have her body and/or face oriented either towards or away from the subject. Results indicated that apes produced more behaviors when they were being watched. They did this not only on the basis of whether they could see the experimenter as a whole, but they were sensitive to her body and face orientation separately. These results suggest that body and face orientation encode two different types of information. Whereas face orientation encodes the observer's perceptual access, body orientation encodes the observer's disposition to transfer food. In contrast to the results on body and face orientation, only two of the tested subjects responded to the state of the observer's eyes.