Personality testing in dogs has become a controversial topic in the dog community in the last few years. These assessments have been used among owners, shelters, working dog trainers, breeders, and researchers to identify patterns of behavior that may lead to insight about a dog’s personality. Due to inconsistencies in terminology and validity testing, these personality tests have lost a notable amount of credibility. Focusing on questionnaire and behavioral based testing, this literature review aims to evaluate the significance of personality testing within the dog community. Each assessment will be analyzed for measurements and validity, as well as potential drawbacks and benefits. Four prominent personality assessments will be discussed in depth. These assessments include C-BARQ, DPQ, SAFER, and VIDOPET. I advocate for a mixed assessment model approach and highlight the benefits of expanding personality testing into genetic research.
Domestic dogs have assisted humans for millennia. However, the extent to which these helpful behaviors are prosocially motivated remains unclear. To assess the propensity of pet dogs to spontaneously and actively rescue distressed humans, this study tested whether sixty pet dogs would release their seemingly trapped owners from a large box. To examine the causal mechanisms that shaped this behavior, the readiness of each dog to open the box was tested in three conditions: 1) the owner sat in the box and called for help (“Distress” test), 2) an experimenter placed high-value food rewards in the box (“Food” test), and 3) the owner sat in the box and calmly read aloud (“Reading” test).
Dogs were as likely to release their distressed owner as to retrieve treats from inside the box, indicating that rescuing an owner may be a highly rewarding action for dogs. After accounting for ability, dogs released the owner more often when the owner called for help than when the owner read aloud calmly. In addition, opening latencies decreased with test number in the Distress test but not the Reading test. Thus, rescuing the owner could not be attributed solely to social facilitation, stimulus enhancement, or social contact-seeking behavior.
Dogs displayed more stress behaviors in the Distress test than in the Reading test, and stress scores decreased with test number in the Reading test but not in the Distress test. This evidence of emotional contagion supports the hypothesis that rescuing the distressed owner was an empathetically-motivated prosocial behavior. Success in the Food task and previous (in-home) experience opening objects were both strong predictors of releasing the owner. Thus, prosocial behavior tests for dogs should control for physical ability and previous experience.
Microbes in the gastrointestinal tract are under selective pressure to manipulate host eating behavior to increase their fitness, sometimes at the expense of host fitness. Microbes may do this through two potential strategies: (i) generating cravings for foods that they specialize on or foods that suppress their competitors, or (ii) inducing dysphoria until we eat foods that enhance their fitness. We review several potential mechanisms for microbial control over eating behavior including microbial influence on reward and satiety pathways, production of toxins that alter mood, changes to receptors including taste receptors, and hijacking of the vagus nerve, the neural axis between the gut and the brain. We also review the evidence for alternative explanations for cravings and unhealthy eating behavior. Because microbiota are easily manipulatable by prebiotics, probiotics, antibiotics, fecal transplants, and dietary changes, altering our microbiota offers a tractable approach to otherwise intractable problems of obesity and unhealthy eating.
Background: Healthy individuals on the lower end of the insulin sensitivity spectrum also have a reduced gene expression response to exercise for specific genes. The goal of this study was to determine the relationship between insulin sensitivity and exercise-induced gene expression in an unbiased, global manner.
Methods and Findings: Euglycemic clamps were used to measure insulin sensitivity and muscle biopsies were done at rest and 30 minutes after a single acute exercise bout in 14 healthy participants. Changes in mRNA expression were assessed using microarrays, and miRNA analysis was performed in a subset of 6 of the participants using sequencing techniques. Following exercise, 215 mRNAs were changed at the probe level (Bonferroni-corrected P<0.00000115). Pathway and Gene Ontology analysis showed enrichment in MAP kinase signaling, transcriptional regulation and DNA binding. Changes in several transcription factor mRNAs were correlated with insulin sensitivity, including MYC, r=0.71; SNF1LK, r=0.69; and ATF3, r= 0.61 (5 corrected for false discovery rate). Enrichment in the 5’-UTRs of exercise-responsive genes suggested regulation by common transcription factors, especially EGR1. miRNA species of interest that changed after exercise included miR-378, which is located in an intron of the PPARGC1B gene.
Conclusions: These results indicate that transcription factor gene expression responses to exercise depend highly on insulin sensitivity in healthy people. The overall pattern suggests a coordinated cycle by which exercise and insulin sensitivity regulate gene expression in muscle.