About the SA Blog Network



Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Can You Predict a Monkey’s Social Status by Looking at Its Genes?

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

rhesus macaques in India

(Credit: Thomas Schoch, Wikimedia Commons)

Rhesus macaques, which are some of the best studied of all monkeys, establish hierarchies in their social groups. Whenever two macaques tussle over a piece of food, say, or the right to mate, the monkey with the higher rank usually wins. Primatologists have established that monkeys of a lower social status are generally more stressed out than their dominant peers—low-ranking monkeys have higher levels of stress hormones, for instance. But what about differences in gene activity? Does one’s social stature change how one’s genes are expressed. Yes, concludes a new study that used differences in gene expression to identify a monkey’s social status with around 80 percent accuracy.

Jenny Tung of Duke University and her colleagues at the University of Chicago (where Tung worked at the time of the study)—as well as several collaborators at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center—studied 10 groups of adult female rhesus macaques made up of five females each. Researchers formed the groups one female at a time, which allowed them to carefully construct the social hierarchy: females introduced earlier generally assumed a higher rank. In this way, the scientists knew exactly which monkey held rank 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 in each group.

Tung and her colleagues collected blood samples from the rhesus macaques, isolated the white blood cells and analyzed the DNA in those cells. They found 987 genes whose activity depended on social rank: 535 genes that were more highly expressed in high-ranking individuals and 452 genes with higher activity in low-ranking individuals. Many of these genes were involved with the immune system; in particular, genes involved in inflammation were more active in low-ranking individuals. Further testing revealed that low-ranking monkeys also had fewer cytotoxic T-cells, a kind of white blood cell that attacks infected and cancerous cells. Earlier research suggests that the stress of a low social rank compromises the immune system—which fits with the finding about T-cells—but may also trigger the immune system to respond when it does not need to, which fits with the finding about inflammation. Findings about the relationship between stress, social status and the immune system are not clear cut, however; for example, some studies have found that having a higher rank is more stressful than having a lower rank.

Tung chose 10 genetic profiles at random and tried to predict the corresponding monkey’s social rank based solely on the gene activity—she was successful in eight cases. In another test, Tung showed that gene expression correctly identified the social status of six of seven monkeys after they changed rank. The new study appears in the April 9 issue of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Tung says this is the first time she has been able to predict social rank by looking at gene expression alone. “We have lots of biomarkers of stress,” she says, “but they are not necessarily great predictors by themselves. With whole genome studies, we can look at thousands of biomarkers at once.”

About the Author: Ferris Jabr is an associate editor focusing on neuroscience and psychology. Follow on Twitter @ferrisjabr.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. bigbopper 4:49 pm 04/9/2012

    No, but you can predict a teenager’s social status by looking at her jeans.

    Link to this
  2. 2. ArthroPatient 8:30 pm 04/9/2012

    Yes, stress is unhealthy and bad. But profiling and ranking humans according to their “genes” is even scarier. At least epigenetics may remind us that we have some control over our destiny!

    Genetic discrimination is already here, so the robust funding of this research is concerning. We need more carefully how this technology is being used and abused.

    eu·gen·ics   [yoo-jen-iks]
    the study of or belief in the possibility of improving the qualities of the human species or a human population, especially by such means as discouraging reproduction by persons having genetic defects or presumed to have inheritable undesirable traits (negative eugenics) or encouraging reproduction by persons presumed to have inheritable desirable traits (positive eugenics).

    Link to this
  3. 3. RCWhitmyer 9:42 pm 04/9/2012

    It would be even more disconcerning if the research was suppressed. Than only the people who would missuse the knowledge would have it.

    Link to this
  4. 4. mbrown 10:31 pm 04/9/2012

    This study was done at University of Chicago, not Duke

    Link to this
  5. 5. Jerzy New 5:10 am 04/10/2012

    Coming up next – can you distinguish vegetarians from meat-eaters by their gene expression? I strongly suspect so.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American


Get All-Access Digital + Print >


Email this Article