Advertisement

First experimental evidence that proteins from femoral glands convey identity-related information in a lizard

  • Marco MangiacottiEmail author
  • Sofia Gaggiani
  • Alan Jioele Coladonato
  • Stefano Scali
  • Marco Alberto Luca Zuffi
  • Roberto Sacchi
Original Paper
  • 31 Downloads

Abstract

Transferring identity-related information (IRI) to conspecifics may give advantage in effectively tuning intraspecific behaviour. Some lizard species use the secretions of specialized epidermal glands (femoral or cloacal) to convey IRI. Those secretions are made of lipids and proteins, the former been suggested to inform about signaller quality, the latter suspected to communicate IRI to conspecifics. Here, we tested the hypothesis that proteins broadcast IRI by analysing the movement patterns of 28 male common wall lizards (Podarcis muralis) under strictly controlled experimental conditions. Lizards were videotaped in plastic terraria where the substrate scent was manipulated by filling it with a solution bearing (i) the proteins extracted from the secretions of the tested lizard (SELF); (ii) the proteins from a never-met donor from other nearby populations (NON-SELF); and (iii) the solvent alone. Lizards showed higher behavioural response to the NON-SELF treatment with respect to both CTRL and SELF ones. Further, protein concentration did not affect behavioural response, suggesting an all-or-nothing effect. Both results agree with the hypothesis that proteins may be used in chemical communication and convey IRI, demonstrating for the first time that they can be used as intraspecific signal.

Keywords

Unfamiliar recognition Chemical communication Lizards Femoral glands Proteins Lipids Identity signals Quality signals Residence in space and time analysis Movement pattern 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The study was performed in accordance with the European and Italian laws on animal use in scientific research (Aut. Prot. PNM-2015-0010423, PNM-2016-0002154). This research is part of the PhD project of MM, funded by the FRG_2016 (Ministry of Education, University and Research - MIUR) to Roberto Sacchi. We thank Marco Fumagalli, Riccardo Montagna, Stefano Pezzi, and Lorenzo Balestrazzi for their help in the lab work.

References

  1. Aguilar PM, Labra A, Niemeyer HM (2009) Chemical self-recognition in the lizard Liolaemus fitzgeraldi. J Ethol 27:181–184.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10164-008-0088-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alberts AC (1990) Chemical properties of femoral gland secretions in the desert iguana, Dipsosaurus dorsalis. J Chem Ecol 16:13–25.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01021264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alberts A (1992) Pheromonal self-recognition in desert iguanas. Copeia 1992:229–232.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1446556 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alberts AC (1993) Chemical and behavioral studies of femoral glad secretions in iguanid lizards. Brain Behav Evol 41:255–260.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000113847 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alberts AC, Werner DI (1993) Chemical recognition of unfamiliar conspecifics by green iguanas: functional significance of different signal components. Anim Behav 46:197–199.  https://doi.org/10.1006/anbe.1993.1177 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alberts AC, Pratt NC, Phillips JA (1992) Seasonal productivity of lizard femoral glands: relationship to social dominance and androgen levels. Physiol Behav 51:729–733.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0031-9384(92)90109-F CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ancillotto L, Russo D (2014) Selective aggressiveness in European free-tailed bats (Tadarida teniotis): influence of familiarity, age and sex. Naturwissenschaften 101:221–228.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-014-1146-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aragón P, López P, Martín J (2001) Chemosensory discrimination of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by lizards: implications of field spatial relationships between males. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 50:128–133.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650100344 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Aragón P, López P, Martín J (2003) Differential avoidance responses to chemical cues from familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by male Iberian rock lizards (Lacerta monticola). J Herpetol 37:583–585.  https://doi.org/10.1670/192-02N CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Aragón P, López P, Martín J (2006) Roles of male residence and relative size in the social behavior of Iberian rock lizards, Lacerta monticola. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 59:762–769.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-005-0106-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Baeckens S, Edwards S, Huyghe K, Van Damme R (2015) Chemical signalling in lizards: an interspecific comparison of femoral pore numbers in Lacertidae. Biol J Linn Soc 114:44–57.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bij.12414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baeckens S, Driessens T, Van Damme R (2016) Intersexual chemo-sensation in a “visually-oriented” lizard, Anolis sagrei. PeerJ 4:e1874.  https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.1874 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baeckens S, Huyghe K, Palme R, Van Damme R (2017a) Chemical communication in the lacertid lizard Podarcis muralis: the functional significance of testosterone. Acta Zool 98:94–103.  https://doi.org/10.1111/azo.12160 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Baeckens S, Martín J, García-Roa R, Damme RVAN (2017b) Sexual selection and the chemical signal design of lacertid lizards. Zool J Linnean Soc:1–13.  https://doi.org/10.1093/zoolinnean/zlx075/4563341
  15. Baird TA, McGee AA, York JR (2015) Responses to femoral gland secretions by visually adept male and female collared lizards. Ethology 121:513–519.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Berger P, Negus N, Day M (1997) Recognition of kin and avoidance of inbreeding in the montane vole, Microtus montanus. J Mammal 78:1182–1186.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1383061 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bickel DR, Frühwirth R (2006) On a fast, robust estimator of the mode: comparisons to other robust estimators with applications. Comput Stat Data Anal 50:3500–3530.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2005.07.011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Bradbury JW, Vehrencamp SL (2011) Principles of animal communication, 2nd edn. Sinauer Associates, Inc., SunderlandGoogle Scholar
  19. Braña F (2003) Morphological correlates of burst speed and field movement patterns: the behavioural adjustment of locomotion in wall lizards (Podarcis muralis). Biol J Linn Soc 80:135–146.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1095-8312.2003.00226.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Carazo P, Font E, Desfilis E (2008) Beyond “nasty neighbours” and “dear enemies”? Individual recognition by scent marks in a lizard (Podarcis hispanica). Anim Behav 76:1953–1963.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2008.08.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cole CJ (1966) Femoral glands in lizards: a review. Herpetologica 22:199–206Google Scholar
  22. Cooper WE (1994) Chemical discrimination by tongue-flicking in lizards: a review with hypotheses on its origin and its ecological and phylogenetic relationships. J Chem Ecol 20:439–487.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02064449 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cooper WE, Pèrez-Mellado V (2002) Pheromonal discriminations of sex, reproductive condition, and species by the lacertid lizard Podarcis hispanica. J Exp Zool 292:523–527.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jez.10089 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dale J, Lank DB, Reeve HK (2001) Signaling individual identity versus quality: a model and case studies with ruffs, queleas, and house finches. Am Nat 158:75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1086/320861 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Endler JA (1993) Some general comments on the evolution and design of animal communication systems. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 340:215–225.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1993.0060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Font E, Desfilis E (2002) Chemosensory recognition of familiar and unfamiliar conspecifics by juveniles of the Iberian wall lizard Podarcis hispanica. Ethology 108:319–330.  https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00782.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. García-Roa R, Jara M, Baeckens S, López P, van Damme R, Martín J, Pincheira-Donoso D (2017) Macroevolutionary diversification of glands for chemical communication in squamate reptiles. Sci Rep 7:9288.  https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09083-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Glinski TH, Krekorian CO (1985) Individual recognition in free-living adult male desert iguanas, Dipsosaurus dorsalis. J Herpetol 19:541–544CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gosling LM, Roberts SC (2001) Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Academic Press, pp 169–217Google Scholar
  30. Heathcote RJP, Bell E, d’Ettorre P, While GM, Uller T (2014) The scent of sun worship: basking experience alters scent mark composition in male lizards. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:861–870.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-014-1700-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnstone RA (1996) Multiple displays in animal communication: ‘backup signals’ and ‘multiple messages’. Philos Trans R Soc B Biol Sci 351:329–338.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1996.0026 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Johnstone RA (1997a) Recognition and the evolution of distinctive signatures: when does it pay to reveal identity? Proc R Soc B Biol Sci 264:1547–1553.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1997.0215 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Johnstone RA (1997b) The evolution of animal signals. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, Fourth. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Malden, pp 155–178Google Scholar
  34. Kéry M (2010) Introduction to winBUGS for ecologists: a Bayesian approach to regression, ANOVA, mixed models and related analyses, 1st edn. Elsevier Inc.Google Scholar
  35. Khannoon ER, El-Gendy A, Hardege JD (2011) Scent marking pheromones in lizards: cholesterol and long chain alcohols elicit avoidance and aggression in male Acanthodactylus boskianus (Squamata: Lacertidae). Chemoecology 21:143–149.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-011-0076-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kopena R, López P, Martín J (2014) Relative contribution of dietary carotenoids and vitamin E to visual and chemical sexual signals of male Iberian green lizards: an experimental test. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 68:571–581.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00265-013-1672-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kruschke JK (2010) Bayesian data analysis. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci 1:658–676.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Labra A, Niemeyer HM (1999) Intraspecific chemical recognition in the lizard Liolaemus tenuis. J Chem Ecol 25:1799–1811.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020925631314 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ladage LD, Ferkin MH, Ladagel LD (2006) Male leopard geckos (Eublepharis macularius) can discriminate between two familiar females. Source Behav 143:1033–1049.  https://doi.org/10.1163/156853906778623644 Google Scholar
  40. López P, Martín J (2001) Fighting roles and rival recognition reduce costs of aggression in male lizards, Podarcis hispanica. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 49:111–116.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650000288 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. López P, Martín J (2005) Female Iberian wall lizards prefer male scents that signal a better cell-mediated immune response. Biol Lett 1:404–406.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2005.0360 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Lopez P, Moreira PL, Martin J (2009) Chemical polymorphism and chemosensory recognition between Iberolacerta monticola lizard color morphs. Chem Senses 34:723–731.  https://doi.org/10.1093/chemse/bjp059 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. MacGregor HEA, Lewandowsky RAM, D’Ettorre P et al (2017) Chemical communication, sexual selection, and introgression in wall lizards. Evolution (N Y) 71:2327–2343.  https://doi.org/10.1111/evo.13317 Google Scholar
  44. Mangiacotti M, Coladonato AJ, Falaschi M et al (2017a) Seasonal T-level fluctuations and protein content of femoral gland secretions in the common wall lizard (Podarcis muralis). In: 19th SEH European Congress of Herpetology. Facultas Verlags- und Buchhandels AG Wien, Salzburg, pp 104–105Google Scholar
  45. Mangiacotti M, Fumagalli M, Scali S, Zuffi MAL, Cagnone M, Salvini R, Sacchi R (2017b) Inter- and intra-population variability of the protein content of femoral gland secretions from a lacertid lizard. Curr Zool 63:657–665.  https://doi.org/10.1093/cz/zow113 Google Scholar
  46. Martín J, López P (2006) Links between male quality, male chemical signals, and female mate choice in Iberian rock lizards. Funct Ecol 20:1087–1096.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2006.01183.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Martín J, López P (2007) Scent may signal fighting ability in male Iberian rock lizards. Biol Lett 3:125–127.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2006.0589 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Martín J, López P (2011) Pheromones and reproduction in reptiles. In: Lopez KH, Norris DO (eds) Hormones and reproduction of vertebrates. Academic Press, London, pp 141–167Google Scholar
  49. Martín J, López P (2015) Condition-dependent chemosignals in reproductive behavior of lizards. Horm Behav 68:14–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2014.06.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Martín J, Moreira PL, López P (2007) Status-signalling chemical badges in male Iberian rock lizards. Funct Ecol 21:568–576.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2435.2007.01262.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Martín J, Amo L, López P (2008) Parasites and health affect multiple sexual signals in male common wall lizards, Podarcis muralis. Naturwissenschaften 95:293–300.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00114-007-0328-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Mason RT, Parker MR (2010) Social behavior and pheromonal communication in reptiles. J Comp Physiol A 196:729–749.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00359-010-0551-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Mayerl C, Baeckens S, Van Damme R (2015) Evolution and role of the follicular epidermal gland system in non-ophidian squamates. Amphibia-Reptilia 36:185–206.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002995 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mencía A, Ortega Z, Pérez-Mellado V (2016) Chemical discrimination of sympatric snakes by the mountain lizard Iberolacerta galani (squamata: Lacertidae). Herpetol J 26:149–155Google Scholar
  55. Meredith M, Kruschke J (2018) HDInterval: highest (posterior) density intervals. R package version 0.2.0. https://cran.r-project.org/package=HDInterval. Accessed 27 Aug 2018
  56. Padoa E (1933) Ricerche sperimentali sui pori femorali e sull’epididimo della lucertola (Lacerta muralis Laur.) considerati come caratteri sessuali secondari. Arch Ital Anat Embriol 31:205–252Google Scholar
  57. Pellitteri-Rosa D, Martín J, López P, Bellati A, Sacchi R, Fasola M, Galeotti P (2014) Chemical polymorphism in male femoral gland secretions matches polymorphic coloration in common wall lizards (Podarcis muralis). Chemoecology 24:67–78.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00049-014-0148-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Pérez-Escudero A, Vicente-Page J, Hinz RC, Arganda S, de Polavieja GG (2014) IdTracker: tracking individuals in a group by automatic identification of unmarked animals. Nat Methods 11:743–748.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nmeth.2994 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Poncet P (2012) modeest: mode estimation. R package version 2.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=modeest. Accessed 27 Aug 2018
  60. Prada LM, Guerrero-Casado J, Tortosa FS (2018) European rabbits recognise conspecifics in their predators’ diets. Acta Ethol 21:163–168.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10211-018-0295-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. R Core Team (2018) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. https://www.r-project.org/. Accessed 9 May 2018
  62. Robinson CD, Patton MS, Andre BM, Johnson MA (2015) Convergent evolution of brain morphology and communication modalities in lizards. Curr Zool 61:281–291CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sacchi R, Pupin F, Gentilli A, Rubolini D, Scali S, Fasola M, Galeotti P (2009) Male-male combats in a polymorphic lizard: residency and size, but not color, affect fighting rules and contest outcome. Aggress Behav 35:274–283.  https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.20305 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Sacchi R, Ghitti M, Scali S, Mangiacotti M, Zuffi MAL, Sannolo M, Coladonato AJ, Pasquesi G, Bovo M, Pellitteri-Rosa D (2015) Common wall lizard females (Podarcis muralis) do not actively choose males based on their colour morph. Ethology 121:1145–1153.  https://doi.org/10.1111/eth.12431 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Schwenk K (1995) Of tongues and noses: chemoreception in lizards and snakes. Trends Ecol Evol 10:7–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0169-5347(00)88953-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Sillero N, Campos J, Bonardi A, Corti C, Creemers R, Crochet PA, Crnobrnja Isailović J, Denoël M, Ficetola GF, Gonçalves J, Kuzmin S, Lymberakis P, de Pous P, Rodríguez A, Sindaco R, Speybroeck J, Toxopeus B, Vieites DR, Vences M (2014) Updated distribution and biogeography of amphibians and reptiles of Europe. Amphib Reptil 35:1–31.  https://doi.org/10.1163/15685381-00002935 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Smith PK, Krohn RI, Hermanson GT, Mallia AK, Gartner FH, Provenzano MD, Fujimoto EK, Goeke NM, Olson BJ, Klenk DC (1985) Measurement of protein using bicinchoninic acid [published erratum appears in Anal Biochem 1987 May 15;163(1):279]. Anal Biochem 150:76–85.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(85)90442-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stoffel MA, Caspers BA, Forcada J, Giannakara A, Baier M, Eberhart-Phillips L, Müller C, Hoffman JI (2015) Chemical fingerprints encode mother–offspring similarity, colony membership, relatedness, and genetic quality in fur seals. Proc Natl Acad Sci 112:E5005–E5012.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1506076112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Su U, Yajima M (2015) R2jags: using R to run “JAGS”. R package version 0.5–7. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=R2jags. Accessed 9 May 2018
  70. Thoen C, Bauwens D, Verheyen RF (1986) Chemoreceptive and behavioural responses of the common lizard Lacerta vivipara to snake chemical deposits. Anim Behav 34:1805–1813.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0003-3472(86)80266-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Thom MD, Hurst JL (2004) Individual recognition by scent. Ann Zool Fenn, In, pp 765–787Google Scholar
  72. Tibbetts EA, Dale J (2007) Individual recognition: it is good to be different. Trends Ecol Evol 22:529–537.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2007.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Tibbetts EA, Mullen SP, Dale J et al (2017) Signal function drives phenotypic and genetic diversity: the effects of signalling individual identity, quality or behavioural strategy. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 372.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2016.0347
  74. Titone V, Marsiglia F, Mangiacotti M, Sacchi R, Scali S, Zuffi MAL (2018) Better to be resident, larger or coloured? Experimental analysis on intraspecific aggression in the ruin lizard. J Zool 304:260–267.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jzo.12524 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Torres LG, Orben RA, Tolkova I, Thompson DR (2017) Classification of animal movement behavior through residence in space and time. PLoS One 12:e0168513.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0168513 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Van Dyk DA, Evans CS (2007) Familiar-unfamiliar discrimination based on visual cues in the Jacky dragon, Amphibolurus muricatus. Anim Behav 74:33–44.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anbehav.2006.06.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Whiting MJ (1999) When to be neighbourly: differential agonistic responses in the lizard Platysaurus broadleyi. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 46:210–214.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s002650050611 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© ISPA, CRL 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Scienze della Terra e dell’AmbienteUniversità degli Studi di PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Museo di Storia Naturale di MilanoMilanItaly
  3. 3.Museo di Storia Naturale dell’Università di PisaCalciItaly

Personalised recommendations