Differential effects of multiplex and uniplex affiliative relationships on biomarkers of inflammation.

IF 2.3 3区 生物学 Q2 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
PeerJ Pub Date : 2025-03-24 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.7717/peerj.19113
Jessica J Vandeleest, Lauren J Wooddell, Amy C Nathman, Brianne Beisner, Brenda McCowan
{"title":"Differential effects of multiplex and uniplex affiliative relationships on biomarkers of inflammation.","authors":"Jessica J Vandeleest, Lauren J Wooddell, Amy C Nathman, Brianne Beisner, Brenda McCowan","doi":"10.7717/peerj.19113","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Social relationships profoundly impact health in social species. Much of what we know regarding the impact of affiliative social relationships on health in nonhuman primates (NHPs) has focused on the structure of connections or the quality of relationships. These relationships are often quantified by comparing different types of affiliative behaviors (<i>e.g.</i>, contact sitting, grooming, proximity) or pooling affiliative behaviors into an overall measure of affiliation. However, it is unclear how the breadth of affiliative behaviors (<i>e.g.</i>, how many different types or which ones) a dyad engages in impact health and fitness outcomes. We used a novel social network approach to quantify the breadth of affiliative relationships based on two behaviors: grooming and sitting in contact. Dyadic relationships were filtered into separate networks depending on whether the pair engaged in multiple affiliative behaviors (multiplex networks) or just one (uniplex networks). Typically, in social network analysis, the edges in the network represent the presence of a single behavior (<i>e.g.</i>, grooming) regardless of the presence or absence of other behaviors (<i>e.g.</i>, contact sitting, proximity). Therefore, to validate this method, we first compared the overall structure of the standard network for each affiliative behavior: all grooming interactions regardless of contact sitting, and all contact sitting interactions regardless of grooming. We then similarly compared the structure of our filtered multiplex <i>vs.</i> uniplex networks. Results indicated that multiplex networks were more modular, reciprocal, and kin-based while connections in uniplex networks were more strongly associated with social status. These differences were not replicated when comparing networks based on a single behavior alone (<i>i.e.</i>, all grooming networks <i>vs.</i> all contact sitting networks). Next, we evaluated whether individual network position in multiplex <i>vs</i>. uniplex (novel approach) or grooming <i>vs</i>. contact sitting (traditional approach) networks differentially impact inflammatory biomarkers in a commonly studied non-human primate model system, the rhesus macaque (<i>Macaca mulatta</i>). Being well connected in multiplex networks (networks where individuals both contact sat and groomed) was associated with lower inflammation (IL-6, TNF-alpha). In contrast, being well connected in uniplex grooming networks (dyad engaged only in grooming and not in contact sitting) was associated with greater inflammation. Altogether, these results suggest that multiplex relationships may function as supportive relationships (<i>e.g.</i>, those between kin or strong bonds) that promote health. In contrast, the function of uniplex grooming relationships may be more transactional (<i>e.g.</i>, based on social tolerance or social status) and may incur physiological costs. This complexity is important to consider for understanding the mechanisms underlying the association of social relationships on human and animal health.</p>","PeriodicalId":19799,"journal":{"name":"PeerJ","volume":"13 ","pages":"e19113"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11949109/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PeerJ","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.19113","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social relationships profoundly impact health in social species. Much of what we know regarding the impact of affiliative social relationships on health in nonhuman primates (NHPs) has focused on the structure of connections or the quality of relationships. These relationships are often quantified by comparing different types of affiliative behaviors (e.g., contact sitting, grooming, proximity) or pooling affiliative behaviors into an overall measure of affiliation. However, it is unclear how the breadth of affiliative behaviors (e.g., how many different types or which ones) a dyad engages in impact health and fitness outcomes. We used a novel social network approach to quantify the breadth of affiliative relationships based on two behaviors: grooming and sitting in contact. Dyadic relationships were filtered into separate networks depending on whether the pair engaged in multiple affiliative behaviors (multiplex networks) or just one (uniplex networks). Typically, in social network analysis, the edges in the network represent the presence of a single behavior (e.g., grooming) regardless of the presence or absence of other behaviors (e.g., contact sitting, proximity). Therefore, to validate this method, we first compared the overall structure of the standard network for each affiliative behavior: all grooming interactions regardless of contact sitting, and all contact sitting interactions regardless of grooming. We then similarly compared the structure of our filtered multiplex vs. uniplex networks. Results indicated that multiplex networks were more modular, reciprocal, and kin-based while connections in uniplex networks were more strongly associated with social status. These differences were not replicated when comparing networks based on a single behavior alone (i.e., all grooming networks vs. all contact sitting networks). Next, we evaluated whether individual network position in multiplex vs. uniplex (novel approach) or grooming vs. contact sitting (traditional approach) networks differentially impact inflammatory biomarkers in a commonly studied non-human primate model system, the rhesus macaque (Macaca mulatta). Being well connected in multiplex networks (networks where individuals both contact sat and groomed) was associated with lower inflammation (IL-6, TNF-alpha). In contrast, being well connected in uniplex grooming networks (dyad engaged only in grooming and not in contact sitting) was associated with greater inflammation. Altogether, these results suggest that multiplex relationships may function as supportive relationships (e.g., those between kin or strong bonds) that promote health. In contrast, the function of uniplex grooming relationships may be more transactional (e.g., based on social tolerance or social status) and may incur physiological costs. This complexity is important to consider for understanding the mechanisms underlying the association of social relationships on human and animal health.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PeerJ
PeerJ MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES-
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
3.70%
发文量
1665
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊介绍: PeerJ is an open access peer-reviewed scientific journal covering research in the biological and medical sciences. At PeerJ, authors take out a lifetime publication plan (for as little as $99) which allows them to publish articles in the journal for free, forever. PeerJ has 5 Nobel Prize Winners on the Board; they have won several industry and media awards; and they are widely recognized as being one of the most interesting recent developments in academic publishing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信