/u/LegalAction gave an interesting answer on tensions between Greek and Jewish communities in Roman era Alexandria. However, if by nativist you mean Egyptian resistance to Greek rule, then the answer goes back much further than the 1st Century CE.
Alexander's conquest of Egypt in 332 BCE was a definitive victory, but it didn't guarantee the survival of a Greek dynasty in Egypt, let alone the Ptolemaic dynasty. Instead, the Ptolemies had to leverage the support of both existing powers in Egypt (ie the temples and their bureaucratic structure, local elites, and whatever military elites might have existed) as well as the power they could muster themselves (ie their army which was sustained by a growing number of mercenaries).
From the very beginning, the Ptolemaic dynasty was able to co-opt Egyptian elites to support their rule. This meant that they were able to integrate themselves into Egypt's pharaonic kingship structure while still having a somewhat loyal military powerbase that was separate from those Egyptian elites. This meant that the first three Ptolemaic rulers were able to focus on foreign wars and domestic infrastructure without being hamstrung by civil unrest.
On paper, it seems like this was surprisingly frictionless, and until recently historians have generally concluded that it was only about 200 years post-conquest that the cracks began to form. But this is probably too narrow of a view. From the beginning, the Ptolemaic dynasty was largely focused on extracting resources from Egypt (agricultural product, money, and manpower) and using this to expand its imperial program. This dynamic created tensions in Egypt, which was already accustomed to corvee labour and and taxation but evidently not to the extent required by the Ptolemaic dynasty.
Moreover, ethnic and cultural tensions existed between Greek settlers and Egyptians. The Ptolemaic dynasty incentived a massive influx of Greek immigration, primarily to serve military and bureaucratic roles. This made Greeks one of the largest minority demographics in Egypt, and one which enjoyed certain privileges. The porousness of this category (due to intermarriage and the Hellenization of many Egyptians) made it more of a cultural or social distinction than an ethnic one. However, this didn't prevent friction between Greek-identified and Egyptian-identified groups. Surviving textual evidence implies that many people perceived discrimination or hostility based on their identity or language as a potential obstacle in business or social advancement, even if not a daily occurrence.
Political or ideological opposition to foreign rule is harder to find in the historical record, but there are traces of it in Egyptian literary works and folklore (re)produced at the time, which included folk heroes that fought against Assyrian or Persian rule. The Egyptian elite were certainly never ignorant of the dynasty's foreign origins, they simply tolerated Ptolemaic rule in spite of it. For the most part.
Accounts of Egyptian revolts during the of Ptolemy III hint at the tensions that must have been simmering under the surface. Economic issues at home while the Ptolemaic dynasty was embroiled in the Third Syrian War might have created the perfect conditions for rebellion. The management of resources like grain and water were probably another area which caused resentment towards the Ptolemies. Paul Johstono in The Army of Ptolemaic Egypt tentatively suggests that records of tampering and vandalism against irrigation infrastructure might have foreshadowed the escalating tensions within Egypt. Some opposition to Ptolemaic rule was a direct result of dynastic policy. The involuntary conscription of Egyptians into naval or military service likely caused considerable resentment towards the Ptolemaic dynasty.
And then, after the death of Ptolemy IV, all hell broke loose. This was marked by a major uprising that saw Upper Egypt (the southern half of the country) secede. For about a decade, half of the country was ruled by a native Egyptian pharaoh whom the Ptolemaic dynasty viewed as a rebel. Eventually Ptolemy V crushed this rebellion but he had to make numerous concessions to appease the Egyptian populace (and those who had helped support their rebellion). The exact causes of this secession are unclear and likely complex.
The reign of Ptolemy V marked a period of economic instability, dynastic infighting and increasingly unsuccessful overseas policy that would have encouraged revolt. Nativist sentiment may well have played a role in the secession of Upper Egypt, which was rather removed from the cultural milieu of Alexandria and other Ptolemaic strongholds. Egyptian uprisings became more frequent after this point, which is generally seen as a period of decline. However, the Ptolemaic kings and queens after Ptolemy V were repeatedly threatened by revolts by their Greek subjects, and even in their capital, so anti-Greek sentiment clearly isn't the whole story either. It may in fact have had more to do with the ineptitude of the Ptolemaic empire than with the origins of its rulers.
It's not exactly anti-Greek.
Alexandria had a large population of Hellenized Jews. These are the people that produced the Septuagint. The Greeks in Alexandria excluded them from politics, the gymnasium, all kinds of social activities. In the 1st C CE, under the reign of Claudius, affairs came to violence. There were street riots in Alexandria, and the Jews sent a delegation including the philosopher Philo to Rome to petition Claudius for relief. The Greeks also sent a delegation to ask Claudius to tell the Jews to fuck off.
What we got was a letter from Claudius to both parties, which basically said "play nice, or I'll start smashing skulls." Link.
Here are some highlights:
Concerning the requests which you have been anxious to obtain from me, I decide as follows. All those who have become epheboi up to the time of my Principate I confirm and maintain in the possession of the Alexandrian citizenship with all the privileges and indulgences enjoyed by the city, excepting those who have contrived to become epheboi by beguiling you, though born of servile mothers. And it is equally my will that all the other favors shall be confirmed which were granted to you by former princes and kings and prefects, as the Deified Augustus also confirmed them. It is my will that the neokoroi of the Temple of the Deified Augustus in Alexandria shall be chosen by lot in the same was as those of the Deified Augustus in Canopus are chosen by lot. With regard to the civic magistracies being made triennial, your proposal seems to me to be very good; for through fear of being called to account for any abuse of power your magistrates will behave with greater circumspection during their term of office. Concerning the Boule, what your custom may have been under the ancient kings I have no means of saying, but that you had no senate under the earlier Augusti, you are well aware. As this is the first broaching of a novel project, whose utility to the city and to my government is not evident, I have written to Aemilius Rectus to hold an inquiry and inform me whether in the first place it is right that a Boule should be constituted, and , if it should be right to create one, in what matter this is to be done.
As for the question , which party was responsible for the riots and feud (or rather, if the truth be told, the war) with the Jews, although in confrontation with their opponents your ambassadors, and particularly Dionysios the son of Theon, contended with great zeal, nevertheless I was unwilling to make a strict inquiry, though guarding within me a store of immutable indignation against whichever party renews the conflict. And I tell you once and for all that unless you put a stop to this ruinous and obstinate enmity against each other, I shall be driven to show what a benevolent Prince can be when turned to righteous indignation. Wherefore, once again I conjure you that, on the one hand, the Alexandrians show themselves forebearing and kindly towards the Jews who for many years have dwelt in the same city, and dishonor none of the rites observed by them in the worship of their god, but allow them to observe their customs as in the time of the Deified Augustus, which customs I also, after hearing both sides, have sanctioned; and on the other hand, I explicitly order the Jews not to agitate for more privileges than they formerly possessed, and not in the future to send out a separate embassy as though they lived in a separate city (a thing unprecedented), and not to force their way into gymnasiarchic or cosmetic games, while enjoying their own privileges and sharing a great abundance of advantages in a city not their own, and not to bring in or admit Jews who come down the river from Egypt or from Syria, a proceeding which will compel me to conceive serious suspicions. Otherwise I will by all means take vengeance on them as fomenters of which is a general plague infecting the whole world. If, desisting from these courses, you consent to live with mutual forbearance and kindliness, I on my side will exercise a solicitude of very long standing for the city, as one which is bound to us by traditional friendship.