What’s Wrong with MHC Mate Choice Experiments?

Manning, C. Jo; Potts, Wayne K.; Wakeland, Edward K.; Dewsbury, Donald A.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-9655-1_36

Cited by 27 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The validity of experimental studies on mice has been questioned given that the use of inbred lines may selectively affect the very behaviours, especially female mate choice, that the experiments are attempting to examine (Manning et al, 1992). Also, MHC-congenic lines will differ across a large swathe of MHC region, not just the specific class I or class II loci that are supposedly the focus of selection.…”

Section: Mhc-dependent Sexual Selection Mate Choice and The Mhcmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) has become a paradigm for how selection can act to maintain adaptively important genetic diversity in natural populations. Here, we review the contribution of studies on the MHC in non-model species to our understanding of how selection affects MHC diversity, emphasising how ecological and ethological processes influence the tempo and mode of evolution at the MHC, and conversely, how variability at the MHC affects individual fitness, population dynamics and viability. We focus on three main areas: the types of information that have been used to detect the action of selection on MHC genes; the relative contributions of parasite-mediated and sexual selection on the maintenance of MHC diversity; and possible future lines of research that may help resolve some of the unanswered issues associated with MHC evolution.

show abstract

Section: Mhc-dependent Sexual Selection Mate Choice and The Mhcmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex

2005

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No evidence for MHCdisassortative mating preferences was found in two strains of male laboratory mice (Eklund et al 1991), and for females, no evidence for MHC-disassortative mating preferences was found in one laboratory strain , semiwild (Manning et al 1992a), or wild female mice (Eklund 1997b). Still, there are many reasons to be cautious about overinterpreting the negative evidence from experimental studies.…”

Section: House Micementioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this is not an alternative explanation because a preference for unfamiliar (or nonfamilial) odors may be the proximate mechanism that results in MHC-dissimilar matings. Still, there are some valid reasons to be cautious about the evidence for mating preferences from laboratory studies (Manning et al 1992a). First, the assays for mating preferences in laboratory studies have been indirect, relying on sperm plugs, association, and first mount preferences.…”

Section: House Micementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, sperm plugs are not always present, and mounts and intromissions are nonejaculatory copulations that may function as courtship behavior rather than mate choice in rodents (Dewsbury 1988). Second, most of this work has been conducted on inbred, laboratory mice, and since not all strains show MHC-dependent mating preferences (Yamazaki et al 1976;Eklund et al 1991;Manning et al 1992a;Eklund 1997a), these results cannot be extrapolated to wild mice. Third, female MHC-dependent mating preferences have only been found in the laboratory when male dominance has been controlled (Egid and Brown 1989), leaving the possibility that mating preferences do not create selection in natural conditions where dominance occurs.…”

Section: House Micementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes

Potts¹

1999

The American Naturalist

155

246

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

House mice prefer mates genetically dissimilar at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The highly polymorphic MHC genes control immunological self/nonself recognition; therefore, this mating preference may function to provide "good genes" for an individual's offspring. However, the evidence for MHC-dependent mating preferences is controversial, and its function remains unclear. Here we provide a critical review of the studies on MHCdependent mating preferences in mice, sheep, and humans and the possible functions of this behavior. There are three adaptive hypotheses for MHC-dependent mating preferences. First, MHCdisassortative mating preferences produce MHC-heterozygous offspring that may have enhanced immunocompetence. Although this hypothesis is not supported by tests of single parasites, MHC heterozygotes may be resistant to multiple parasites. Second, we propose that MHC-dependent mating preferences enable hosts to provide a "moving target" against rapidly evolving parasites that escape immune recognition (the Red Queen hypothesis). Such parasites are suspected to drive MHC diversity through rare-allele advantage. Thus, the two forms of parasite-mediated selection thought to drive MHC diversity, heterozygote and rare-allele advantage, will also favor MHC-dependent mating preferences. Finally, MHC-dependent mating preferences may also function to avoid inbreeding; a hypothesis consistent with other evidence that MHC genes play a role in kin recognition.

show abstract

“…However, even in those inbred strains which show stronger female than male mate preference, the strength of female choice was labile (see Eklund, 1997a). While the appearance of stronger mate choice by males may have resulted from the design of early experiments (Box 1), Manning et al (1992b) have suggested that changes in behaviour resulting from the inbreeding process, especially selection against female mate choice, would in fact predict stronger mate choice in males compared to females in inbred strains. On these grounds they have questioned the relevance of using inbred strains in mate choice experiments.…”

Section: Do Males or Females Choose?mentioning

confidence: 99%