Letter | Published:

Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice

Nature Genetics 35, 103–106 (2003) | Download Citation

Subjects

Abstract

Females express mate preferences for genetically dissimilar males1, especially with respect to the major histocompatibility complex, MHC2,3, and for males whose sexually selected signals indicate high genetic quality4,5. The balance of selection pressure on each trait will depend on how females weight these desirable qualities under different conditions6, but this has not been tested empirically. Here we show in mice that although MHC dissimilarity and a 'good genes' indicator (investment in scent-marking) both have a role in determining female preference, their relative influence can vary depending on the degree of variability in each trait among available males. Such interactions between condition-dependent and disassortative mate choice criteria suggest a mechanism by which female choice can contribute to maintenance of additive genetic variance in both the MHC and condition-dependent traits, even under consistent directional selection.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

Rent or Buy

All prices are NET prices.

References

  1. 1.

    , , , & Urinary odour preferences in mice. Nature 409, 783–784 (2001).

  2. 2.

    et al. Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences. Science 240, 1331–1332 (1988).

  3. 3.

    , & Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352, 619–621 (1991).

  4. 4.

    Improved growth and survival of offspring of peacocks with more elaborate trains. Nature 371, 598–599 (1994).

  5. 5.

    , & Correlation between male song repertoire, extra-pair paternity and offspring survival in the great reed warbler. Nature 381, 229–232 (1996).

  6. 6.

    , & Mate choice or polyandry: reconciling genetic compatibility and good genes sexual selection. Evol. Ecol. Res. 4, 911–917 (2002).

  7. 7.

    & Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: an integrative review. Amer. Nat. 143, 435–461 (1994).

  8. 8.

    & The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility genes. Amer. Nat. 153, 145–164 (1999).

  9. 9.

    , & MHC heterozygosity confers a selective advantage against multiple-strain infections. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99, 11260–11264 (2002).

  10. 10.

    et al. Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility locus of the mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78, 5817–5820 (1981).

  11. 11.

    & Scent-marking by male mammals: cheat-proof signals to competitors and mates. Adv. Stud. Behav. 30, 169–217 (2001).

  12. 12.

    , & Chemistry of male dominance in the house mouse, Mus domesticus. Experientia 46, 109–113 (1990).

  13. 13.

    , , & Life history costs of olfactory status signalling in mice. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 328–332 (2000).

  14. 14.

    , & Social rank in house mice: differentiation revealed by ultraviolet visualization of urinary marking patterns. Science 182, 939–941 (1973).

  15. 15.

    Mate selection: a selection for a handicap. J. Theor. Biol. 53, 205–214 (1975).

  16. 16.

    Social condition influences sexual attractiveness of dominant male mice. Zool. Science 7, 889–894 (1990).

  17. 17.

    & Odor preferences of female house mice (Mus domesticus) in seminatural enclosures. J. Comp. Psychol. 110, 131–138 (1996).

  18. 18.

    & Scent marks as reliable signals of the competitive ability of mates. Anim. Behav. 56, 727–735 (1998).

  19. 19.

    & Heritabilities of dominance-related traits in male bank voles (Clethrionomys glareolus). Evolution 52, 894–899 (1998).

  20. 20.

    Estrous female house mice discriminate dominant from subordinate males and sons of dominant from sons of subordinate males by odour cues. Anim. Behav. 43, 868–870 (1992).

  21. 21.

    , , & Mate choice, male condition-dependent ornamentation and MHC in the pheasant. Hereditas 127, 133–140 (1997).

  22. 22.

    , , , & MHC-associated and MHC-independent urinary chemosignals in mice. Physiol. Behav. 59, 57–62 (1996).

  23. 23.

    et al. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatability complex. J. Exp. Med. 144, 1324–1335 (1976).

  24. 24.

    & New perspectives on mate choice and the MHC. Heredity 81, 239–245 (1998).

  25. 25.

    , , & MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 245–249 (1995).

  26. 26.

    & Evolution and ecology of MHC molecules: from genomics to sexual selection. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 305–311 (1998).

  27. 27.

    & Evolution of MHC genetic diversity: a tale of incest, pestilence and sexual preference. Trends Genet. 9, 408–412 (1993).

  28. 28.

    & Pathogen-based models favoring MHC genetic diversity. Immunol. Rev. 143, 181–197 (1995).

  29. 29.

    & A resolution of the lek paradox. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 260, 21–29 (1995).

  30. 30.

    , & Towards a resolution of the lek paradox. Nature 410, 684–686 (2001).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank M. Bateson, F. Gilbert, M. Hale, W. Jordan, J. Kotiaho, M. Petrie and C. Rowe for their comments. The work was funded by the Leverhulme Trust.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Evolution & Behaviour Research Group, School of Biology, University of Newcastle, Framlington Place, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, NE1 4HH, UK.

    • S Craig Roberts
    •  & L Morris Gosling

Authors

  1. Search for S Craig Roberts in:

  2. Search for L Morris Gosling in:

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S Craig Roberts.

To obtain permission to re-use content from this article visit RightsLink.

About this article

Publication history

Received

Accepted

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1231

Further reading