ArticleBMC genomics2010
Genetic variation in the odorant receptors family 13 and the mhc loci influence mate selection in a multiple sclerosis dataset.
Article in BMC genomics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Major histocompatibility complex-associated odour preferences and human mate choice: near and far horizons.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2020Pooled it
- B-Cell NHL Subtype Risk Associated with Autoimmune Conditions and PRS.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022Article
- Marriage does not relate to major histocompatibility complex: a genetic analysis based on 3691 couples.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Prevalence of thyroid autoimmunity in first-degree relatives of patients with celiac disease.Indian journal of gastroenterology : official journal of the Indian Society of Gastroenterology · 2019Article
- Genomic evidence for MHC disassortative mating in humans.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2019Article
- Article
- HLA diversity in the 1000 genomes dataset.PloS one · 2014Article
- Towards a 'systems'-level understanding of the nervous system and its disorders.Trends in neurosciences · 2013Review
- Major histocompatibility complex peptide ligands as olfactory cues in human body odour assessment.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWhen selecting mates, many vertebrate species seek partners with major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes different from their own, presumably in response to selective pressure against inbreeding and towards MHC diversity. Attempts at replication of these genetic results in human studies, however, have reached conflicting conclusions.
resultsUsing a multi-analytical strategy, we report validated genome-wide relationships between genetic identity and human mate choice in 930 couples of European ancestry. We found significant similarity between spouses in the MHC at class I region in chromosome 6p21, and at the odorant receptor family 13 locus in chromosome 9. Conversely, there was significant dissimilarity in the MHC class II region, near the HLA-DQA1 and -DQB1 genes. We also found that genomic regions with significant similarity between spouses show excessive homozygosity in the general population (assessed in the HapMap CEU dataset). Conversely, loci that were significantly dissimilar among spouses were more likely to show excessive heterozygosity in the general population.
conclusionsThis study highlights complex patterns of genomic identity among partners in unrelated couples, consistent with a multi-faceted role for genetic factors in mate choice behavior in human populations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.