ArticleFrontiers in zoology2017
Mate choice for major histocompatibility complex complementarity in a strictly monogamous bird, the grey partridge (
Article in Frontiers in zoology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long read genome unravels MHC I genomic architecture, evolution, and diversity loss iniScience · 2025Article
- Darwin, sexual selection, and the brain.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- MHC class I diversity predicts non-random mating in Chinese alligators (Alligator sinensis).Heredity · 2019Article
- Genomic analysis of MHC-based mate choice in the monogamous California mouse.Behavioral ecology : official journal of the International Society for Behavioral EcologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSexual selection has been hypothesised as favouring mate choice resulting in production of viable offspring with genotypes providing high pathogen resistance. Specific pathogen recognition is mediated by genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) encoding proteins fundamental for adaptive immune response in jawed vertebrates. MHC genes may also play a role in odour-based individual recognition and mate choice, aimed at avoiding inbreeding. MHC genes are known to be involved in mate choice in a number of species, with 'good genes' (absolute criteria) and 'complementary genes' (self-referential criteria) being used to explain MHC-based mating. Here, we focus on the effect of morphological traits and variation and genetic similarity between individuals in MHC class IIB (MHCIIB) exon 2 on mating in a free-living population of a monogamous bird, the grey partridge.
resultsWe found no evidence for absolute mate choice criteria as regards grey partridge MHCIIB genotypes, i.e., number and occurrence of amino acid variants, though red chroma of the spot behind eyes was positively associated with male pairing success. On the other hand, mate choice at MHCIIB was based on relative criteria as females preferentially paired with more dissimilar males having a lower number of shared amino acid variants. This observation supports the 'inbreeding avoidance' and 'complementary genes' hypotheses.
conclusionsOur study provides one of the first pieces of evidence for MHC-based mate choice for genetic complementarity in a strictly monogamous bird. The statistical approach employed can be recommended for testing mating preferences in cases where availability of potential mates (recorded with an appropriate method such as radio-tracking) shows considerable temporal variation. Additional genetic analyses using neutral markers may detect whether MHC-based mate choice for complementarity emerges as a by-product of general inbreeding avoidance in grey partridges.
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.