ReviewBiology2022
A Review of Suggested Mechanisms of MHC Odor Signaling.
Review in Biology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Common endosymbionts influence host sexual selection by shaping mating preferences via altered chemical communication.Evolution letters · 2026Article
- A Genome-Wide Association Study of Taste Liking in the Danish Population.The Journal of nutrition · 2025Article
- Female-mediated selective sperm activation may remodel major histocompatibility complex-based mate choice decisions in humans.Heredity · 2025Article
- Influence of MHC on genetic diversity and testicular expression of linked olfactory receptor genes.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Multiple stressors lead to complex responses in reproductive behaviors in an African cichlid.Current zoology · 2024Article
- Olfactory immunology: the missing piece in airway and CNS defence.Nature reviews. Immunology · 2024Review
- No evidence for a role of MHC class II genotype in the chemical encoding of heterozygosity and relatedness in Antarctic fur seals.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although an individual's mix of MHC immune genes determines its resistance, finding MHC-dependent mate choice occurred by accident in inbred mice. Inbred mice prefer MHC dissimilar mates, even when the choice was restricted to urine. It took decades to find the info-chemicals, which have to be as polymorphic as the MHC. Microbiota were suggested repeatedly as the origin of the odor signal though germ-free mice maintained normal preference. Different versions of the 'carrier hypothesis' suggested MHC molecules carry volatiles after the bound peptide is released. Theory predicted an optimal individual MHC diversity to maximize resistance. The optimally complementary mate should be and is preferred as several studies show. Thus, the odor signal needs to transmit the exact information of the sender's MHC alleles, as do MHC ligand peptides but not microbiota. The 'MHC peptide hypothesis' assumes that olfactory perception of the peptide ligand provides information about the MHC protein in a key-lock fashion. Olfactory neurons react only to the anchors of synthesized MHC peptides, which reflect the binding MHC molecule's identity. Synthesized peptides supplemented to a male's signal affect choice in the predicted way, however, not when anchors are mutated. Also, the human brain detects smelled synthesized self-peptides as such. After mate choice, the lottery of meiosis of randomly paired oocyte and sperm haplotypes would often produce MHC non-optimal offspring. In sticklebacks, eggs select MHC-compatible sperm, thus prefer the best combination close to the population optimum.
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.