Open main menu

Wikipedia β

Major histocompatibility complex and sexual selection

MHC sexual selection has been observed in the black-throated blue warbler.

The major histocompatibility complex in sexual selection concerns how major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules allow for immune system surveillance of the population of protein molecules in a host's cells. In 1976, Yamazaki et al. demonstrated a sexual selection mate choice by male mice for females of a different MHC.

Major histocompatibility complex genes, which control the immune response and effective resistance against pathogens, have been able to maintain an extremely high level of allelic diversity throughout time and throughout different populations. In addition to its role in immune function, studies suggest that the MHC is also involved in mate choice for many vertebrates through olfactory cues. There are several proposed hypotheses that address how MHC-associated mating preferences could be adaptive and how the MHC has maintained its enormous allelic diversity.[1][2]

The vast source of genetic variation affecting an organism's fitness stems from the co-evolutionary arms race between hosts and parasites. There are two nonmutually exclusive hypotheses for explaining this. One is that there is selection for the maintenance of a highly diverse set of MHC genes if MHC heterozygotes are more resistant to parasites than homozygotes—this is called heterozygote advantage. The second is that there is selection that undergoes a frequency-dependent cycle—and is called the Red Queen hypothesis.

Contents

HypothesesEdit

In the first hypothesis, if individuals heterozygous at the MHC are more resistant to parasites than those that are homozygous, then it is beneficial for females to choose mates with MHC genes different from their own, and would result in MHC-heterozygous offspring—this is known as disassortative mating. Individuals with a heterozygous MHC would be capable of recognizing a wider range of pathogens and therefore of inciting a specific immune response against a greater number of pathogens—thus having an immunity advantage. Unfortunately, the MHC-heterozygote advantage hypothesis has not been adequately tested.[2]

The second hypothesis for the maintenance of MHC diversity by parasites is the Red Queen hypothesis. If individuals' MHC alleles render different resistances to a particular parasite, then the allele with the highest resistance is favored, selected for, and consequently spread throughout the population. Recombination and mutation cause generation of new variants among offspring, which may facilitate a quick response to rapidly evolving parasites or pathogens with much shorter generation times. However, if this particular allele becomes common, selection pressure on parasites to avoid recognition by this common allele increases. An advantageous characteristic that allows a parasite to escape recognition spreads, and causes selection against what was formerly a resistant allele. This enables the parasite to escape this cycle of frequency-dependent selection, and such a cycle eventually leads to a co-evolutionary arms race that may support the maintenance of MHC diversity.[2]

 
Parasites are in a constant arms race with their host: harvestman suffering from mite pest

The inbreeding avoidance hypothesis has less to do with host-parasite relationships than does the heterozygote advantage hypothesis or the Red Queen hypothesis. The extreme diversity in the MHC would cause individuals sharing MHC alleles to be more likely to be related. As a result, one function of MHC-disassortative mating would be to avoid mating with family members and any harmful genetic consequences that could occur as a result. Mating with relatives, or inbreeding, increases the amount of overall homozygosity—not just locally in the MHC. An increase in genetic homozygosity may be accompanied not only by the expression of recessive diseases and mutations, but by the loss of any potential heterozygote advantage as well.[2][3]

In the course of searching for potential mates, it would benefit females to be able to discriminate against "bad" genes in order to increase the health and viability of their offspring. If female mate choice occurs for "good" genes, then it is implied that genetic variation exists among males. Furthermore, one would presume that said difference in genes would impart a difference in fitness as well, which could potentially be chosen or selected for.

Generally, the extreme polymorphism of MHC genes is selected for by host-parasite arms races (the Red Queen hypothesis); however, disassortative mate choice may maintain genetic diversity in some species. Depending on how parasites alter selection on MHC alleles, MHC-dependent mate-choice may increase the fitness of the offspring by enhancing its immunity, as mentioned earlier. If this is the case, either through the heterozygote advantage hypothesis or the Red Queen hypothesis, then selection also favors mating practices that are MHC-dependent.

 
The exaggerated, elongated upper tail coverts make up the "train" of the peacock.

Therefore, mate choice—with respect to the MHC—has probably evolved so that females choose males either based on diverse genes (heterozygote advantage and inbreeding avoidance hypotheses) or "good" genes. The fact that females choose is naturally selected, as it would be an advantageous trait for females to be able to choose a male that provided either an indirect or direct benefit. As a result of female choice, sexual selection is imposed on males. This is evidenced by genetic "advertisement"—an example of this would be the existence of exaggerated traits, such as the elaborate tail-feathers of male peacocks. However, in humans both sexes exert mate choice. Accordingly, the maintenance of allelic diversity in the MHC would not be due to sexual selection.

The relationship between olfaction and MHCEdit

MHC-based sexual selection is known to involve olfactory mechanisms in such vertebrate taxa as fish, mice, humans, primates, birds, and reptiles.[1] At its simplest level, humans have long been acquainted with the sense of olfaction for its use in determining the pleasantness or the unpleasantness of one's resources, food, etc. At a deeper level, it has been predicted that olfaction serves to personally identify individuals based upon the genes of the MHC.[4]

Chemosensation, which is one of the most primitive senses, has evolved into a specialized sensory system. Humans can not only detect, but also assess, and respond to environmental (chemical) olfactory cues—especially those used to evoke behavioral and sexual responses from other individuals, also known as pheromones. Pheromones function to communicate one's species, sex, and perhaps most importantly one's genetic identity. The genes of the MHC provide the basis from which a set of unique olfactory coding develops.[4]

Although it is not known exactly how MHC-specific odors are recognized, it is currently believed that proteins bound to the peptide-binding groove of the MHC may produce the odorant. Each MHC protein binds to a specific peptide sequence, yielding a set of uniquely bound peptide-MHC complexes for each individual. During cellular turnover, the MHC-peptide complex is shed from the cell surface and the fragments are dispensed in bodily fluids such as blood serum, saliva, and urine. Scientists believe that commensal microflora, microorganisms that line epithelial surfaces open to the external environment such as the gastrointestinal tract and vagina, further degrade these fragments, which are made volatile by this process. Recently, it has been shown that receptors in the vomeronasal organ of mice are activated by peptides having similar characteristics to MHC proteins; further studies may hopefully soon clarify the exact transformation between MHC genotype and an olfactory mechanism.[1][4][5]

Empirical evidenceEdit

In humansEdit

MHC similarity in humans has been studied in three broad ways: odor, facial attractiveness, and actual mate choice.[6] Studies of odor find MHC-dissimilarity preferences but vary in details, while facial attractiveness favors MHC-similarity and actual mating studies are varied.[6]

Specific studiesEdit

Several studies suggest that MHC-related odor preferences and mate choice are demonstrated by humans. However, the role of MHC in human mate choice has been relatively controversial. One study conducted by Ober et al. examined HLA types from 400 couples in the Hutterite community and found dramatically fewer HLA matches between husbands and wives than expected when considering the social structure of their community.[7] On the other hand, there was no evidence of MHC-based mate choice in the same study of 200 couples from South Amerindian tribes.[7]

Other studies have approached mate choice based on odor preference. In one study done by Wedekind et al., women were asked to smell male axillary odors collected on T-shirts worn by different males. Women that were ovulating rated the odors of MHC-dissimilar men as more pleasant than those of the MHC-similar men. Furthermore, odors of MHC-dissimilar men often reminded women of current or former partners, suggesting that odor—specifically odor for MHC-dissimilarity—plays a role in mate choice.[8]

In another study done by Wedekind et al., 121 women and men were asked to rank the pleasantness of the odors of sweaty T-shirts. Upon smelling the shirts, it was found that men and women who were reminded of their own mate or ex-mate had dramatically fewer MHC alleles in common with the wearer than would be expected by chance. If the selection for shirts was not random, and actually selected for MHC-dissimilar alleles, this suggests that MHC genetic composition does influence mate choice. Furthermore, when the degree of similarity between the wearer and the smeller was statistically accounted for, there was no longer a significant influence of MHC on odor preference. The results show that MHC similarity or dissimilarity certainly plays a role in mate choice. Specifically, MHC-disassortative mate choice and less similar MHC combinations are selected for.[9] One interesting aspect of the Wedekind's experiment was that in contrast to normally cycling women, women taking oral contraceptives preferred odors of MHC-similar men. This would suggest that the pill may interfere with the adaptive preference for dissimilarity.[8][9]

In primatesEdit

There is evidence of MHC-associated mate choice in other primates. In the grey mouse lemur Microcebus murinus, there has been shown to be post-copulatory mate-choice that is associated with genetic constitution. Fathers were shown to be more MHC-dissimilar from the mother than were randomly tested males. Additionally, fathers had more differences in amino acid and microsatellite diversity than did randomly tested males. It is hypothesized that this is caused by female cryptic choice.[10]

In other animalsEdit

In mice, both males and females choose MHC-dissimilar partners. It is also known that mice develop the ability to identify family members during early growth and are known to avoid inbreeding with kin, which would support the MHC-mediated mate choice hypothesis for inbreeding avoidance.[2]

Fish are another group of vertebrates shown to display MHC-associated mate choice. Scientists tested the Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, by observing effects of MHC upon natural spawning salmon that resided in the river versus artificial crosses that were carried out in hatcheries. Logically, the artificial crosses would be bereft of the benefits of mate choice that would naturally be available. The results showed that the offspring of the artificially bred salmon were more infected with parasites: almost four times more than the naturally-spawned offspring were. In addition, wild offspring were more MHC-heterozygous than the artificially-bred offspring. These results support the Heterozygous Advantage hypothesis of sexual selection for MHC-dissimilar mate choice.[11] In another fish, the three-spined stickleback, it has been shown that females desire MHC diversity in their offspring, which affects their mate choice.[12]

Female Savannah sparrows, Passerculus sandwichensis, chose MHC-dissimilar males to mate with. It is also known that females are more likely to engage in extra-pair relationships if paired with MHC-similar mates and more dissimilar mates are available. Similarly, MHC diversity in house sparrows, Passer domesticus, suggests that MHC-disassortative mate choice occurs.[2]

MHC-mediated mate choice has also been shown to exist in Swedish sand lizards, Lacerta agilis. Females preferred to associate with odor samples obtained from males more distantly related at the MHC I loci.[13]

Even though many species are socially monogamous, females can accept or actively seek mating outside of the relationship;[14] extra-pair paternity is a mating pattern known to be affiliated with MHC-associated mate choice. Birds are one of the more commonly studied groups of animals to exhibit this sexual behavior. In the scarlet rosefinch Carpocus erythrinus, females engaged in extra-pair paternity much less frequently when their mates were MHC-heterozygous.[15] In the Seychelles warbler Acrocephalus sechellensis, there was no evidence of MHC variation between social mates. However, when females' social mates were MHC-similar, they were more likely to participate in extra-pair paternity; in most cases, the extra-pair male was significantly more MHC-dissimilar than the social mate.[16]

MHC-mediated mate choice may also occur after copulation at the gametic level, through sperm competition or female cryptic choice. The Atlantic salmon, Salmo salar, is one species in which sperm competition is influenced by the variation in the major histocompatibility complex, specifically that of the Class I alleles. Atlantic salmon males were found to have higher rates of successful fertilization when competing for eggs from females genetically similar at the class I genes of the MHC.[17]

Another species that exhibits MHC-associated cryptic choice is the Arctic charr Salvelinus alpinus. In this case, however, it seems that sperm selection is more dependent on the ovum. MHC-heterozygous males were found to have significantly more fertilization success than MHC-homozygous males; sperm count, motility, and swimming velocity were not shown to significantly co-vary with similarity or dissimilarity at the MHC. It is proposed that there is a chemo-attraction system responsible for the egg itself being able to discriminate and selectively choose between MHC-heterozygous and MHC-homozygous males.[18]

Contrary to the Atlantic salmon and the Arctic charr, red junglefowl Gallus gallus males instead of females exert cryptic preference. Male junglefowl showed no preference when simultaneously presented with both an MHC-dissimilar and an MHC-similar female. However, they did show a cryptic preference by allocating more sperm to the more MHC-dissimilar of the two.[19]

Male sand lizards Lacerta agilis behave similarly to the male junglefowl. Initial copulation between a male and a female without any rivals was shown to be extended when the male sensed a higher female fecundity. However, second males adjusted the duration of their copulation depending on the relatedness between the female and the first male, believed to be determined by the MHC-odor of the copulatory plug. A closer genetic relatedness between a male and a female sand lizard increased the chances for a successful fertilization and rate of paternity for the second male.[20]

Abortional selection may also be a form of cryptic female choice. Many studies on humans and rodents have found that females may spontaneously abort pregnancies in which the offspring is too MHC-similar.[citation needed] In addition, in vitro fertilizations are more likely to fail when couples have similar MHC genes.[citation needed]

MHC and sexual conflictEdit

If males attempt to thwart female mate choice by mating with a female against her will, sexual conflict may interfere with the choice for compatibility at the MHC genes.

In Chinook salmon Oncorhyncus tshawytscha, females were shown to act more aggressively towards MHC-similar males than MHC-dissimilar males, suggesting the presence of female mate choice. Furthermore, males also directed aggression at MHC-similar females. This was accompanied by male harassment of unreceptive females; however, there was a positive correlation between male aggression and reproductive success. The ability of the males to over-power the females' original mate choice resulted in the offspring of the targets of male aggression having low genetic diversity. Offspring with high genetic diversity seemed to happen only when the operational sex ratio was female-biased, when females were more likely to be able to exert mate choice, and males were less likely to harass females. These results suggest that sexual conflict may interfere with female mate choice for 'good' MHC genes.[21]

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. ^ a b c Milinski M, Griffiths S, Wegner KM, Reusch TB, Haas-Assenbaum A, Boehm T (March 2005). "Mate choice decisions of stickleback females predictably modified by MHC peptide ligands". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 102 (12): 4414–8. PMC 555479 . PMID 15755811. doi:10.1073/pnas.0408264102. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  2. ^ a b c d e f O'Dwyer TW, Nevitt GA (July 2009). "Individual odor recognition in procellariiform chicks: potential role for the major histocompatibility complex". Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 1170: 442–6. PMID 19686174. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.03887.x. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  3. ^ Westemeier RL, Brawn JD, Simpson SA, et al. (November 1998). "Tracking the long-term decline and recovery of an isolated population". Science. 282 (5394): 1695–8. PMID 9831558. doi:10.1126/science.282.5394.1695. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  4. ^ a b c Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK, Singer A, Bard J, Boyse EA (February 1999). "Odortypes: their origin and composition". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 96 (4): 1522–5. PMC 15502 . PMID 9990056. doi:10.1073/pnas.96.4.1522. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  5. ^ Bhutta MF (June 2007). "Sex and the nose: human pheromonal responses". J R Soc Med. 100 (6): 268–74. PMC 1885393 . PMID 17541097. doi:10.1258/jrsm.100.6.268. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  6. ^ a b Havlicek J, Roberts SC (May 2009). "MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review". Psychoneuroendocrinology. 34: 497–512. PMID 19054623. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.007. 
  7. ^ a b Chaix R, Cao C, Donnelly P (2008). "Is mate choice in humans MHC-dependent?". PLoS Genet. 4 (9): e1000184. PMC 2519788 . PMID 18787687. doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000184. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  8. ^ a b Roberts SC, Gosling LM, Carter V, Petrie M (December 2008). "MHC-correlated odour preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives". Proc. Biol. Sci. 275 (1652): 2715–22. PMC 2605820 . PMID 18700206. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0825. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  9. ^ a b Wedekind C, Füri S (October 1997). "Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity?". Proc. Biol. Sci. 264 (1387): 1471–9. PMC 1688704 . PMID 9364787. doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0204. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  10. ^ Schwensow N, Eberle M, Sommer S (March 2008). "Compatibility counts: MHC-associated mate choice in a wild promiscuous primate". Proc. Biol. Sci. 275 (1634): 555–64. PMC 2596809 . PMID 18089539. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.1433. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  11. ^ Consuegra S, Garcia de Leaniz C (June 2008). "MHC-mediated mate choice increases parasite resistance in salmon". Proc. Biol. Sci. 275 (1641): 1397–403. PMC 2602703 . PMID 18364312. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.0066. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  12. ^ Kurtz J, Kalbe M, Aeschlimann PB, et al. (January 2004). "Major histocompatibility complex diversity influences parasite resistance and innate immunity in sticklebacks". Proc. Biol. Sci. 271 (1535): 197–204. PMC 1691569 . PMID 15058398. doi:10.1098/rspb.2003.2567. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  13. ^ Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H (November 2003). "Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards". Proc. Biol. Sci. 270 Suppl 2: S254–6. PMC 1809963 . PMID 14667398. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2003.0079. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  14. ^ Suter SM, Keiser M, Feignoux R, Meyer DR (November 2007). "Reed bunting females increase fitness through extra-pair mating with genetically dissimilar males". Proc. Biol. Sci. 274 (1627): 2865–71. PMC 2288684 . PMID 17785270. doi:10.1098/rspb.2007.0799. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  15. ^ Promerová M.a Vinkler, M. a b B.J. a P.R. a S.J. b M.P. b A.T. a b Occurrence of extra-pair paternity is connected to social maleʼs MHC-variability in the scarlet rosefinch Carpodacus erythrinus. Journal of Avian Biology 42, 5-10(2011).
  16. ^ Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T, von Schantz T (April 2005). "MHC-based patterns of social and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler". Proc. Biol. Sci. 272 (1564): 759–67. PMC 1602051 . PMID 15870038. doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.3028. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  17. ^ Yeates SE, Einum S, Fleming IA, et al. (February 2009). "Atlantic salmon eggs favour sperm in competition that have similar major histocompatibility alleles". Proc. Biol. Sci. 276 (1656): 559–66. PMC 2592554 . PMID 18854296. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1257. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  18. ^ Skarstein F, et al. (2005). "MHC and fertilization success in the Arctic charr (Salvelinus alpinus)". Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology. 57: 374–380. doi:10.1007/s00265-004-0860-z. 
  19. ^ Gillingham MA, Richardson DS, Løvlie H, Moynihan A, Worley K, Pizzari T (March 2009). "Cryptic preference for MHC-dissimilar females in male red junglefowl, Gallus gallus". Proc. Biol. Sci. 276 (1659): 1083–92. PMC 2679071 . PMID 19129124. doi:10.1098/rspb.2008.1549. Retrieved 2013-04-15. 
  20. ^ Olsson M, Madsen T, Ujvari B, Wapstra E (April 2004). "Fecundity and MHC affects ejaculation tactics and paternity bias in sand lizards". Evolution. 58 (4): 906–9. PMID 15154566. doi:10.1554/03-610. 
  21. ^ Garner SR, Bortoluzzi RN, Heath DD, Neff BD (March 2010). "Sexual conflict inhibits female mate choice for major histocompatibility complex dissimilarity in Chinook salmon". Proc. Biol. Sci. 277 (1683): 885–94. PMC 2842720 . PMID 19864282. doi:10.1098/rspb.2009.1639. Retrieved 2013-04-15.