Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology

, Volume 58, Issue 2, pp 181–189 | Cite as

Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in a monogamous rodent

Original Article

Abstract

A growing number of studies indicate that females can increase the viability of their offspring by gaining direct benefits such as parental care or genetic advantages through selective mating with certain males. Among the best candidates for the genetic basis of mate choice in vertebrates are the genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) because these highly polymorphic genes may increase offspring viability and provide direct cues for mate choice. A free-ranging, pair-living rodent was used as an example to investigate MHC-dependent mate choice in an obligate monogamous species, the Malagasy giant jumping rat Hypogeomys antimena. Two possible mechanisms of mate choice were tested. First, mate choice may occur to increase the heterozygosity of MHC genes in the progeny and, second, mates might choose each other according to the degree of dissimilarity of their functional MHC DRB (exon 2) proteins in order to maximise the allelic divergence in their offspring. Analyses of 65 Hypogeomys couples failed to confirm associations of mating patterns with the MHC genotype to increase heterozygosity or MHC allelic divergence in the progeny. Also, no evidence for mechanisms to increase the allelic divergence was found in sex-specific analyses where a male or female, respectively, migrated to and was accepted by a territory and burrow holder of the opposite sex. However, the frequency distribution of 0, 1 or 2 new alleles potentially available for the progeny differed significantly when a new male was chosen by a territory-holding female. In contrast to current models, genetically similar instead of dissimilar mates seem to be the preferred choice. This is the first study investigating the role of the MHC in mate selection in an obligate monogamous rodent.

Keywords

MHC Mate choice Monogamous rodent Hypogeomys antimena Madagascar 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the “Commission Tripartite” of the Malagasy Government, the Laboratoire de Primatologie et des Vertébrés de l’Université d’Antananarivo, the Ministère pour la Production Animale et des Eaux et Forêts for their collaboration and permission to work in Madagascar. Many thanks go to the Centre de Formation Professionnelle Forestière de Morondava, B. Rakotosamimanana, R. Rasoloarison, L. Razafimanantsoa, and P. Kappeler for logistical support. I thank J. Ganzhorn for unflagging support in numerous ways. I am grateful to P. Duchesne for comparing simulations and discussions, and to M. Hingston for language corrections. G. Wilkinson and three anonymous reviewers provided very useful comments on an earlier version of the manuscript. This study was made possible by the German Science Foundation (So 428/1-1, 428/3-1).

References

  1. Andersson M (1994) Sexual selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K, Bard J, Boyse EA (1988) Preweaning experience in the control of mating preferences by genes in the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. Behav Genet 18:537–547Google Scholar
  3. Blouin MS, Parsons M, Lacaille Y, Lotz S (1996) Use of microsatellite loci to classify individuals by relatedness. Mol Ecol 3:393–401Google Scholar
  4. Brown JL (1997) A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behav Biol 8:60–65Google Scholar
  5. Brown JL, Eklund A (1994) Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: an integrative review. Am Nat 143:435–461Google Scholar
  6. Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Saper MA, Samraoui B (1988) A hypothetical model of foreign antigen binding site of Class II histocompatibility molecules. Nature 332:845–850CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown JH, Jardetzky TS, Gorga JC, Stern LJ (1993) Three-dimensional structure of the human class II histocompatibility antigen HLA-DR1. Nature 364:33–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Carrington M, Nelson GW, Martin MP, Kissner T, Vlahov D, Goedert JJ, Kaslow R (1999) HLA and HIV-1: heterozygote advantage and B*35-Cw*04 disadvantage. Science 283:1748–1752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Clutton-Brock TH (1989) Mammalian mating systems. Proc R Soc Lond B 236:339–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cook JM, Trevelyan R, Walls SS, Hatcher M, Rakotondraparany F (1991) The ecology of Hypogeomys antimena, an endemic Madagascan rodent. J Zool Lond 224:191–200Google Scholar
  11. Darwin C (1859) The origin of the species by means of natural selection. Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Ditchkoff SS, Lochmiller RL, Masters RE, Hoofer SR, van Bussche RA (2001) Major-histocompatibility-complex-associated variation in secondary sexual traits of white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus): evidence for good-genes advertisements. Evolution 55:616–625Google Scholar
  13. Doherty PC, Zinkernagel RM (1975) Enhanced immunological surveillance in mice heterozygous at the H-2 gene complex. Nature 256:50–52Google Scholar
  14. Eggert F, Muller-Ruchholtz W, Ferstl R (1999) Olfactory cues associated with the major histocompatibility complex. Genetica 104:191–197Google Scholar
  15. Egid K, Brown JL (1989) The major histocompatibility complex and female mating preferences in mice. Anim Behav 38:548–549Google Scholar
  16. Eklund A (1997) The major histocompatibility complex and mating preferences in wild house mice (Mus domesticus). Behav Ecol 8:630–634Google Scholar
  17. Eklund A, Egid K, Brown JL (1991) The major histocompatibility complex and mating preferences of male mice. Anim Behav 42:693–694Google Scholar
  18. Emlen ST, Oring LW (1977) Ecology, sexual selection, and the evolution of mating systems. Science 197:215–223PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fan E, Levin DB, Glickman BW, Logan DM (1993) Limitations in the use of SSCP analysis. Mutat Res 288:85–92Google Scholar
  20. Freeman-Gallant, Meguerdichian M, Wheelwright NT, Sollecito SV (2003) Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Mol Ecol 12:3077–3083Google Scholar
  21. Froeschke G, Sommer S (2005) MHC Class II DRB constitution and parasite load in the striped mouse, Rhabdomys pumilio, in the Southern Kalahari. Mol Biol Evol, in pressGoogle Scholar
  22. Ganzhorn JU, Sorg J-U (1996) Ecology and economy of a tropical dry forest in Madagascar. Primate Report vol 46–1. Goltze, GöttingenGoogle Scholar
  23. Ganzhorn JU, Porter P, Lowry II, SchatzGE, SommerS (2001) Madagascar: one of the world’s hottest biodiversity hotspot on its way out. Oryx 35:346–348Google Scholar
  24. Girman DJ (1996) The use of PCR-based single-stranded conformation polymorphism analysis (PCR-SSCP) in conservation genetics. In: Smith TB, Wayne RK (eds) Molecular genetic approaches in conservation. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 167–182Google Scholar
  25. Goodman SM, Rakotondravony D (1996) The holocene distribution of Hypogeomys (Rodentia: Muridae: Nesomyinae) on Madagascar: In: Lourenco WR (ed) Biogéographie de Madagascar. l’Orstom, Paris, pp 283–293Google Scholar
  26. Hansson B, Westerberg L (2002) On the correlation between heterozygosity and fitness in natural populations. Mol Ecol 11:2467–2474Google Scholar
  27. Harf R, Sommer S (2005) Association between MHC Class II DRB alleles and parasite load in the hairy-footed gerbil, Gerbillurus paeba, in the Southern Kalahari. Mol Ecol 14:85–91Google Scholar
  28. Hartl DL, Clark AG (1989) Principles of population genetics. Sinauer, Sunderland, MassGoogle Scholar
  29. Hayashi K (1992) PCR-SSCP: a method for detections of mutations. GATA 9:73–79Google Scholar
  30. Hedrick PW (1992) Female choice and variation at the major histocompatibility complex. Genetics 132:575–581Google Scholar
  31. Hedrick PW, Black FL (1997) HLA and mate selection: no evidence in South Amerindians. Am J Hum Genet 61:505–511Google Scholar
  32. Hongyo T, Buzard GS, Calvert RJ, Weghorst CM (1993) Cold SSCP—a simple rapid and non-radioactive method for optimised single strand conformation polymorphism analyses. Nucleic Acids Res 21:3637–3642Google Scholar
  33. Hughes AL (1999) Adaptive evolution of genes and genomes. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Hughes A, Hughes M (1995) Natural selection on the peptide-binding regions of major histocompatibility complex molecules. Immunogenetics 42:233–243Google Scholar
  35. Hughes AL, Yeager M (1998) Natural selection at major histocompatibility complex loci of vertebrates. Annu Rev Genet 32:415–435CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Ihara Y, Aoki K, Tokumaga K, Takahaski K, Juji T (2000) HLA and human mate choice: tests on Japanese couples. Anthropol Sci 108:199–214Google Scholar
  37. Jacob S, McClintock MK, Zelano B, Ober C (2002) Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women’s choice of male odor. Nature Genet 30:175–179Google Scholar
  38. Klein J (1986) Natural history of the major histocompatibility complex. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  39. Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L (2001) ‘Good genes as heterozygosity’: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc R Soc Lond B 268:1279–1285CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Law JC, Facher EA, Deka A (1996) Nonradioactive single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis with application for mutation detection in a mixed population of cells. Anal Biochem 236:373–375Google Scholar
  41. Lessa EP, Applebaum G (1993) Screening techniques for detecting allelic variation in DNA sequences. Mol Ecol 2:119–129Google Scholar
  42. Manning C, Potts WK, Wakeland EK, Dewsbury DA (1992) What’s wrong with MHC mate choice experiments? In: Doty RL, Müller-Schwarze D (eds) Chemical signals in vertebrates. Plenum, New York, pp 229–235Google Scholar
  43. Nei M (1987) Molecular evolutionary genetics. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  44. Nei M (1991) Relative efficiencies of different tree making methods for molecular data. In: Miyamoto MM, Cracraft J (eds) Phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 90–128Google Scholar
  45. Ober C, Weitkamp LR, Cox N, Dytch H, Kostyu D, Sherman D (1997) HLA and mate choice in humans. Am J Hum Genet 61:497–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ober C, Hyslop T, Elias S, Weitkamp LR, Hauck WW (1998) Human leucocyte antigen matching and fetal loss: results of a 10-year prospective study. Hum Reprod 13:33–38Google Scholar
  47. Ohta T (1998) On the patterns of polymorphisms at major histocompatibility complex loci. J Mol Evol 46:633–638PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Orita M, Suzuki Y, Sekiya T, Hayashi K (1989) Rapid and sensitive detection of point mutations and DNA polymorphisms using the polymerase chain reaction. Genomics 9:408–412Google Scholar
  49. Paterson S, Pemberton JM (1997) No evidence for major histocompatibility complex-dependent mating patterns in a free-living ruminant population. Proc R Soc Lond B 264:1813–1819Google Scholar
  50. Paterson S, Wilson K, Pemberton JM (1998) Major histocompatibility complex variation associated with juvenile survival and parasite resistance in a large unmanaged ungulate population (Ovis aries L.). Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:3714–3719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Penn DJ (2002) The scent of genetic compatibility: sexual selection and the major histocompatibility complex. Ethology 108:1–21Google Scholar
  52. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998a) MHC-disassortative mating preferences reversed by cross-fostering. Proc R Soc Lond B 265:1299–1306Google Scholar
  53. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1998b) How do major histocompatibility complex genes influence odor and mating preferences? Adv Immunol 69:411–435Google Scholar
  54. Penn DJ, Potts WK (1999) The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat 153:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Potts WK, Slev P (1995) Pathogen-based models favoring MHC genetic diversity. Immunol Rev 143:181–197Google Scholar
  56. Potts WK, Wakeland EK (1990) Evolution of diversity of the major histocompatibility complex. Trends Ecol Evol 5:181–187Google Scholar
  57. Potts WK, Manning CJ, Wakeland EK (1991) Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by the MHC genotype. Nature 352:619–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Promislow DE, Smith EA, Pearse L (1998) Adult fitness consequences of sexual selection in Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 95:10687–10692Google Scholar
  59. Rammensee HG (1995) Chemistry of peptides associated with MHC class I and II molecules. Curr Opin Immunol 7:85–96Google Scholar
  60. Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M (2001) Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 414:300–302CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Ryan KK, Lacy RC (2003) Monogamous male mice bias behaviour towards females according to very small differences in kinship. Anim Behav 65:379–384Google Scholar
  62. Sauermann U, Nürnberg P, Bercovitch FB, Berard JD, Trefilov A, Widdig A, Kessler M, Schmidtke J, Krawczak M (2001) Increased reproductive success of MHC class II heterozygous males among free-ranging rhesus macaques. Hum Genet 108:249–254Google Scholar
  63. Schneider S, Roessli D, Excoffier L (2000) Arlequin, ver 2.000: a software for population genetics data analysis. Genetics and Biometry Laboratory, University of GenevaGoogle Scholar
  64. Searcy WA (1982) The evolutionary effects of mate selection. Annu Rev Ecol Syst 13:57–85Google Scholar
  65. Simon JL (1997) Resampling Stats. The new statistics, version 4.1. Resampling Stats, Arlington, VaGoogle Scholar
  66. Singh P (1998) The present status of the ‘carrier hypotheses’ for chemosensory recognition of genetic individuality. Genetica 104:231–233Google Scholar
  67. Singh PM, Brown RE, Roser B (1987) MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues. Nature 327:161–164Google Scholar
  68. Sommer S (1996) Ecology and social structure of Hypogeomys antimena, an endemic rodent of the dry deciduous forest in western Madagascar. In: Lourenco WR (ed) Biogeographie de Madagascar. l’Orstom, Paris, pp 295–302Google Scholar
  69. Sommer S (1997) Monogamy in Hypogeomys antimena, an endemic rodent of the deciduous dry forest in western Madagascar. J Zool Lond 241:301–314Google Scholar
  70. Sommer S (2000) Sex specific predation rates on a monogamous rat (Hypogeomys antimena, Nesomyinae) by top predators in the tropical dry forest of Madagascar. Anim Behav 59:1087–1094Google Scholar
  71. Sommer S (2001) Reproductive ecology of the endangered monogamous Malagasy giant jumping rat, Hypogeomys antimena. Mamm Biol 66:111–115Google Scholar
  72. Sommer S (2003a) Social and reproductive monogamy in rodents: the case of the Malagasy giant jumping rat (Hypogeomys antimena). In: Reichard U, Boesch C (eds) Monogamy: partnerships in birds, humans and other mammals. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 109–124Google Scholar
  73. Sommer S (2003b) Effects of habitat fragmentation and changes of dispersal behaviour after a recent population decline on the genetic variability of non-coding and coding DNA of a monogamous rodent. Mol Ecol 12:2845–2851Google Scholar
  74. Sommer S (2003c) Natural history of the Malagasy giant jumping rat, Hypogeomys antimena. In: Goodman S, Benstead J (eds) The natural history of Madagascar. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 1383–1385Google Scholar
  75. Sommer S, Hommen U (2000) An individual based model to explore the effects of changing ecological parameters on the population dynamics and persistence of the endangered monogamous Malagasy giant jumping rat (Hypogeomys antimena). Anim Conserv 4:333–343Google Scholar
  76. Sommer S, Tichy H (1999) MHC-Class II polymorphism and paternity in the monogamous Hypogeomys antimena, the endangered, largest endemic Malagasy rodent. Mol Ecol 8:1259–1272Google Scholar
  77. Sommer S, Schwab D, Ganzhorn JU (2002a) MHC diversity of endemic Malagasy rodents in relation to range contraction and social system. Behav Ecol Sociobiol 51:214–221Google Scholar
  78. Sommer S, Toto Volahy A, Seal US (2002b) A population and habitat viability assessment for the highly endangered giant jumping rat (Hypogeomys antimena), the largest endemic rodent of Madagascar. Anim Conserv 5:263–273Google Scholar
  79. Thornhill R, Gangestad SW, Miller R, Scheyd G, McCollough JK, Franklin M (2003) Major histocompatibility complex genes, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behav Ecol 14:668–678Google Scholar
  80. Thursz MR, Thomas HC, Greenwood BM, Hill AV (1997) Heterozygote advantage for HLA class II-type in hepatitis virus infection. Nat Genet 17:11–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. Tregenza T, Wedell N (2000) Genetic compatibility, mate choice and patterns of parentage: invited review. Mol Ecol 9:1013–1027CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Trivers RL (1972) Parental investment and sexual selection. In: Campell B (ed) Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871–1971. Aldine, Chicago, pp 136–179Google Scholar
  83. Von Schantz T, Göransson G, Andersson G, Fröberg I, Grahn M, Helgí A, Wittzell H (1989) Female choice selects for a viability-based male trait in pheasants. Nature 337:166–169Google Scholar
  84. Von Schantz T, Wittzell H, Goransson G, Grahn M, Persson K (1996) MHC genotype and male ornamentation: genetic evidence for the Hamilton-Zuk model. Proc R Soc Lond B 263:265–271PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Wedekind C, Seebeck T, Bettens F, Paepke AJ (1995) MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proc R Soc Lond B 260:245–249PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. Wegner KM, Kalbe M, Kurtz J, Reusch TBH, Milinski M (2003) Parasite selection for immunogenetic optimality. Science 301:1343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. Wenink PW, Groen AF, Roelke-Parker ME, Prins HHT (1998) African buffalo maintain high genetic diversity in the major histocompatibility complex in spite of historically known population bottlenecks. Mol Ecol 7:1315–1322Google Scholar
  88. Westerdahl H (2004) No evidence of an MHC-based female mating preference in great reed warblers. Mol Ecol 13:2465–2470Google Scholar
  89. Yamazaki K, Singer A, Beauchamp GK (1998) Origin, functions and chemistry of H-2 regulated odorants. Genetica 104:235–240Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Biozentrum Grindel, Animal Ecology and ConservationUniversity of HamburgHamburgGermany

Personalised recommendations