Genetica

, Volume 104, Issue 3, pp 191–197 | Cite as

Olfactory cues associated with the major histocompatibility complex

  • Frank Eggert
  • Wolfgang Müller‐ruchholtz
  • Roman Ferstl
Article

Abstract

Besides its immunological function of self/non‐self discrimination the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) has been recognized as a possible source of individual specific body odors. Dating back to speculations on the role of the extraordinary polymorphism of the MHC as background of an individual chemosensory identity and to early observations of MHC‐dependent mate choice in inbred strains of mice, systematic experimental studies revealed a first evidence for H‐2 related body odors in this species. Meanwhile a large number of animal studies with rodents and a series of field studies and experiments with humans have extended our knowledge of MHC‐related odor signals and substantiated the hypothesis of immunogenetic associated odortypes. These results suggest that the most prominent feature of the MHC, its extraordinary genetic diversity, seems in part to be selectively maintained by behavioral mechanisms which operate in contemporary natural populations. The high degree of heterozygosity found in natural populations of most species seems to be promoted by non‐disease‐based selection such as mating preferences and selective block of pregnancy.

immune system MHC olfactory cues reproductive behavior kin recognition 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Apanius, V., D. Penn, P.R. Slev, L.R. Ruff & W. Potts, 1997. The nature of selection on the major histocompatibility complex. Crit. Rev. Immunol. 17: 179-224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Beauchamp, G.K., K. Yamazaki, J. Bard & E.A. Boyse, 1988. Preweaning experience in the control of mating preferences by genes in the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. Behav. Gen. 18: 537-547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beauchamp, G.K., K. Yamazaki & E.A. Boyse, 1985. The chemosensory recognition of genetic individuality. Sci. Am. 253: 86-92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boyse, E.A., G.K. Beauchamp, J. Bard & K. Yamazaki, 1991. Behavior and the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse, pp. 831-846 in Psychoneuroimmunology, 2nd edn., edited by R. Ader, D.L. Felten and N. Cohen. Academic Press, San Diego.Google Scholar
  5. Boyse, E.A., G.K. Beauchamp, K. Yamazaki & J. Bard, 1990. Genetic components of kin recognition in mammals, pp. 148- 161 in Kin Recognition, edited by P.G. Hepper. Cambridge University Press, London.Google Scholar
  6. Brown, J.L. & A. Eklund, 1994. Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex: An integrative review. Am. Natur. 143: 435-461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brown, R.E., P.B. Singh & B. Roser, 1987. The major histocompatibility complex and the chemosensory recognition of individuality in rats. Physiol. Behav. 40: 65-73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eggert, F., R. Ferstl & W. Müller-Ruchholtz. MHC and olfactory communication in humans, in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates VII, edited by R.E. Johnston. Pergamon Press, Oxford (in press).Google Scholar
  9. Eggert, F., C. Höller, D. Luszyk, W. Müller-Ruchholtz & R. Ferstl, 1996. MHC-associated and MHC-independent urinary chemosignals in mice. Physiol. Behav. 59: 57-62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eggert, F., B. Wobst, N. Zavazava, W. Müller-Ruchholtz & R. Ferstl, 1994. Psychobiology of the immune system: Behavioral factors in the maintenance of immunogenetical variability. Psychologische Beiträge 36: 152-157.Google Scholar
  11. Ferstl, R., F. Eggert, B. Pause et al., 1991. Immune system signaling to the other's brain: MHC-specific body scents in humans, pp. 497-502 in Peripheral Signaling of the Brain, edited by R.C.A. Frederickson, J.L. McGaugh and D.L. Felten. Hogrefe & Huber, Toronto.Google Scholar
  12. Ferstl, R., F. Eggert, E. Westphal, N. Zavazava & W. Müller-Ruchholtz, 1992. MHC-related odors in humans, pp. 205-211 in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates VI, edited by R.L. Doty and D. Müller-Schwarze. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  13. Hedrick, P.W. & F.L. Black, 1997. HLA and mate selection: No evidence in south amerindians. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61: 505- 511.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Manning, C.J., E.K. Wakeland & W.K. Potts, 1992. Communal nesting patterns in mice implicate MHC genes in kin recognition. Nature 360: 581-583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ober, C., L.R. Weitkamp, N. Cox, H. Dytch, D. Kostyu & S. Elias, 1997. HLA and mate choice in humans. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 61: 497-504.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Potts, W.K., C.J. Manning & E.K. Wakeland, 1991. Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature 352: 619-621.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Potts, W.K. & E.K. Wakeland, 1990. Evolution of diversity at the major histocompatibility complex. Trends Ecol. Evol. 5: 181-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Potts, W.K. & E.K. Wakeland, 1993. Evolution of MHC genetic diversity: A tale of incest, pestilence and sexual preference. Trends Genet. 9: 181-187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roser, B., R.E. Brown & P.B. Singh, 1991. Excretion of transplantation antigens as signals of genetic individuality, pp. 187-209 in Chemical Senses, Vol. 3: Genetics of Perception and Communications, edited by C.J. Wysocki and M.R. Kare. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  20. Schellinck, H.M. & R.E. Brown, 1992. Why does germfree rearing eliminate the odors of individuality in rats but not in mice? pp. 237-241 in Chemical Signals in Vertebrates VI, edited by R.L. Doty and D. Müller-Schwarze. Plenum Press, New York.Google Scholar
  21. Schwende, F.J., W.J. Jorgenson & M. Novotny, 1984. Possible chemical basis for histocompatibility-related mating preference in mice. J. Chem. Ecol. 10: 1603-1615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Singer, A.G., G.K. Beauchamp & K. Yamazaki, 1997. Volatile signals of the major histocompatibility complex inmale mouse urine. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 94: 2210-2214.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, P.B., R.E. Brown & B. Roser, 1988. Class I transplantation antigens in solution in body fluids and in the urine: Individuality signals to the environment. J. Exp. Med. 168: 195-211.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Singh, P.B., R.E. Brown & B. Roser, 1987. MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues. Nature 327: 161-164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Srivastava, R., B.P. Ram & P. Tyle, 1991. Immunogenetics of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. VCH, New York.Google Scholar
  26. Thomas, L., 1975. Symbiosis as an immunologic problem, pp. 2-11 in The Immune System and Infectious Diseases, edited by E. Neter and F. Milgrom. Karger Verlag, Basel.Google Scholar
  27. Wedekind, C., T. Seebeck, F. Bettens & A.J. Paepke, 1995. MHCdependent mate preferences in humans. Proc. R. Soc. London Series B 260: 245-249.Google Scholar
  28. Wedekind, C. & S. Füri, 1997. Body odour preferences in men and women: Do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity? Proc. R. Soc. London Series B 264: 1471-1479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Yamaguchi, M., K. Yamazaki, G.K. Beauchamp, J. Bard, L. Thomas & E.A. Boyse, 1981. Distinctive urinary odors governed by the major histocompatibility complex of the mouse. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 78: 5817-5820.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Yamazaki, K., G.K. Beauchamp, I.K. Egorov, J. Bard, L. Thomas & E.A. Boyse, 1983. Sensory distinction between H-2b and H-2bml mutant mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sciences USA 80: 5685-5688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Yamazaki, K., G.K. Beauchamp, E. Lacy, J. Bard & E.A. Boyse, 1990. HLA-B transgenic mice produce a unique odor type. Behav. Genet. 20: 755.Google Scholar
  32. Yamazaki, K., M. Yamaguchi, P.W. Andrews, B. Peake & E.A. Boyse, 1978. Mating preference of F2 segregants of crosses between MHC-congenic mouse strains. Immunogenetics 6: 253-259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yamazaki, K., G.K. Beauchamp, J. Bard, E.A. Boyse & L. Thomas, 1991. Chemosensory identity and immune function in mice, pp. 211-225 in Chemical Senses, Vol. 3: Genetics of Perception and Communications, edited by C.J. Wysocki and M.R. Kare. Marcel Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Yamazaki, K., E.A. Boyse, V. Mike, H.T. Thaler, B.J. Mathieson, J. Abbott, J. Boyse, Z.A. Zayas & L. Thomas, 1976. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J. Exp. Med. 144: 1324-1335.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zavazava, N. & F. Eggert, 1997. MHC and behaviour. Immunol. Today 18: 8-10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frank Eggert
    • 1
  • Wolfgang Müller‐ruchholtz
    • 2
  • Roman Ferstl
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Kiel, D‐KielGermany
  2. 2.Department of ImmunologyUniversity of Kiel, D‐KielGermany

Personalised recommendations