Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-669899f699-qzcqf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-24T20:38:00.110Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

18 - Mate Choice, the Major Histocompatibility Complex, and Offspring Viability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2012

By
Claus Wedekind  and
Guillaume Evanno
Edited by
Michael P. Muehlenbein
Michael P. Muehlenbein
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Human offspring become independent relatively late in life and fitness in our species is therefore critically linked to the amount and quality of the parental care that children receive. This explains, in evolutionary terms, why humans generally have a resource-based mating system where both sexes invest substantially into offspring (Trivers,1972). Women are expected to prefer men who are likely to provide much parental care in the form of active parenting and/or in the amount of resources they can provide. These men are, in turn, expected to be choosy about the women they select as mates (Trivers, 1972; Johnstone et al., 1996). The present chapter is not about this rather obvious link between mutual mate choice and offspring survival. Instead, we focus on probably less obvious aspects of mate selection that are likely to influence offspring viability. These include various genetic aspects that may play a role, e.g., inbreeding avoidance or preference for characteristics that are linked to heritable viability or to genes that may be complementary to the chooser's own genes. Genes of the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) have been intensively studied in this context. The MHC genes play a central role in controlling immunological self- and nonself recognition (Apanius et al., 1997). The MHC is also one of the most polymorphic regions of the genome, and it has been found to influence sexual selection.

Type
Chapter
Information
Human Evolutionary Biology , pp. 309 - 321
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Agrawal, A. F. (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sexual reproduction. Nature, 411, 692–695.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Andersson, M. (1994). Sexual Selection. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Aoki, K. (2005). Avoidance and prohibition of brother–sister sex in humans. Population Ecology, 47, 13–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apanius, V., Penn, D., Slev, P. R., et al. (1997). The nature of selection on the major histocompatibility complex. Critical Reviews in Immunology, 17, 179–224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beer, A. E., Semprini, A. E., Zhu, X. Y., et al. (1985). Pregnancy outcome in human couples with recurrent spontaneous abortions: HLA antigen profiles, HLA antigen sharing, female serum MLR blocking factors, and parental leukocyte immunization. Experimental and Clinical Immunogenetics, 2, 137–153.Google Scholar
Birkhead, T. R. (1996). In it for the eggs: a review of “Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice,” by W. G. Eberhard. Nature, 382, 772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Birkhead, T. (2000). Promiscuity. London: Faber and Faber.Google Scholar
Bishop, J. D. D. (1996). Female control of paternity in the internally fertilizing compound ascidian Diplosoma listerianum. 1. Autoradiographic investigation of sperm movements in the female reproductive tract. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 263, 369–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bittles, A. H. and Neel, J. V. (1994). The costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level. Nature Genetics, 8, 117–121.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, J. L. (1997). A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity. Behavioral Ecology, 8, 60–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J. L. and Eklund, A. (1994). Kin recognition and the major histocompatibility complex – an integrative review. American Naturalist, 143, 435–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W. M., Cronk, L., Grochow, K., et al. (2005). Dance reveals symmetry especially in young men. Nature, 438, 1148–1150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruce, H. M. (1954). An exertoceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse. Nature, 184, 105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bull, J. J. (1994). Virulence. Evolution, 48, 1423–1437.
Burley, N. (1982). Reputed band attractiveness and sex manipulation in zebra finches. Science, 215, 423–424.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrington, M., Nelson, G. W., Martin, M. P., et al. (1999). HLA and HIV-1: heterozygote advantage and B*35-Cw*04 disadvantage. Science, 283, 1748–1752.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarke, F. M. and Faulkes, C. G. (1999). Kin discrimination and female mate choice in the naked mole-rat Heterocephalus glaber. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 266, 1995–2002.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cluttonbrock, T. H. and Parker, G. A. (1992). Potential reproductive rates and the operation of sexual selection. Quarterly Review of Biology, 67, 437–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cluttonbrock, T. H. and Vincent, A. C. J. (1991). Sexual selection and the potential reproductive rates of males and females. Nature, 351, 58–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, E. J. A. and Russell, A. F. (2000). Egg investment is influenced by male attractiveness in the mallard. Nature, 404, 74–77.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Delope, F. and Møller, A. P. (1993). Female reproductive effort depends on the degree of ornamentation of their mates. Evolution, 47, 1152–1160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhard, W. G. (1996). Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Ebert, D. (1994). Virulence and local adaptation of a horizontally transmitted parasite. Science, 265, 1084–1086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ebert, D. and Hamilton, W. D. (1996). Sex against virulence: the coevolution of parasitic diseases. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Egid, K. and Brown, J. L. (1989). The major histocompatibility complex and female mating preferences in mice. Animal Behaviour, 38, 548–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferstl, R., Eggert, F., Westphal, E., et al. (1992). MHC-related odors in human. In Chemical Signals in Vertebrates VI, Doty, R. L. (ed.). New York: Plenum, pp. 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fessler, D. M. T. and Navarrete, C. D. (2004). Third-party attitudes toward sibling incest – evidence for Westermarck's hypotheses. Evolution and Human Behavior, 25, 277–294.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A. (1930). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Folstad, I. and Karter, A. J. (1992). Parasites, bright males, and the immunocompetence handicap. American Naturalist, 139, 603–622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gemmill, A. W., Viney, M. E. and Read, A. F. (1997). Host immune status determines sexuality in a parasitic nematode. Evolution, 51, 393–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gil, D., Graves, J., Hazon, N., et al. (1999). Male attractiveness and differential testosterone investment in zebra finch eggs. Science, 286, 126–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gilbert, A. N., Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., et al. (1986). Olfactory discrimination of mouse strains (Mus musculus) and major histocompatibility types by humans (Homo sapiens). Journal of Comparative Psychology, 100, 262–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gosgen, R. G., Dunbar, R. I. M., Haig, D., et al. (1999). Evolutionary interpretation of the diversity of reproductive health and disease. In Evolution in Health and Disease, Stearns, S. C. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 108–121.Google Scholar
Grafen, A. (1990). Biological signals as handicaps. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 144, 517–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grahn, M., Langesfors, A. and Schantz, T. (1998). The importance of mate choice in improving viability in captive populations. In Behavioral Ecology and Conservation Biology, Caro, T. M. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 341–363.Google Scholar
Grossman, C. J. (1985). Interactions between the gonadal steroids and the immune system. Science, 227, 257–261.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gustafson, L., Qarnström, A. and Sheldon, B. (1995). Trade-offs between life-history traits and a secondary sexual character in male collared flycatcher. Nature, 375, 311–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. (1980). Sex versus non-sex versus parasite. Oikos, 35, 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamilton, W. D. and Zuk, M. (1982). Heritable true fitness and bright birds – a role for parasites. Science, 218, 384–387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hedrick, P. W. (1988). HLA-sharing, recurrent spontaneous-abortion, and the genetic hypothesis. Genetics, 119, 199–204.Google ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, P. W. and Black, F. L. (1997). HLA and mate selection: no evidence in South Amerindians. American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 505–511.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hedrick, P. W. and Thomson, G. (1983). Evidence for balancing selection at HLA. Genetics, 104, 449–456.Google ScholarPubMed
Hings, I. M. and Billingham, R. E. (1981). Splenectomy and sensitization of Fischer female rats favors histoincompatibility of R2 backcross progeny. Transplantation Proceedings, 13, 1253–1255.Google Scholar
Hings, I. M. and Billingham, R. E. (1983). Parity-induced changes in the frequency of Rt1 heterozygotes in an R2-backcross. Transplantation Proceedings, 15, 900–902.Google Scholar
Hings, I. and Billingham, R. E. (1985). Maternal fetal immune interactions and the maintenance of major histocompatibility complex polymorphism in the rat. Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 7, 337–350.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, H. N., Gill, T. J., Nsieh, R. P., et al. (1990). Sharing of human leukocyte antigens in primary and secondary recurrent spontaneous abortions. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 163, 178–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ho, H. N., Yang, Y. S., Hsieh, R. P., et al. (1994). Sharing of human-leukocyte antigens in couples with unexplained infertility affects the success of in vitro fertilization and tubal embryo transfer. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 170, 63–71.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howard, R. S. and Lively, C. M. (1994). Parasitism, mutation accumulation and the maintenance of sex. Nature, 367, 554–557.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jacob, S., Mcclintock, M. K., Zelano, B., et al. (2002). Paternally inherited HLA alleles are associated with women's choice of male odor. Nature Genetics, 30, 175–179.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jaenike, J. (1978). An hypothesis to account for the maintenance of sex within populations. Evolutionary Theory, 3, 191–194.Google Scholar
Johnstone, R. A., Reynolds, J. D. and Deutsch, J. C. (1996). Mutual mate choice and sex differences in choosiness. Evolution, 50, 1382–1392.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, N. D., Ride, J. P., Rudd, J. J., et al. (2000). Inhibition of self-incompatible pollen in Papaver rhoeas involves a complex series of cellular events. Annals of Botany, 85, 197–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karl, A., Metzner, G., Seewald, H. J., et al. (1989). HLA compatibility and susceptibility to habitual abortion. Results of histocompatibility testing of couples with frequent miscarriages. Allergie und Immunologie, 35, 133–140.Google ScholarPubMed
Keller, L. F. and Waller, D. M. (2002). Inbreeding effects in wild populations. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 17, 230–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, J. (1986). Natural History of the Major Histocompatibility Complex. New York: Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Kokko, H., Jennions, M. D. and Brooks, R. (2006). Unifying and testing models of sexual selection. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 37, 43–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kondrashov, A. S. (1993). Classification of hypotheses on the advantage of amphimixis. Journal of Heredity, 84, 372–387.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Koyama, M., Saji, F., Takahashi, S., et al. (1991). Probabilistic assessment of the HLA sharing of recurrent spontaneous-abortion couples in the Japanese population. Tissue Antigens, 37, 211–217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laitinen, T. (1993). A set of MHC haplotypes found among Finnish couples suffering from recurrent spontaneous-abortions. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology, 29, 148–154.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J. and Cosmides, L. (2003). Does morality have a biological basis? An empirical test of the factors governing moral sentiments relating to incest. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 270, 819–826.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lipsitch, M., Bergstrom, C. T. and Antia, R. (2003). Effect of human leukocyte antigen heterozygosity on infectious disease outcome: the need for allele-specifc measures. BMC Medical Genetics, 4, 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Little, A. C. and Jones, B. C. (2006). Attraction independent of detection suggests special mechanisms for symmetry preferences in human face perception. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 273, 3093–3099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livshits, G., Davidi, L., Kobyliansky, E., et al. (1998). Decreased developmental stability as assessed by fluctuating asymmetry of morphometric traits in preterm infants. American Journal of Medical Genetics, 29, 793–805.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manning, C. J., Dewsbury, D. A., Wakeland, E. K., et al. (1995). Communal nesting and communal nursing in house mice, Mus musculus domesticus. Animal Behaviour, 50, 741–751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1978). The Evolution of Sex. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, J. (1989). Evolutionary Genetics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
McClelland, E. E., Penn, D. and Potts, W. K. (2003). Major histocompatibility complex heterozygote superiority during coinfection. Infection and Immunity, 71, 2079–2086.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Michod, R. E. and Levin, B. R. (eds) (1987). The Evolution of Sex. An Examination of Current Ideas. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.Google Scholar
Modell, B. and Darr, A. (2002). Genetic counselling and customary consanguineous marriage. Nature Reviews Genetics, 3, 225–229.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Møller, A. P. and Alatalo, R. (1999). Good-genes effects in sexual selection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 266, 85–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, A. P. and Thornhill, R. (1998). Bilateral symmetry and sexual selection: a meta-analysis. American Naturalist, 151, 174–192.Google ScholarPubMed
Muller, H. J. (1932). Some genetic aspects of sex. American Naturalist, 66, 118–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neff, B. D. and Pitcher, T. E. (2005). Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes. Molecular Ecology, 14, 19–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ober, C., Elias, S., Obrien, E., et al. (1988). HLA sharing and fertility in Hutterite couples – evidence for prenatal selection against compatible fetuses. American Journal of Reproductive Immunology and Microbiology, 18, 111–115.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ober, C., Weitkamp, L. R., Cox, N., et al. (1997). HLA and mate choice in humans. American Journal of Human Genetics, 61, 497–504.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olsson, M., Shine, R., Madsen, T., et al. (1996). Sperm selection by females. Nature, 383, 585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palm, J. (1969). Association of maternal genotype and excess heterozygosity for Ag-B histocompatibility antigens among male rats. Transplantation Proceedings, 1, 82–84.Google ScholarPubMed
Palm, J. (1970). Maternal–fetal interaction and histocompatibility antigens polymorphisms. Transplantation Proceedings, 2, 162–173.Google Scholar
Parker, G. A., Smith, V. G. F. and Baker, R. R. (1972). The origin and evolution of gamete dimorphism and the male–female phenomenon. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 36, 181–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Penn, D. J. and Potts, W. K. (1999). The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. American Naturalist, 153, 145–164.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrie, M. and Williams, A. (1993). Peahens lay more eggs for peacocks with larger trains. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 251, 127–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomiankowski, A. and Hurst, L. D. (1993). Evolutionary genetics – Siberian mice upset Mendel. Nature, 363, 396–397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, W. K. and Wakeland, E. K. (1993). Evolution of MHC genetic diversity – a tale of incest, pestilence and sexual preference. Trends in Genetics, 9, 408–412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Potts, W. K., Manning, C. J. and Wakeland, E. K. (1991). Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature, 352, 619–621.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pusey, A. and Wolf, M. (1996). Inbreeding avoidance in animals. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 11, 201–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ralls, K., Ballou, J. D. and Templeton, A. (1988). Estimates of lethal equivalents and the cost of inbreeding in mammals. Conservation Biology, 2, 185–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Read, A. F. (1994). The evolution of virulence. Trends in Microbiology, 73, 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reznikoff Etievant, M. F., Bonneau, J. C., Alcalay, D., et al. (1991). HLA antigen-sharing in couples with repeated spontaneous abortions and the birthweight of babies in successful pregnancies. American Journal of Reproduction and Immunology, 25, 25–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rhodes, G. and Simmons, L. W. (2007). Symmetry, attractiveness, and sexual selection. In The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Dunbar, R. I. M. and Barrett, L. (eds). Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 333–364.Google Scholar
Roberts, S. C. and Gosling, L. M. (2003). Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nature Genetics, 35, 103–106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S. C. and Little, A. C. (2008). Good genes, complementary genes and human mate preferences. Genetics, 132, 309–321.Google ScholarPubMed
Roberts, S. C., Gosling, L. M., Carter, V., et al. (2008). MHC-correlated odour preferences in humans and the use of oral contraceptives. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 275, 2715–2722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rülicke, T., Chapuisat, M., Homberger, F. R., et al. (1998). MHC-genotype of progeny influenced by parental infection. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 265, 711–716.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rülicke, T., Guncz, N. and Wedekind, C. (2006). Early maternal investment in mice: no evidence for compatible-genes sexual selection despite hybrid vigor. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 19, 922–928.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saino, N., Calza, S., Ninni, P., et al. (1999). Barn swallows trade survival against offspring condition and immunocompetence. Journal of Animal Ecology, 68, 999–1009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Santos, P. S. C., Schinemann, J. A., Gabardo, J., et al. (2005). New evidence that the MHC influences odor perception in humans: a study with 58 Southern Brazilian students. Hormones and Behavior, 47, 384–388.Google ScholarPubMed
Scheib, J. E., Gangestad, S. W. and Thornhill, R. (1999). Facial attractiveness, symmetry and cues of good genes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 266, 1913–1917.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scheidel, W. (1996). Brother–sister and parent–child marriage outside royal families in ancient Egypt and Iran: a challenge to the sociobiological view of incest avoidance?Ethology and Sociobiology, 17, 319–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, M. A. and Hendrix, L. (2000). Olfactory sexual inhibition and the Westermarck effect. Human Nature – An Interdisciplinary Biosocial Perspective, 11, 65–91.Google ScholarPubMed
Schwabl, H. (1993). Yolk is a source of maternal testosterone for developing birds. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90, 11446–11450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schwabl, H., Mock, D. W. and Gieg, J. A. (1997). A hormonal mechanism for parental favouritism. Nature, 386, 231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scofield, V. L., Schlumpberger, J. M., West, L. A., et al. (1982). Protochordate allorecognition is controlled by a MHC-like gene system. Nature, 295, 499–502.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepher, J. (1983). Incest, a Biosocial View. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Siller, S. (2001). Sexual selection and the maintenance of sex. Nature, 411, 689–692.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sockman, K. W. and Schwabl, H. (1999). Female kestrels hormonally regulate the survival of their offspring. American Zoologist, 39, 369.Google Scholar
Stockley, P. (1997). No evidence of sperm selection by female common shrews. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 264, 1497–1500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thorne, F., Neave, N., Scholey, A., et al. (2002). Effects of putative male pheromones on female ratings of male attractiveness: influence of oral contraceptives and the menstrual cycle. Neuroendocrinology Letters, 23, 291–297.Google ScholarPubMed
Thornhill, N. W. (1991). An evolutionary analysis of rules regulating human inbreeding and marriage. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R. and Gangestad, S. W. (2006). Facial sexual dimorphism, developmental stability, and susceptibility to disease in men and women. Evolution and Human Behavior, 27, 131–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thornhill, R., Gangestad, S. W., Miller, R., et al. (2003). Major histocompatibility complex genes, symmetry, and body scent attractiveness in men and women. Behavioral Ecology, 14, 668–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thursz, M. R., Thomas, H. C., Greenwood, B. M., et al. (1997). Heterozygote advantage for HLA class-II type in hepatitis B virus infection. Nature Genetics, 17, 11–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man 1871–1971, Campbell, B. (ed.). Chicago: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 136–179.Google Scholar
Trivers, R. L. and Willard, D. E. (1973). Natural selection of parental ability to vary the sex ratio of offspring. Science, 179, 90–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Verrell, P. A. and McCabe, N. R. (1990). Major histocompatibility antigens and spontaneous abortion – an evolutionary perspective. Medical Hypotheses, 32, 235–238.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Waynforth, D. (1998). Fluctuating asymmetry and human male life-history traits in rural Belize. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 265, 1497–1501.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weckstein, L. N., Patrizio, P., Balmaceda, J. P., et al. (1991). Human leukocyte antigen compatibility and failure to achieve a viable pregnancy with assisted reproductive technology. Acta Europaea Fertilitatis, 22, 103–107.Google ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C. (1994). Mate choice and maternal selection for specific parasite resistances before, during and after fertilization. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 346, 303–311.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C. (1999). Pathogen-driven sexual selection and the evolution of health. In Evolution in Health and Disease, Stearns, S. C. (ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C. (2002a). Sexual selection and life-history decisions: implications for supportive breeding and the management of captive populations. Conservation Biology, 16, 1204–1211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedekind, C. (2002b). The MHC and body odors: arbitrary effects caused by shifts of mean pleasantness. Nature Genetics, 31, 237.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C. and Folstad, I. (1994). Adaptive or nonadaptive immunosuppression by sex-hormones. American Naturalist, 143, 936–938.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedekind, C. and Füri, S. (1997). Body odour preferences in men and women: do they aim for specific MHC combinations or simply heterozygosity?Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 264, 1471–1479.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C. and Rüetschi, A. (2000). Parasite heterogeneity affects infection success and the occurrence of within-host competition: an experimental study with a cestode. Evolutionary Ecology Research, 2, 1031–1043.Google Scholar
Wedekind, C., Seebeck, T., Bettens, F., et al. (1995). MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 260, 245–249.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C., Chapuisat, M., Macas, E., et al. (1996). Non-random fertilization in mice correlates with the MHC and something else. Heredity, 77, 400–409.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wedekind, C., Strahm, D. and Schärer, L. (1998). Evidence for strategic egg production in a hermaphroditic cestode. Parasitology, 117, 373–382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedekind, C., Müller, R. and Spicher, H. (2001). Potential genetic benefits of mate selection in whitefish. Journal of Evolutionary Biology, 14, 980–986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wedekind, C., Walker, M. and Little, T. J. (2005). The course of malaria in mice: major histocompatibility complex (MHC) effects, but no general MHC heterozygote advantage in single-strain infections. Genetics, 170, 1427–1430.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weisfeld, G. E., Czilli, T., Phillips, K. A., et al. (2003). Possible olfaction-based mechanisms in human kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 279–295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westermarck, E. (1891). The History of Human Marriage. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1966). Natural selection, the cost of reproduction, and a refinement of Lack's principle. American Naturalist, 100, 687–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, G. C. (1975). Sex and Evolution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google ScholarPubMed
Wolf, A. P. (1995). Sexual Attraction and Childhood Association: a Chinese Brief for Edward Westermarck. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Yamazaki, K., Boyse, E. A., Mike, V., et al. (1976). Control of mating preference in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 144, 1324–1335.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, K., Yamaguchi, M., Baranoski, L., et al. (1979). Recognition among mice. Evidence from the use of a Y-maze differentially scented by congenic mice of different major histocompatibility types. Journal of Experimental Medicine, 150, 755–760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., Egorov, I. K., et al. (1983a). Sensory distinction between H-2b and H-2bm1 mutant mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 80, 5685–5688.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., Wysocki, C. J., et al. (1983b). Recognition of H-2 types in relation to the blocking of pregnancy in mice. Science, 221, 186–188.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., Kupniewski, D., et al. (1988). Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences. Science, 240, 1331–1332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yamazaki, K., Beauchamp, G. K., Shen, F. W., et al. (1994). Discrimination of odor types determined by the major histocompatibility complex among outbred mice. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 91, 3735–3738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zahavi, A. (1975). Mate selection – a selection for a handicap. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 53, 205–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zeh, J. A. and Zeh, D. W. (1997). The evolution of polyandry. 2. Post-copulatory defences against genetic incompatibility. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B, 264, 69–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×