Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:40:34.878Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Microsatellite analysis reveals that female mice are indiscriminate when choosing infected or dominant males in an arena setting

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 November 2004

K. D. EHMAN  and
M. E. SCOTT
K. D. EHMAN
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9
M. E. SCOTT
Affiliation:
Institute of Parasitology, McGill University, Macdonald Campus, 21111 Lakeshore Road, Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, QC, Canada H9X 3V9
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Considering that both infection and dominance status can be conveyed through urinary odours and both are thought to affect mate choice, the present study assessed the role of infection and male dominance status on female mate choice in arena enclosures. Three male CD-1 mice were simultaneously introduced into each of 4 spatially complex arenas (3·0×0·6×0·4 m high) for 24 h prior to introduction of 5 females into each arena. During the first mating sequence (i.e. Mating 1), all 3 males were uninfected. Prior to Mating 2, the dominant male in each arena was infected with 200 L3 of Heligmosomoides polygyrus (Nematoda). Prior to Mating 3, the dominant male was drug-treated to remove the parasite. Dominance was assessed by the absence of rump or tail wounds (Freeland, 1981). Females were removed from the arena when visibly pregnant, and returned for subsequent mating 2 weeks following parturition. Paternity was determined by microsatellite analysis of each pup. Multi-male mating (i.e. mating with 2 or all 3 males) was a common strategy among females as littermates were sired by 2 or all 3 males in 64% of the litters. Contrary to expectation, the dominant male did not sire the majority of offspring in any of the mating sequences, and infection and subsequent drug treatment of the dominant male did not have a significant impact on female mate choice. In addition to methodological differences in paternity determination (i.e. DNA analysis versus behavioural observations and/or phenotypic traits), these findings may be further explained by the spatial complexity of the experimental arenas.

Keywords

mate choiceparasitesHeligmosomoides polygyrusdominancemicemicrosatellite DNA analysispaternity testing
Type
Research Article
Information
Parasitology , Volume 129 , Issue 6 , December 2004 , pp. 723 - 731
Copyright
© 2004 Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

REFERENCES

BRONSON, F. H. ( 1979). The reproductive ecology of the house mouse. Quarterly Review of Biology 54, 265–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRONSON, F. H. & MARSDEN, H. M. ( 1973). The preputial gland as an indicator of social dominance in male mice. Behavioral Biology 9, 625–628.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BRYANT, V. ( 1973). The life-cycle of Nematospiroides dubius, Baylis 1926 (Nematoda: Heligmosomidae). Journal of Helminthology 47, 263–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
CLAYTON, D. H. ( 1991). The influence of parasites on host sexual selection. Parasitology Today 7, 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
COLLINS, S. A., GOSLING, L. M., HUDSON, J. & COWAN, D. ( 1997). Does behaviour after weaning affect the dominance status of adult male mice (Mus domesticus)? Behaviour 134, 989–1002.Google Scholar
DeFRIES, J. C. & McCLEARN, G. E. ( 1970). Social dominance and Darwinian fitness in the laboratory mouse. American Naturalist 104, 408–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DRICKAMER, L. C. ( 1992). Oestrous female house mice discriminate dominant from subordinate males and sons of dominant from sons of subordinate males by odour cues. Animal Behaviour 43, 868–870.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DRICKAMER, L. C. ( 2000). Urine marking and social dominance in male house mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Behavioural Processes 53, 113–120.Google Scholar
EDWARDS, J. C. & BARNARD, C. J. ( 1987). The effects of Trichinella infection on intersexual interactions between mice. Animal Behaviour 35, 533–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EGID, K. & BROWN, J. L. ( 1989). The major histocompatibility complex and female mating preferences in mice. Animal Behaviour 38, 448–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EHMAN, K. D. & SCOTT, M. E. ( 2001). Urinary odour preferences of MHC congenic female mice, Mus domesticus: implications for kin recognition and detection of parasitized males. Animal Behaviour 62, 781–789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EHMAN, K. D. & SCOTT, M. E. ( 2002). Female mice mate preferentially with non-parasitized males. Parasitology 125, 461–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FREELAND, W. J. ( 1981). Parasitism and behavioral dominance among male mice. Science 213, 461–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GOSLING, L. M., ROBERTS, S. C., THORNTON, E. A. & ANDREW, M. J. ( 2000). Life history costs of olfactory status signalling in mice. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 48, 328–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
GRAY, S. J., PLESNER-JENSEN, S. & HURST, J. L. ( 2000). Structural complexity of territories: preference, use of space and defence in commensal house mice, Mus domesticus. Animal Behaviour 60, 765–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HAYASHI, S. ( 1996). Territorial dominance of male laboratory mice. Ethology 102, 979–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HUGHES, C. ( 1998). Integrating molecular techniques with field methods in studies of social behavior: a revolution results. Ecology 79, 383–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HURST, J. L. ( 1990). Urine marking in populations of wild house mice Mus domesticus Rutty. III. Communication between the sexes. Animal Behaviour 40, 233–243.Google Scholar
JAMES, W. H. ( 1996). Evidence that mammalian sex ratios at birth are partially controlled by parental hormones at the time of conception. Journal of Theoretical Biology 180, 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
KRACKOW, S. & MATUSCHAK, M. ( 1991). Mate choice for non-siblings in wild house mice: evidence from a choice test and reproductive test. Ethology 88, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LABOV, J. B. ( 1980). Factors influencing infanticidal behavior in wild male house mice (Mus musculus). Behavioural Ecology and Sociobiology 6, 297–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LIU, S. K. ( 1965). Pathology of Nematospiroides dubius. I. Primary infections in C3H and Webster mice. Experimental Parasitology 17, 123–135.Google Scholar
MACKINTOSH, J. H. ( 1970). Territory formation by laboratory mice. Animal Behaviour 18, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MONROY, F. G. & ENRIQUEZ, F. J. ( 1992). Heligmosomoides polygyrus: a model for chronic gastrointestinal helminthiasis. Parasitology Today 8, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MORALES, J., LARRAIDE, C., ARTEAGA, M., GOVEZENSKY, T., ROMANO, M. C. & MORALI, G. ( 1996). Inhibition of sexual behaviour in male mice infected with Taenia crassiceps cystcerci. Journal of Parasitology 82, 689–693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OAKESHOTT, J. G. ( 1974). Social dominance, aggressiveness and mating success among male house mice (Mus musculus). Oecologica 15, 143–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
PENN, D. & POTTS, W. K. ( 1998). Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 391–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
POTTS, W. K., MANNING, C. J. & WAKELAND, E. K. ( 1991). Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype. Nature, London 352, 619–621.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ROBERTS, R. C. ( 1981). Genetical influences on growth and fertility. In Biology of the House Mouse (ed. Berry, R. J.), pp. 231–254. Academic Press Inc., New York.
ROLLAND, C., MACDONALD, D. W., DE FRAIPONT, MICHELLE, BERDOY, M. ( 2003). Free female choice in house mice: leaving the best for last. Behaviour 140, 1371–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCOTT, M. E. ( 1990). An experimental and theoretical study of the dynamics of mouse–nematode (Heligmosomoides polygyrus) interaction. Parasitology 101, 75–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SCOTT, M. E. & TANGUAY, G. V. ( 1994). Heligmosomoides polygyrus: a laboratory model for direct life cycle nematodes of humans and livestock. In Parasitic and Infectious Diseases (ed. Scott, M. E. & Smith, G.), pp. 279–300. Academic Press Inc., New York.
STRASSMAN, J. E., SOLIS, C. R., PETERS, J. M. & QUELLER, D. C. ( 1996). Strategies for finding and using highly polymorphic DNA microsatellite loci for studies of genetic relatedness and pedigrees. In Molecular Zoology: Advances, Strategies, and Protocols (ed. Ferraris, J. D. & Palumbi, S. R.), pp. 163–180. Wiley-Liss, New York.
WAKELIN, D. ( 1988). Helminth infections. In Genetics of Resistance to Bacterial and Parasitic Infection (ed. Wakelin, D. M. & Blackwell, J. M.), pp. 153–224. Taylor and Francis, New York.
WHITTINGHAM, D. G. & WOOD, M. J. ( 1983). Reproductive physiology. In The Mouse in Biomedical Research. Vol. III. Normative Biology, Immunology, and Husbandry (ed. Foster, H. L., Small, D. L. & Fox, J. G.), pp. 153–154. Academic Press, Toronto.CrossRef
WOLFF, R. J. ( 1985). Mating behaviour and female choice: their reaction to social structure in wild caught house mice (Mus musculus) housed in a semi-natural environment. Journal of Zoology, London 207, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOLFF, J. O. & DUNLAP, A. S. ( 2002). Multi-male mating, probability of conceptions, and litter size in the prairie vole (Microtus ochrogaster). Behavioural Processes 58, 105–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
WOLFF, J. O. & MACDONALD, D. W. ( 2004). Promiscuous females protect their offspring. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19, 127–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YASUI, Y. ( 1998). The “genetic benefits” of female multiple mating reconsidered. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 13, 246–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZEH, J. A. & ZEH, D. W. ( 2001). Reproductive mode and the genetic benefits of polyandry. Animal Behaviour 61, 1051–1063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
ZUK, M. ( 1992). The role of parasites in sexual selection: current evidence and future directions. Advances in the Study of Behavior 21, 39–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar