Cited by 212Olfactory and Sensory Function StudiesAnimal Behavior and ReproductionGenetic diversity and population structure

The Genetic Basis of Individual-Recognition Signals in the Mouse

Open access
Cheetham, Sarah A., Thom, Michael D., Jury, Francine, Ollier, William E.R., Beynon, Robert J., Hurst, Jane L.·2007·Current Biology

Abstract

The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) is widely assumed to be a primary determinant of individual-recognition scents in many vertebrates [1-6], but there has been no functional test of this in animals with normal levels of genetic variation. Mice have evolved another polygenic and highly polymorphic set of proteins for scent communication, the major urinary proteins (MUPs) [7-12], which may provide a more reliable identity signature ([13, 14] and A.L. Sherborne, M.D.T., S. Paterson, F.J., W.E.R.O., P. Stockley, R.J.B., and J.L.H., unpublished data). We used female preference for males that countermark competitor male scents [15-17] to test the ability of wild-derived mice to recognize individual males differing in MHC or MUP type on a variable genetic background. Differences in MHC type were not used for individual recognition. Instead, recognition depended on a difference in MUP type, regardless of other genetic differences between individuals. Recognition also required scent contact, consistent with detection of involatile components through the vomeronasal system [6, 18]. Other differences in individual scent stimulated investigation but did not result in individual recognition. Contrary to untested assumptions of a vertebrate-wide mechanism based largely on MHC variation, mice use a species-specific [12] individual identity signature that can be recognized reliably despite the complex internal and external factors that influence scents [2]. Specific signals for genetic identity recognition in other species now need to be investigated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cub.2007.10.007

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Odor recognition is a more natural choice than facial expressions for mice.

    “For example, even if training mice to recognize other individuals based on facial expressions is possible, it seems that odor recognition is a more natural choice.22,23”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cheetham, S. A., Thom, M. D., Jury, F., Ollier, W. E. R., Beynon, R. J., & Hurst, J. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Liverpool (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Hurst, Jane L.
Venue
Current Biology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-10
Volume
17
Issue
20
Pages
1771-1777
ISSN
0960-9822 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2158066313
Cited by
212
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 18
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (S19816)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Sensory Systems › Olfactory and Sensory Function Studies
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics › Animal Behavior and Reproduction
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genetic diversity and population structure
Keywords
individual recognition, major urinary proteins, major histocompatibility complex, chemical communication, scent marking, vomeronasal system, female mate preference, wild-derived mice
MeSH terms
Animals, Animals, Wild, Behavior, Animal, Female, Major Histocompatibility Complex, Male, Odorants, Scent Glands, Smell, Mice

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review