The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes
Abstract
House mice prefer mates genetically dissimilar at the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). The highly polymorphic MHC genes control immunological self/nonself recognition; therefore, this mating preference may function to provide "good genes" for an individual's offspring. However, the evidence for MHC-dependent mating preferences is controversial, and its function remains unclear. Here we provide a critical review of the studies on MHC-dependent mating preferences in mice, sheep, and humans and the possible functions of this behavior. There are three adaptive hypotheses for MHC-dependent mating preferences. First, MHC-disassortative mating preferences produce MHC-heterozygous offspring that may have enhanced immunocompetence. Although this hypothesis is not supported by tests of single parasites, MHC heterozygotes may be resistant to multiple parasites. Second, we propose that MHC-dependent mating preferences enable hosts to provide a "moving target" against rapidly evolving parasites that escape immune recognition (the Red Queen hypothesis). Such parasites are suspected to drive MHC diversity through rare-allele advantage. Thus, the two forms of parasite-mediated selection thought to drive MHC diversity, heterozygote and rare-allele advantage, will also favor MHC-dependent mating preferences. Finally, MHC-dependent mating preferences may also function to avoid inbreeding; a hypothesis consistent with other evidence that MHC genes play a role in kin recognition.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures
Buss, D. M. (1989) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00023992 · Cited by 4,484
Wedekind, C., & Füri, S. (1997) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1997.0204 · Cited by 494 · cited 5×
“Wedekind and Füri (1997) asked 121 men and women to rate the odors of shirts worn by MHCsimilar and dissimilar individuals (unfortunately, some were the same subjects from the first T-shirt study).”
BackgroundInfluentialThe costs of human inbreeding and their implications for variations at the DNA level.
Bittles, A. H., & Neel, J. V. (1994) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng1094-117 · Cited by 311
Pathogens, polymorphism, and the evolution of sex
Tooby, J. (1982) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/0022-5193(82)90358-7 · Cited by 260
Cited by
The importance of immune gene variability (MHC) in evolutionary ecology and conservation
Sommer, S. (2005) · Frontiers in Zoology · doi:10.1186/1742-9994-2-16 · Cited by 913
Disgust: evolved function and structure
Tybur, J. M., Lieberman, D., Kurzban, R., & DeScioli, P. (2013) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/a0030778 · Cited by 810
The architecture of human kin detection
Lieberman, D., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2007) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature05510 · Cited by 748
MHC heterozygosity confers a selective advantage against multiple-strain infections
Penn, D. J., Damjanovich, K., & Potts, W. K. (2002) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.162006499 · Cited by 668
Self-citationThe Scent of Genetic Compatibility: Sexual Selection and the Major Histocompatibility Complex
Penn, D. J. (2002) · Ethology · doi:10.1046/j.1439-0310.2002.00768.x · Cited by 503
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Penn, D. J., & Potts, W. K.
- Venue
- The American Naturalist
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 153
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 145-164
- ISSN
- 0003-0147 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-5323
- OpenAlex
- W2176191850
- Cited by
- 752
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 32.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1086/303166
- The paper
- Penn, D. J., & Potts, W. K. (1999). The Evolution of Mating Preferences and Major Histocompatibility Complex Genes. The American Naturalist. https://doi.org/10.1086/303166
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.