Sequence-based evidence for major histocompatibility complex-disassortative mating in a colonial seabird
Publication Title
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
Document Type
Article
Department or Program
Biology
Publication Date
1-1-2011
Keywords
Genetic compatibility, Immunocompetence, Inbreeding avoidance, Major histocompatibility complex, Microsatellites
Abstract
The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) is a polymorphic gene family associated with immune defence, and it can play a role in mate choice. Under the genetic compatibility hypothesis, females choose mates that differ genetically from their own MHC genotypes, avoiding inbreeding and/or enhancing the immunocompetence of their offspring. We tested this hypothesis of disassortative mating based on MHC genotypes in a population of great frigatebirds (Fregata minor) by sequencing the second exon of MHC class II B. Extensive haploid cloning yielded two to four alleles per individual, suggesting the amplification of two genes. MHC similarity between mates was not significantly different between pairs that did (n 1/4 4) or did not (n 1/4 42) exhibit extra-pair paternity. Comparing all mated pairs to a distribution based on randomized re-pairings, we observed the following (i): no evidence for mate choice based on maximal or intermediate levels of MHC allele sharing (ii), significantly disassortative mating based on similarity of MHC amino acid sequences, and (iii) no evidence for mate choice based on microsatellite alleles, as measured by either allele sharing or similarity in allele size. This suggests that females choose mates that differ genetically from themselves at MHC loci, but not as an inbreeding-avoidance mechanism. © 2012 The Royal Society.
Recommended Citation
Juola FA, Dearborn DC. 2011. Sequence-based evidence for major histocompatibility complex-disassortative mating in a colonial seabird. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 279:153-162. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0562
Copyright Note
Copyright © 2011 The Royal Society
Comments
Original version is available from the publisher at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0562