| Literature DB >> 20374634 |
Elise Huchard1, Michel Raymond, Julio Benavides, Harry Marshall, Leslie A Knapp, Guy Cowlishaw.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Males from many species are believed to advertise their genetic quality through striking ornaments that attract mates. Yet the connections between signal expression, body condition and the genes associated with individual quality are rarely elucidated. This is particularly problematic for the signals of females in species with conventional sex roles, whose evolutionary significance has received little attention and is poorly understood. Here we explore these questions in the sexual swellings of female primates, which are among the most conspicuous of mammalian sexual signals and highly variable in size, shape and colour. We investigated the relationships between two components of sexual swellings (size and shape), body condition, and genes of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) in a wild baboon population (Papio ursinus) where males prefer large swellings.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20374634 PMCID: PMC2858743 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-96
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Evol Biol ISSN: 1471-2148 Impact factor: 3.260
Figure 1MHC-associated variation in sexual swelling components and body condition. (A) A fully-swollen female baboon mate-guarded by an adult male. (B) Effect of six MHC supertypes on swelling components and body condition (note that the results relative to MHC supertype S11 are not displayed because S11 is systematically possessed in association with S2 - see Table S1, Additional File 1). Means and standard errors are shown. The variation in swelling area or swelling shape estimator is illustrated on the relevant axis.
Results of the linear mixed-effect models testing MHC-associated and condition-dependent variation in swelling size and shape, as well as MHC-associated variation in body condition.
| Variable | Swelling size | Swelling shape | Body condition | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Est. [SD] | F1, df | df | Est. [SD] | F1, df | df | Est. [SD] | F1, df | df | ||||
| Age1 | -1.54 [2.34] | 0.43 | 10 | 0.52 | -1.4 × 10-2 [3.4 × 10-3] | 17.5 | 10 | < 0.01 | -1.37 [3.22] | 0.18 | 11 | 0.70 |
| Social rank1 | 32.57 [28.23] | 1.33 | 10 | 0.28 | 7.9 × 10-2 [3.9 × 10-2] | 7.33 | 10 | 0.07 | 20.79 [34.32] | 0.37 | 11 | 0.56 |
| Group1,2 | 25.04 [18.02] | 1.93 | 10 | 0.19 | -4.9 × 10-3 [2.5 × 10-2] | 0.04 | 10 | 0.85 | -3.66 [23.78] | 0.02 | 11 | 0.88 |
| MHC diversity3 | -6.62 [6.66] | 0.99 | 9 | 0.35 | 7.1 × 10-3 [1.0 × 10-2] | 0.49 | 9 | 0.50 | 8.20 [8.72] | 0.88 | 10 | 0.37 |
| S13,4 | -45.90 [14.74] | 10.8 | 9 | 0.01 | 8.6 × 10-2 [1.1 × 10-2] | 64.6 | 9 | < 10-3 | -54.89 [19.79] | 7.70 | 10 | 0.02 |
| S2, S113,5 | 19.49 [17.36] | 1.26 | 9 | 0.29 | -2.7 × 10-2 [2.5 × 10-2] | 1.22 | 9 | 0.29 | 38.48 [21.19] | 2.96 | 10 | 0.12 |
| S33 | -5.09 [19.83] | 0.04 | 9 | 0.84 | 1.2 × 10-2 [2.7 × 10-2] | 0.18 | 9 | 0.68 | 18.28 [23.30] | 0.61 | 10 | 0.45 |
| S53 | -5.27 [19.53] | 0.07 | 9 | 0.79 | -1.7 × 10-2 [2.7 × 10-2] | 0.38 | 9 | 0.55 | 9.57 [26.41] | 0.13 | 10 | 0.72 |
| S73 | -3.22 [18.96] | 0.03 | 9 | 0.89 | -1.5 × 10-2 [2.7 × 10-2] | 0.31 | 9 | 0.59 | -0.33 [26.04] | 0.00 | 10 | 0.99 |
| S83 | 12.23 [21.71] | 0.32 | 9 | 0.59 | -2.6 × 10-2 [3.0 × 10-2] | 0.73 | 9 | 0.41 | 25.92 [28.34] | 0.84 | 10 | 0.38 |
| MUAF3 | 0.50 [0.21] | 5.53 | 8 | 0.05 | -6.6 × 10-4 [2.8 × 10-4] | 5.68 | 8 | 0.04 | n/a | n/a | n/a | n/a |
1 Parameters and tests for control variables (age, social rank, group) are calculated here in the absence of the test variables. See Additional file 1 for the parameters and tests calculated from the full models including either S1 or MUAF.
2 Reference category: smaller troop.
3 Each of the test variables was tested independently (i.e. one test parameter per model), such that the results presented here are a summary of eight different models (in this case the full models, i.e. all predictors present). The individual models testing the influence of MHC supertype S1 are presented in Additional file 1 (see Tables S2-S3 for the models explaining swelling characteristics, and Tables S8-S9 for the models explaining body condition), as well as the models testing the influence of MUAF on swelling characteristics (Tables S4-S5).
4 Phenotypic effects of S1 on swelling components remain significant after Bonferroni corrections for multiple tests, with a significance threshold α = 0.0125 for a total of four independent tests involving MHC supertypes S1, S3, S5 and S8 (the possession of S2 and S7 is non-independent from the possession of several other supertypes: see Table S1 in Additional file 1). In contrast, the effects of MHC supertype S1 on body condition is reduced to a trend (P = 0.08) after correction for multiple testing.
5 Supertypes S2 and S11 are always possessed together.