| Title |
Are large wattles related to particular MHC genotypes in the male pheasant?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Genetica, February 2010
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10709-010-9440-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Mariella Baratti, Martina Ammannati, Claudia Magnelli, Alessandro Massolo, Francesco Dessì-Fulgheri |
| Abstract |
In sexually dimorphic species, partners can assess heritable mate quality by analyzing costly sexual ornaments in terms of their dimension and possibly of their symmetry. In vertebrates an important aspect of genetic quality is the efficiency of the immune system, and in particular the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC). If ornaments are honest advertisements of pathogen resistance (good genes), in line with the Hamilton-Zuk hypothesis, a correlation between ornament expression and MHC profiles should exist. We tested this hypothesis in the common pheasant Phasianus colchicus by comparing male ornament characteristics (wattle and spur size, and wattle fluctuating asymmetry) with a portion of exon 2 of the class IIB MHC genes containing 19 putative antigen recognition sites. A total of 8 new alleles was observed in the MHCPhco exon IIB. We found significant differences in the occurrence of MHC genotypes between males carrying large or small wattles. Homozygous genotypes predicted large wattle males more correctly than small wattle males. The association between the dimension of the spur and the occurrence of MHC genotypes was marginally significant, however, we did not find any significant association between MHC genotypes and asymmetry. Our results suggest that female pheasants may use the ornament size as a cue to evaluate male quality and thus choose males carrying particular MHC profiles. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 48 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 10 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 10% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 5 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 14% |
| Unknown | 9 | 18% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 33 | 67% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 4% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 12 | 24% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 27. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 January 2021.
All research outputs
#1,215,153
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from Genetica
#11
of 713 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,714
of 166,242 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetica
#1
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 713 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 166,242 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them