Odor preference in house mice: Influences of habitat heterogeneity and chromosomal incompatibility

Behavioral Ecology

Volumn 20, Issue 6, 2009, Pages 1252-1261

  Nunes, Ana Claudia ^a,b   Mathias, Maria Da Luz ^a   Ganem, Guila ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

^b CNRS   (France)

Author keywords

Habitat variations; Hybrid zone; Madeira Island; Mus musculus domesticus; Odor preference; Rb chromosomes; Urinary signals

Indexed keywords

CHROMOSOME; HABITAT AVAILABILITY; HETEROGENEITY; HYBRID ZONE; HYBRIDIZATION; INCOMPATIBILITY; MATE CHOICE; MATING BEHAVIOR; ODOR; RODENT; URINE;

ATLANTIC ISLANDS; ATLANTIC OCEAN; EURASIA; EUROPE; MACARONESIA; MADEIRA; PORTUGAL; SOUTHERN EUROPE;

MUS; MUS MUSCULUS; MUS MUSCULUS DOMESTICUS;

EID: 70450265532     PISSN: 10452249     EISSN: 14657279     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/beheco/arp122     Document Type: Article

References (91)

1. Auffray J-C. 1993. Chromosomal divergence in house mice in the light of palaeontology: a colonization related event? Quat Int. 19:21-25.
2. Benus RF, Bohus B, Koolhaas JM, Van Oortmerssen GA. 1991. Heritable variation for aggression as a reflection of individual coping strategies. Experientia. 47:1008-1019.
3. Benus RF, Koolhaas JM, Oortmerssen V. 1992. Individual strategies of aggressive and non-aggressive male mice in encounters with trained aggressive residents. Anim Behav. 43:531-540. B́imová B, Karn RC, Piálek J. 2005. The role of salivary androgen-binding protein in reproductive isolation between two subspecies of house mouse: Mus musculus musculus and Mus musculus domesti-cus. Biol J Linn Soc. 84:349-361.
4. Boyse EA, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K. 1987. The genetics of body scent. Trends Genet. 3:97-102.
5. Britton-Davidian J, Catalan J, Lopez J, Ganem G, Nunes AC Ramalhinho MG, Auffray JC, Searle JB, Mathias ML. 2007. Patterns of genic diversity and structure in a species undergoing rapid chromosomal radiation: an allozyme analysis of house mice from the Madeira archipelago. Heredity. 99:432-442.
6. Britton-Davidian J, Catalan J, Ramalhinho MG, Auffray JC, Nunes AC, Gazave E, Searle JB, Mathias ML. 2005. Chromosomal phylogeny of Robertsonian races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira: testing between alternative mutational processes. Genet Res. 86: 171-183.
7. Britton-Davidian J, Nadeau JH, Croset H, Thaler L. 1989. Genic differentiation and origin of Robertsonian populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus Rutty). Genet Res. 53:29-44.
8. Bronson FH. 1984. Energy allocation and reproductive development in wild and domestic house mice. Biol Reprod. 31:83-88.
9. Capanna E, Corti M, Mainardi D, Stefano P, Brain PF. 1984. Karyotype and intermale aggression in wild house mice: ecology and specia-tion. Behav Genet. 14:195-208.
10. Carpineti M, Castiglia R. 2004. Analysis of behavioural discrimination mechanisms in a contact zone between two metacentric races of the house mouse, Mus musculus domesticus, in central Italy. Rend Fis Acc Lincei. 15:31-41.
11. Cavaggioni A, Mucignat-Caretta C, Redaelli M, Zagotto G. 2006. The scent of urine spots of male mice, Mus musculus: changes in chemical composition over time. Rapid Commun Mass Spectrom.
12. Cheetham SA, Thom MD, Jury F, Ollier WER, Beynon RJ, Hurst JL. 2007. The genetic basis of individual-recognition signals in the mouse. Curr Biol. 17:1771-1777.
13. Clutton-Brock T. 2007. Sexual selection in males and females. Science. 318:1882-1885.
14. Collins SA, Gosling LM, Watkins RW, Cowan DP. 2001. Artificially increasing scent mark rate increases urogenital gland size in mice Mus musculus. Physiol Behav. 74:517-522.
15. Coopersmith CB, Lenington S. 1992. Female preferences based on male quality in house mice: interaction between male dominance rank and t-complex genotype. Ethology. 90:1-16.
16. Corti M, Parmigiani S, Mainardi D, Capanna E, Brain PF. 1989. The role of intermale aggression in speciation processes in chromosomal races of house mice. In: Brain PF, Mainardi D, Parmigiani S, editors. House mouse aggression. A model for understanding the evolution of social behaviour. Chur (Switzerland): Harwood Academic Publishers. p. 49-69.
17. Cox TP. 1984. Ethological isolation between local populations of house mice (Mus musculus) based on olfaction. Anim Behav. 32: 1068-1077.
18. Cox TP. 1989. Odor-based discrimination between noncontiguous demes of wild Mus. J Mammal. 70:549-556.
19. Coyne JA, Orr HA. 2004. Speciation. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer Associates, Inc.
20. David P, Bjorksten T, Fowler K, Pomiankowski A. 2000. Condition-dependent signaling of genetic variation in stalk-eyed flies. Nature. 406:186-188.
21. Dias PC. 1996. Sources and sinks in population biology. Trends Ecol Evol. 11:326-330.
22. Doutrelant C, Grégoire A, Grnac N, Gomez D, Lambrechts MM, Perret P. 2008. Female coloration indicates female reproductive capacity in blue tits. J Evol Biol. 21:226-233.
23. Drickamer LC, Mikesic DG, Shaffer KS. 1992. Use of odor baits in traps to test reactions to intra-and interspecific chemical cues in house mice living in outdoor enclosures. J Chem Ecol. 18: 2223-2250.
24. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Holmes CM. 2000. Free female mate choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance. Anim Behav. 59:371-378.
25. Drickamer LC, Gowaty PA, Wagner DM. 2003. Free mutual mate preferences in house mice affect reproductive success and offspring performance. Anim Behav. 65:105-114.
26. Egid K, Lenington S. 1985. Responses of male mice to odors of females: effects of T-and H-2-locus genotype. Behav Genet. 15:287-295.
27. Endler JA, Basolo AL. 1998. Sensory ecology, receiver biases and sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 13:415-420.
28. Endler JA, Houde AE. 1995. Geographic variation in female preference for male traits in Poecilia reticulata. Evolution. 49:456-468.
29. Franks P, Lenington S. 1986. Dominance and reproductive behavior of wild house mice in a seminatural environment correlated with T-locus genotype. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 18:395-404.
30. Fuller RC, Houle D, Travis J. 2005. Sensory bias as an explanation for the evolution of mate preferences. Am Nat. 166:437-446.
31. Ganem G, Searle JB. 1996. Behavioural discrimination among chromosomal races of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus). J Evol Biol. 9:817-831.
32. Gosling LM, Roberts SC, Thornton EA, Andrew MJ. 2000. Life history costs of olfactory status signalling in mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 48:328-332.
33. Gowaty PA, Drickamer LC, Schmid-Holmes S. 2003. Male house mice produce fewer offspring with lower viability and poorer performance when mated with females they do not prefer. Anim Behav. 65:95-103.
34. Grafen A, Hails R. 2002. Modern statistics for the life sciences. New York: Oxford University Press.
35. Haavie J, Borge T, Bures S, Garamszegi LZ, Lampe HM, Moreno J, Qvarnstrom A, Torok J, Saetre GP. 2004. Flycatcher song in allopatry and sympatry-convergence, divergence and reinforcement. J Evol Biol. 17:227-237.
36. Harvey S, Jemiolo B, Novotny M. 1989. Pattern of volatile compounds in dominant and subordinate male mouse urine. J Chem Ecol. 15:2061-2072.
37. Hauffe HC, Searle JB. 1998. Chromosomal heterozygosity and fertility in house mice (Mus musculus domesticus) from northern Italy. Genetics. 150:1143-1154.
38. Hewitt GM. 1999. Hybrid zones. In: Kehrer-Sawatzki H, editor. Encyclopedia of life sciences. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
39. Hoffmann F, Musolf K, Penn DJ. 2009. Freezing urine reduces its efficacy for eliciting ultrasonic vocalizations from male mice. Phys-iol Behav. 96:602-605.
40. Hurst JL, Beynon RJ. 2004. Scent wars: the chemobiology of competitive signalling in mice. Bioessays. 26:1288-1298.
41. Jennions MD. 1997. Female promiscuity and genetic incompatibility. Trends Ecol Evol. 12:251-253.
42. Jennions MD. 2006. Sexual tension: does conflict lead to costly mate choice? Evolution. 60:415-417.
43. Kronforst MR, Young LG, Gilbert LE. 2007. Reinforcement of mate preference among hybridizing Heliconius butterflies. J Evol Biol. 20:278-285.
44. Leal M, Fleishman LJ. 2004. Differences in visual signal design and detectability between allopatric populations of Anolis lizards. Am Nat. 163:26-39.
45. Lenington S, Egid K. 1985. Female discrimination of male odors correlated with male genotype at the T locus: a response to T-locus or H-2-locus variability. Behav Genet. 15:53-67.
46. Lukhtanov VA, Kandul NP, Plotkin JB, Dantchenko AV, Haig D, Pierce NE. 2005. Reinforcement of pre-zygotic isolation and karyotype evolution in Agrodiaetus butterflies. Nature. 436:385-389.
47. Mainardi D, Parmigiani S, Jones SE, Brain PF, Capanna E, Corti M. 1986. Social conflict and chromosomal races of feral male house mice: an assessment of combining laboratory and field investigations. Proceedings of the International Meetings on Variability and Behavioral Evolution. Rome: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei. p. 111-139.
48. Mathias ML, Nunes AC, Marques C, Auffray J-C, Britton-Davidian J, Ganem G, Gündüz I, Ramalhinho MG, Searle JB, Speakman JR. 2006. Effects of climate on oxygen consumption and energy intake of chromosomally-divergent populations of the house mouse (Mus musculus domesticus) from the island of Madeira (North Atlantic, Portugal). Funct Ecol. 20:330-339.
49. Milinski M. 2006. The major histocompatibility complex, sexual selection, and mate choice. Annu Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 37:159-186.
50. Mills SC, Alatalo RV, Koskela E, MappesJ, Mappes T, Oksanen TA. 2007. Signal reliability compromised by genotype-by-environment interaction and potential mechanisms for its preservation. Evolution. 61:1748-1757.
51. Mossman CA, Drickamer LC. 1996. Odor preferences of female house mice (Mus domesticus) in seminatural enclosures. J Comp Psychol. 110:131-138.
52. Nachman MW, Searle JB. 1995. Why is the house mouse karyotype so variable? Trends Ecol Evol. 10:397-402.
53. Novotny M, Harvey S, Jemiolo B. 1990. Chemistry of male dominance in the house mouse, Mus domesticus. Experientia. 46:109-113. (Pubitemid 20028431)
54. Novotny MV. 2003. Pheromones, binding proteins and receptor responses in rodents. Biochem Soc Trans. 31:117-122.
55. Nunes-Oliveira AC. 2007. The Madeira House mouse chromosomal system: a multidisciplinary approach to study mechanisms involved in its evolution [PhD thesis]. Lisbon & Montpellier: University of Lisbon & University of Montpellier 2.
56. Nunes AC, Britton-Davidian J, Catalan J, Ramalhinho MG, Capela R, Mathias ML, Ganem G. 2005. Influence of physical environmental characteristics and anthropogenic factors on the position and structure of a contact zone between two chromosomal races of the house mouse on the island of Madeira (North Atlantic, Portugal). J Bio-geogr. 32:2123-2134.
57. Oakeshott JG. 1974. Social dominance, aggressiveness and mating success among male house mice (Mus musculus). Oecologia. 15: 143-158.
58. Oksanen TA, Jokinen I, Koskela E, Mappes T, Vilpas H. 2003. Manipulation of offspring number and size: benefits of large body size at birth depend upon the rearing environment. J Anim Ecol. 72: 321-330.
59. Olsson M, Madsen T. 1995. Female choice on male quantitative traits in lizards-why is it so rare? Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 36:179-184.
60. Olsson M, Shine R, Madsen T, Gullberg A, Tegelström H. 1996. Sperm selection by females. Nature. 383:585.
61. Penn D, Potts WK. 1998a. Chemical signals and parasite-mediated sexual selection. Trends Ecol Evol. 13:391-396.
62. Penn D, Potts WK. 1998b. Untrained mice discriminate MHC-determined odors. Physiol Behav. 63:235-243.
63. Perrigo G, Bronson CL. 1985. Sex differences in the energy allocation strategies of house mice. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 17:297-302.
64. Pfennig KS. 1998. The evolution of mate choice and the potential for conflict between species and mate-quality recognition. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 265:1743-1748.
65. Pfennig KS. 2000. Female spadefoot toads compromise on mate quality to ensure conspecific matings. Behav Ecol. 11:220-227.
66. Phelps SM, Ryan MJ. 2000. History influences signal recognition: neural network models of tungara frogs. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 267:1633-1639.
67. Pialek J, Hauffe HC, Rodriguez-Clark KM, Searle JB. 2001. Raciation and speciation in house mice from the Alps: the role of chromosomes. Mol Ecol. 10:613-625.
68. Piàlek J, Hauffe HC, Searle JB. 2005. Chromosomal variation in the house mouse: a review. Biol J Linn Soc. 84:535-563.
69. Qvarnstrom A, Forsgren E. 1998. Should females prefer dominant males? Trends Ecol Evol. 13:498-501.
70. Reading KL, Backwell PRY. 2007. Can beggars be choosers? Male mate choice in a fiddler crab. Anim Behav. 74:867-872.
71. Rich TJ, Hurst JL. 1998. Scent marks as reliable signals of the competitive ability of mates. Anim Behav. 56:727-735.
72. Rich TJ, Hurst JL. 1999. The competing countermarks hypothesis: reliable assessment of competitive ability by potential mates. Anim Behav. 58:1027-1037.
73. Roberts SC, Gosling LM. 2003. Genetic similarity and quality interact in mate choice decisions by female mice. Nat genet. 35: 103-106.
74. Rundle HD, Chenoweth SF, Doughty P, Blows MW. 2005. Divergent selection and the evolution of signal traits and mating preferences. PLOS Biol. 3:e368.
75. Ryan MJ. 1980. Sexual selection, sensory systems and sensory exploitation. Oxf Surv Evol Biol. 7:157-195.
76. Ryan MJ, Rand AS. 1995. Female responses to ancestral advertisement calls in Tungara frogs. Science. 269:390-392.
77. Ryan MJ, Wagner WE Jr. 1987. Asymmetries in mating preferences between species: female Swordtails prefer heterospecific males. Science. 236:595-596.
78. Sall J, Lehman A. 1996. JMP start statistics. Belmont (CA): Duxbury Press.
79. Sans-Fuentes MA, Lopez-Fuster MJ, Ventura J, Diez-Noguera A, Cambras T. 2005. Effect of Robertsonian translocations on the motor activity rhythm in the house mouse. Behav Genet. 35: 603-613.
80. Seddon N. 2005. Ecological adaptation and species recognition drives vocal evolution in neotropical suboscine birds. Evolution. 59: 200-215.
81. Servedio MR, Saetre GP. 2003. Speciation as a positive feedback loop between postzygotic and prezygotic barriers to gene flow. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 270:1473-1479.
82. Smadja C, Butlin RK. 2009. On the scent of speciation: the chemo-sensory system and its role in premating isolation. Heredity. 102:77-97.
83. Smadja C, Ganem G. 2005. Asymmetrical reproductive character displacement in the house mouse. J Evol Biol. 18:1485-1493.
84. Smadja C, Ganem G. 2008. Divergence of odorant signals within and between the two European subspecies of the house mouse. Behav Ecol. 19:223-230.
85. Thom MD, Stockley P, Jury F, Ollier WER, Beynon RJ, Hurst JL. 2008. The direct assessment of genetic heterozygosity through scent in the mouse. Curr Biol. 18:619-623.
86. Van Oortmerssen GA, Benus RF, Dijk DJ. 1985. Studies in wild house mice: genotype-environment interactions for attack latency. Neth J Zool. 35:155-169.
87. Van Oortmerssen GA, Busser J. 1989. Studies in wild house mice III. Disruptive selection of aggression as a possible force in evolution. In: Brain PF, Mainardi D, Parmigiani S, editors. House mouse aggression. A model for understanding the evolution of social behaviour. Chur, Switzerland: Harwood Academic Publishers. p. 87-117.
88. Van Zegeren K. 1980. Variation in aggressiveness and the regulation of numbers in house mouse populations. Neth J Zool. 30: 635-770.
89. Wolff RJ. 1985. Mating behaviour and female choice: their relation to social structure in wild caught House mice (Mus muscu-lus) housed in a semi-natural environment. J Zool Lond. 207: 43-51.
90. Zahavi A, Zahavi A. 1997. The handicap principle: a missing piece of Darwin's puzzle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
91. Zeh JA, Zeh DW. 2003. Toward a new sexual selection paradigm: polyandry, conflict and incompatibility (invited article). Ethology. 109:929-950.