2009
DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2008.08.004
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Signalling components of the house mouse mate recognition system

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

2
30
1

Year Published

2009
2009
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

1
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(33 citation statements)
references
References 63 publications
2
30
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, when experimentally tested, wild mice of the two subspecies did not show any difference in time spent sniffing urine to sniffing the urine with added ABPs18. In our data, some SCGBs/ABPs were male-biased but no member of this family was sex unique in the mouse saliva.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 50%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…However, when experimentally tested, wild mice of the two subspecies did not show any difference in time spent sniffing urine to sniffing the urine with added ABPs18. In our data, some SCGBs/ABPs were male-biased but no member of this family was sex unique in the mouse saliva.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 50%
“…Thus, lipocalins and their specific ligands together form a signal15. Differential ligand binding may have a potential influence on sub-species recognition between M. m. musculus and M. m. domesticus 161718. These two sub-species have been previously shown to vary in the abundance of male VOCs19 and in MUP expression between the two subspecies and individuals of the opposite sex9.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This study addresses the signal component of potential hybrid mates, by assessing how such signals are perceived, mainly by the choosiest subspecies (musculus) [16,34,36].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The analysis of the total times spent sniffing each signal, analyzed here as coefficient of preference of the signal (R Sn ) ( Table 3), shows that both males and females preferred saliva samples of the +/+ genotype over those of the 2/2 genotype (R Sn , females: t-test: t = 2.178, P = 0.037; males: t-test: t = 2.309, P = 0.028). Stronger preferences displayed in close contact with a signal cue may indicate the role of ABP as a nonvolatile signal similar to MUPs (Bímová et al 2009). However, based on these data, we cannot speculate about the signaling mechanism of ABPs.…”
Section: Male and Female Preference For Knockout Genotype Salivamentioning
confidence: 99%