House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distances

Luisa Amo; Guillermo Amo de Paz; Johanna Kabbert; Annie Machordom

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278892

. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0278892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892

House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distances

Luisa Amo ^1,^2,^*, Guillermo Amo de Paz ³, Johanna Kabbert ^4,⁵, Annie Machordom ⁶

Editor: Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez⁷

PMCID: PMC9770374 PMID: 36542616

Abstract

MHC genes play a fundamental role in immune recognition of pathogens and parasites. Therefore, females may increase offspring heterozygosity and genetic diversity by selecting males with genetically compatible or heterozygous MHC. In birds, several studies suggest that MHC genes play a role in mate choice, and recent evidence suggests that olfaction may play a role in the MHC-II discrimination. However, whether olfaction is involved in MHC-I discrimination in birds remains unknown. Previous studies indicate that house sparrow females with low allelic diversity prefer males with higher diversity in MHC-I alleles. Here, we directly explored whether female and male house sparrows (Passer domesticus) could estimate by scent MHC-I diversity and/or dissimilarity of potential partners. Our results show that neither females nor males exhibit a preference related to MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity of potential partners, suggesting that MHC-I is not detected through olfaction. Further studies are needed to understand the mechanisms responsible for mate discrimination based on MHC-I in birds.

Introduction

When selecting partners for mating, females may choose those that will provide the best resources, genes, or both in order to increase offspring fitness [1, 2]. Most experimental studies addressing sexual selection in birds have focused on male quality to explain adaptive mate choice, considering females to assess potential mates by using male ornamental traits, such as plumage coloration [3, 4], or acoustic traits such as male songs [5]. These traits are condition-dependent signals of male quality and therefore, may allow females to obtain resources and/or good genes for their offspring. In contrast, studies addressing the mate choice of females in relation to genetic dissimilarity are less well described. However, the increased use of molecular techniques for assessing paternity and genetic compatibility shows that females may also choose mates based on traits and/or mechanisms other than the “good genes” hypothesis, thereby arguing for additional mechanism critical to female choosiness. Females may thus use alternative mechanisms for choosing mates such as extra-pair copulations [6, 7], or post-copulatory choice [8]. Furthermore, molecular techniques have also revealed that males also select mates [9]. For example, red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) males decrease their investment in reproduction, i.e., by allocating less sperm, when copulating with females with similar MHC (Mayor Histocompability Complex (see below)) alleles [9], and Leach’s storm-petrel (Oceanodroma leucorhoa) males avoid pairing with most common MHC homozygous females [10].

The MHC is a large chromosomal region containing several highly polymorphic genes (MHC class I and II loci) that play a central role in controlling immunological self/non-self recognition [11, 12] and encode cell-surface glycoproteins that mediate antigen presentation to T-lymphocytes. Therefore, MHC genes play a fundamental role in immune recognition of pathogens and parasites. Specifically, MHC-I genes are involved in recognition of intracellular pathogens whereas MHC-II genes are involved in the recognition of extracellular pathogens and parasites. For example, in house sparrows, Passer domesticus, specific MHC-I alleles are associated with stronger immune T cell responses to MHC-I presented antigen [13] and increased resistance to malaria parasites [14, 15]. Furthermore, some MHC-I genes have been found to partly explain early survival in this species [16]. Consequently, both pathogen-mediated selection [17] and sexual selection [18–21] may explain the maintenance of MHC polymorphism.

The study of sexual selection is providing examples of MHC dissimilar based selection in birds [7, 22, 23], but see [24], here indicating that clutch sizes and the probability to extra-pair relationships can be affected by the partner’s MHC diversity [7, 22, 23]. For example, although blue tit (Cyanistes caeruleus) females are known to use song [25] and plumage coloration [26] when selecting social mates, there is evidence that extra-pair partners are selected based on their genetic dissimilarity, as extra-pair nestlings showed a higher degree of heterozygosity compared to within-pair nestlings [27]. Females may increase their offspring’s fitness by selecting genetically dissimilar mates when engaging in extra-pair copulations as nestlings with a higher degree of heterozygosity were more likely to survive [27]. Although, females may ensure all nestling survival by choosing the best parental male based on phenotypical characteristics such as plumage coloration [26], the use of other characteristics signalling male genetic heterozygosity likely contributes to mate choice in the context of sexual selection [28, 29].

In order to provide the best genetic benefits in relation to the immune systems to their offspring females can select males with “good genes”, that will consequently be inherited by their offspring increasing their fitness [30] or select more heterozygous or dissimilar males to increase the genetic diversity of offspring [31]. When this heterozygosity is exhibited in genes of the immune system, the benefits for offspring fitness are obvious in terms of resistance to a wide range of infections [32]. Although, the evidence is not as well-described as in mammals [33, 34], including humans [35], evidence for MHC-associated mate choice has been found in fishes [36] and reptiles [37]. In birds MHC-associated mate choice have been found both for MHC class I [38, 39] and class II [10, 22, 40], but see ([24]). While olfaction has been shown to account for MHC recognition in other taxa, in avian studies sexual selection based on olfaction had been largely neglected in the past. However more recently, two bodies of evidence support olfactory mediated MHC-based mate choice in birds. Firstly, there is an increasing number of studies showing that the chemical profile of bird odour is correlated with MHC-II allelic diversity [41–43]. Secondly, behavioural experiments testing the olfactory preferences of birds have found that olfactory preferences for other conspecifics is based on MHC-II genes [28, 29]. In support of this, the study by Leclaire and collaborators [28] showed first evidence that birds can use olfactory cues to assess MHC-II similarity. Here, incubating blue petrel, Halobaena caerulea, males preferred the scent of MHC-II dissimilar females, while incubating females preferred the scent of MHC-II similar males [28]. Conversely, Grieve and collaborators [29] performed a study assessing the scent preferences in song sparrows, Melospiza melodia, and showed that during breeding season both females and males spent longer time periods close to odours from MHC-II dissimilar partners [28]. Given these opposite results found in female preferences of both species, further studies are needed to disentangle the MHC scent preferences of birds in the context of sexual selection during the mating period. Furthermore, to our knowledge, MHC-I scent preferences of birds in the context of sexual selection has not been previously assessed.

In this study we have experimentally explored whether olfactory signals play a role in the preference for potential partners with greater MHC-I dissimilarity and/or diversity in house sparrows, Passer domesticus, during the mating period.

Materials and methods

Study species

For this study the house sparrow (Passer domesticus) was chosen as a model species as their olfactory capabilities have been previously described in the context of roosting cavity assessment [44] and social interactions [45]. Moreover, in the house sparrow, MHC-I allele diversity is associated with reproductive success [46]. It has been shown that males with low MHC-I allelic diversity or too dissimilar MHC-I alleles fail to form breeding pairs [47]. Therefore, female house sparrows likely assess their male mate preferences based on their own MHC-I allelic diversity [39]. Females with low MHC-I allelic diversity choose males with relatively higher MHC-I allelic diversity, whereas no preference is exhibited by females with high or intermediate MHC-I diversity ([39] but see [38]).

We used mist nets to capture 100 male and 51 female adult house sparrows at the Madrid Zoo (Spain) during February and March 2015. Immediately after capturing, all birds were measured with a dial calliper to the nearest 0.01 cm and weighed with a spring balance to the nearest 0.1 g. We measured the length of the visible badge of males with a digital calliper to the nearest mm from the base of the bill to the point on the black breast at which the black feathers finished. This measurement was used instead of the area of the badge, because measurement of the width across the whole black area is less accurate, and it has been used as a measure of badge size in previous studies [48]. All birds were individually banded with numbered aluminium and PVC rings. We obtained blood (80–100 μl) from the brachial vein with the aid of a needle and a capillary tube. Blood samples were centrifuged (2000 × g, 5 min) with a portable centrifuge (Nahita 2507–01). Serum and cellular fractions were separated, and the cellular fraction was conserved in 94% ethanol and stored for later analysis.

Birds were housed at the FIEB, Foundation for the Research and the Study of Ethology and Biodiversity (Casarrubios del Monte, Toledo), in outdoor aviaries, until two weeks before the experiments, when birds were individually housed in cages inside the aviaries, so they were maintained at outdoor temperature and photoperiod. Bird weight and badge size was again measured at this time point.

MHC characterization

For DNA metabarcoding library preparation, PCRs were carried out in a final volume of 25 μl, containing 2.5 μl of template DNA, 0.5 μM of the primers (GCA21M, 5’ GCG T AC A GC G GC T TG T TG G CT G TG A, and fA23M, 5’ GCG CTC CAG CTC CTT CTG CCC ATA [47], to which the Illumina sequencing adaptor sequences were attached to their 5’ ends to allow attaching fragments to the cell flow lawn, 12.5 μl of Phusion DNA polymerase mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific), and ultrapure water up to 25 μl. The reaction mixture was incubated as follows: an initial denaturation at 98 °C for 30 s, followed by 35 cycles of 98 °C for 10 s, 60 °C for 20 s, 72 °C for 20 s, and a final extension step at 72 °C for 10 minutes. The index sequences (unique short sequences to identify each individual) which are required for multiplexing different libraries in the same sequencing pool were attached in a second PCR round with identical conditions and only 5 cycles. The libraries were run on a 1% agarose gel stained with REAL Safe (Durviz) and imaged under UV light. Negative controls that contained no DNA were included to check for contamination during library preparation. Libraries were pooled in equimolar amounts according to band intensity. The pool was purified using the Mag-Bind RXNPure Plus magnetics beads (Omega Biotek), following the instructions provided by the manufacturer. The pool was sequenced in a MiSeq PE300 run (Illumina).

The data were filtered to remove low-quality sequences, any reads representing artefactual MHC alleles or putatively non-functional sequences [49]. Firstly, a 1% bioinformatics filter per sample was applied [50], to keep only potential true alleles. After that, a minimum total sequence abundance/individual was set to 200, according to the frequencies of our reads and previous research [40]. After data processing, we obtained 117 different MHC-I alleles in 151 individuals. The average (± SE) number of alleles per individual was 4.62 ± 0.15 (range: 1–10). We calculated MHC amino acid diversity for each individual as the number of unique amino acid sequences. The amino acids in the particularly polymorphic peptide-binding regions of the MHC molecules determine what antigens can be bound and are therefore crucial for the function of each allele. We calculated functional diversity for each individual coding the amino acid sequences according to the chemical binding properties of the amino acids [16, 28, 40].

Amino acid and functional distance between birds

Amino acid and functional distances between individual genotypes were used to describe MHC similarity between individuals and were calculated following the approaches described in [15, 28, 40]. To calculate amino acid distances, a maximum-likelihood tree was inferred for all translated MHC sequences, using PhyML (v. 3.0) [51] in the ATGC platform with a Jones-Taylor-Thornton substitution model [52], selected automatically by Smart Model Selection (SMS) [53], following the Bayesian Information Criterion. Because this metric can be sensitive to cut-off thresholds and other methodological decisions [54, 55], in addition to calculating distances for the full data set, we also generated four additional phylogenies, each removing one of the four alleles with the longest branch lengths. We calculated unweighted UniFrac distances for each of the 5 phylogenies, then used the average of all analyses [29].

To calculate functional distances, we obtained the functional MHC alleles from Lukasch et al. [16], that are based on the chemical binding properties of the amino acids in the peptide binding regions (PBRs), described by five physio-chemical descriptor variables (z-descriptors) for each amino acid [56]. We obtained 113 functional MHC-I alleles. The average (± SE) number of functional alleles per individual was 4.48 ± 0.15 (range: 1–10). The functional MHC alleles obtained are shown in S2 Table. The resulting matrix of allele frequencies was used to construct an alternative maximum-likelihood tree with contml in the PHYLIP-package, v. 3.695. This tree represents clusters of functionally-similar MHC sequences rather than clusters of evolutionary-similar MHC sequences. The amino acid and functional trees were used as references from which the amino acid and functional distances between MHC-sequence repertoires were calculated, using unweighted UniFrac analyses (Phyloseq v. 1.22.3 package in R). We also generated seven additional phylogenies, each removing one of the seven functional alleles with the longest branch lengths and calculated mean unweighted UniFrac distances across all eight functional trees. Amino acid distances were positively correlated with functional distances among the 151 individuals used in this study (Mantel test: r = 0.87, P = 0.01; calculated using Vegan v. 2.4–6 package in R).

Behavioural experiment

The experiment was performed indoors during May and June 2015 using an olfactometry chamber (Fig 1). The experimental device was composed of a small central plastic box (15 x 25 x 25 cm), where the experimental bird was placed, and two lateral chambers referred to as choice chambers (Fig 1). Each choice chamber was divided into two sectors with screens. The distal sectors (15 x 25 x 25 cm) of the choice chambers (30 x 25 x 25 cm) contained two little cages (13.4 x 23.5 x 19.8 cm) where the scent donor birds were situated. Both, the doors connecting the central chamber with the choice chambers and the screens creating the sectors, consisted of a dense plastic mesh that allowed air flow but prevented birds from seeing through them. Overall, the device was sealed and only openings at the farthest walls of the choice chambers allowed air flow. The central chamber contained a small 12 V PC fan that extracted the air from the device creating a controlled low-noise airflow (Fig 1). The fan created two constant air flows, each one entering across the openings located at the farthest walls of each choice chamber, passing by the donor birds, and crossing the central chamber, and going outside from the device through the fan. Thus, the focal bird received two separate air flows, carrying the scent of the corresponding donor bird. Donor birds were kept in darkness (opaque chamber) for the entire trial duration and reduced space (scent donor cages), preventing them from moving or calling. Therefore, the experimental bird only perceived the scent of the donor birds without visual or acoustics contact. The experimental room was to the greatest possible extend sealed from exterior noise, enabling the experimenter to perceive any acoustic signals from any of the birds in the device. The experimenter was present during the entire trial period, but not visible/audible to the focal bird. The device and the methodology have been successfully used in social context studies before [57, 58].

In each test, a bird was introduced into the central box and maintained in the dark for 5 min after that the doors were remotely opened with a rope. We noted down the choice chamber that was first approached by each tested focal bird after opening the central chamber. As the device was opaque and the experimental room was in darkness and silence, the experimenter scored by hearing the choice of the focal bird. Immediately after hearing the movement of the bird, the experimenter introduced a hand through the door of the central chamber to ensure the bird was located in the choice chamber where it was heard. The assessment of “first choice” as a preference measure of birds to chemical stimuli has been previously shown [28, 57, 58]. To minimize the experimental time duration of the trials and to release the birds as soon as possible, birds that did not show any choice preference after 1 min, were motivated to make an active choice by gently knocking on the middle of the entry door of the central chamber. The knocking on the door of the central chamber always resulted in the focal bird making a choice. The knocking on the door did not influence the preference of birds (see results). Maximal test time for each bird was 6 minutes.

The two scent donor birds used in the trials were matched for body size, weight, and size of badge in the case of males, to remove any potential correlation between body condition/dominance status and body odour. Thus, any differences in odour profiles between the two scent donor birds could be attributed to MHC and no another confounding factor. Thus, we offered focal birds the scent of two potential mates of similar body condition and dominance status ([59], but see [60]) in the case of males. There were no significant differences in the body condition (repeated measured ANOVA, F_1,127 = 0.60, P = 0.44), or the badge size (F_1,48 = 0.09, P = 0.77) between both scent donor birds. For methodological problems, we could not perform the MHC-I characterization before the behavioural tests. The MHC-I characterization was done a posteriori and therefore, we could not pair scent donor birds in relation to their MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity to focal birds. We tested 72 males and 48 females. Only one female bird did not move to any chamber even after knocking on the door and was therefore excluded from the analysis. We used 68 different pairs of scent-donor birds (41 pairs of females and 27 pairs of males); each pair was used on average 1.76 (± 0.8) times. Focal birds made 61% of their first choices to the left and 39% of the choices to the right side. There were no significant differences in the number of scent donor birds more diverse or more dissimilar between those located in the right side or in the left side of the olfactory chamber (GLZM, P > 0.30 in all cases). In relation to the amino acid diversity, in 47 trials the most diverse bird was located in the right side of the olfactometry chamber and in 50 trials in the left. In relation to the functional diversity, in 49 trials the most diverse bird was in the right side and in 47 trials in the left. In relation to amino acid distance, the most dissimilar bird was in the right side in 56 trials and in the left in 63 trials. In relation to the functional distance, in 54 trials the most dissimilar bird was in the right side and in 65 trials in the left. 68 birds made their choice within less than 1 minute and 33 birds afterwards. Since MHC-I determination was performed a posteriori in the analysis of the preference of focal birds for differences in MHC-I amino acid diversity between scent donor birds, we excluded 22 trials because the difference in the amino acid diversity was 0, which did not allow us to establish a preference. In the analysis of the preference of focal birds for differences in the functional diversity of scent donor birds, we excluded 23 trials because the difference in the functional diversity was 0.

Birds were returned to their cages directly after they were tested. The olfactometry device was carefully cleaned with 94% ethanol in between trials and experiments continued after the ethanol was completely evaporated.

Data analysis

We performed two sets of analyses to examine scent preferences of focal birds for diversity or similarity of potential partners, always considering the MHC-I of focal birds in the analysis. We included the sex of birds in the analyses to examine whether the sex of the focal bird influenced the preference of birds. We also included the side of the chamber where scent donor birds where located to control for a potential effect of side in the preference of focal birds. We performed a first set of analyses to examine the preferences of the focal birds for the diversity in amino acid alleles and functional alleles of scent donor birds, considering MHC-I diversity of the focal bird as a covariable. To analyse whether birds could detect amino acid variant numbers of potential mates by using chemical cues alone, we performed a generalized linear mixed model with binomial errors and a logit link function (GLMM). We modelled the probability that birds chose the scent of the conspecific of the opposite sex with greater number of MHC-I amino acid variants (as a dichotomous variable: greater number of MHC amino acid variants (yes) vs. lower number of MHC amino acid variants (not)) in relation to the sex and the number of MHC amino acid variants of the focal bird. We included the interaction between the sex and number of MHC amino acids of the focal bird in the model to test whether males and females differed in their preferences for partners with different numbers of MHC amino acid variants in relation to their own number of MHC amino acid variants. We also included the pair of donor birds in the model as a random factor to control for the fact that pairs of donors could be used more than once. We included in the initial model the side of the chamber where the most diverse scent donor bird was located and a variable reflecting whether the experimental bird left the chamber when we opened the doors or after 1 min as fixed factor.

We performed a similar analysis to assess whether birds chose the scent of the conspecific of the opposite sex with greater number of MHC-I functional alleles, including in number of MHC-I functional alleles of the focal bird in the model, the sex, and the interaction between the number of MHC-I functional alleles of the focal bird and the sex in the model. We also included the pair of donor birds in the model as a random factor. We included in the initial model the side of the chamber where the most diverse scent donor bird was located, and a variable reflecting whether the experimental bird left the chamber when we opened the doors or after 1 min as fixed factor.

In a second set of analyses, we analysed the preference of the focal bird for the MHC-I similarity of scent donor birds, by using the genetic and functional distances between the scent donor birds and the focal bird. We analysed the preference of the focal bird for the MHC similarity of scent donor birds, considering the similarity between the focal bird and the scent donor birds. We performed two generalized linear mixed models with binomial errors and a logit link function (GLMM) to model the probability that birds chose the scent of the conspecific of the opposite sex with greater a) MHC-I amino acid distance and b) MHC-I functional distance (as a dichotomous variable: greater MHC-I amino acid or functional distance (yes) vs. lower amino acid or functional distance (not)) in relation to the sex of the focal bird. We included in the initial model the side of the chamber where the most dissimilar bird was located and variable reflecting whether the experimental bird left the chamber when we opened the doors or after 1 min as fixed factor. We also included the pair of donor birds in the model as a random factor. Data analyses were performed with R program 4.1.2 [61].

In this set of analyses, we considered the choice as a categorical variable, i.e., we analysed whether focal birds chose (or not) the most MHC-I diverse or dissimilar potential partner, without considering the degree of differences between the diversity or similarity of scent donor birds. The analyses and results considering the differences in diversity or dissimilarity of scent donor birds are provided in the supplementary material.

Ethical note

After capture, birds were housed in ten aviaries (2.5 x 2.5 x 2.5 m), separated by sex (10 females per aviary and 16 males per aviary). Aviaries contained vegetation (bamboo branches) that birds could use as perches, and grass and sand on the ground. Commercial food for granivorous passerines and water were provided ad libitum. To reduce the time of keeping birds separated, two weeks before the experiments, birds were individually housed in cages (60 x 40 x 40 cm) that were located inside the aviaries. Thus, cages were maintained at outdoor temperature and photoperiod. After the behavioural tests were completed, birds were released again in the aviaries for two weeks and thereafter released at their capture site. Birds maintained healthy throughout the experiments. Experiments were carried out under license of the Ethical Committee of the CSIC (268/2015), the Animal Experimental Committee of the Junta de Castilla la Mancha (202121) and the department of Flora and Fauna of Comunidad de Madrid (10/238509.9/14).

Results

Our results do not show any preference in house sparrows for the scent of potential partners having a greater number of MHC-I amino acid alleles (Z = 1.08, P = 0.06, Table 1, Fig 2a) or MHC-I functional alleles (Z = 1.82, P = 0.07, Table 2, Fig 2b). There was no effect of sex in this lack of preferences (Z = -1.50, P = 0.34, and Z = -0.17, P = 0.86, respectively), and the interaction between sex and the number of amino acid alleles or functional alleles of the focal bird was not significant in either analysis (Z = 0.26, P = 0.39 and Z = -0.39, P = 0.70, respectively). Neither the number of MHC-I amino acid alleles (Z = -0.31, P = 0.14) nor the number of functional alleles (Z = -1.53, P = 0.13) influenced the choice of the focal bird. Whether the experimental bird left the chamber when opened or after 1 min did not affect the choice of the respective bird, neither did the side of the chamber where the most diverse scent donor bird was located (see Tables 1 and 2).

Table 1. Model for bird choice in relation to: The number of MHC- I amino acid alleles of a potential partner (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC amino acid diversity (yes) vs. lower number of MHC amino acid diversity).

	Estimate	SE	Z	P
Intercept	2.07	1.08	1.91	0.06
Sex	-1.50	1.57	-0.96	0.34
Choice within 1 min or after	0.08	0.32	0.26	0.80
Side	-1.13	0.58	-1.96	0.05
MHC amino acid diversity	-0.31	0.21	-1.47	0.14
Sex x MHC amino acid diversity	0.25	0.30	0.85	0.39

Open in a new tab

Table 2. Model for bird choice in relation to: The number of MHC-I functional alleles of a potential partner (as a dichotomous variable: Greater functional diversity (yes) vs. lower functional diversity).

	Estimate	SE	Z	P
Intercept	1.82	1.00	1.82	0.07
Sex	-0.26	1.50	-0.17	0.86
Choice within 1 min or after	0.15	0.28	0.54	0.59
Side	-0.82	0.51	-1.61	0.11
MHC functional diversity	-0.31	0.20	-1.53	0.13
Sex x MHC functional diversity	0.11	0.29	0.39	0.70

Open in a new tab

Our results do not show any preference of birds for the scent of potential partners having a greater MHC-I amino acid distance (Z = 0.78, P = 0.44, Table 3, Fig 3a) or functional distance (Z = 1.61, P = 0.11, Table 4, Fig 3b). Neither the sex (Z = -0.11, P = 0.79, and Z = -1.17, P = 0.24, respectively) nor whether the bird made the choice within the first minute or afterwards (Z = 0.005, P = 0.98, and Z = 0.68, P = 0.50, respectively) influenced the choice. However, we found a general side bias impacting the analysis of the bird’s choice with more birds choosing the right side of the chamber (Z = -0.83, P = 0.03, and Z = -2.23, P = 0.03, respectively).

Table 3. Model for bird choice in relation to: The difference in the MHC-I amino acid distance between the focal birds and the two scent donor birds of the opposite sex (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC-I amino acid distance (yes) vs. lower MHC-I amino acid distance (no)).

	Estimate	SE	Z	P
Intercept	0.25	0.32	0.78	0.44
Sex	-0.11	0.39	-0.27	0.79
Choice within 1 minute or after	0.005	0.21	0.02	0.98
Side	-0.83	0.38	-2.19	0.03

Open in a new tab

Table 4. Model for bird choice in relation to: The difference in the MHC-I functional distance between the focal birds and the two scent donor birds of the opposite sex (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC-I functional distance (yes) vs. lower MHC-I functional distance (no)).

	Estimate	SE	Z	P
Intercept	0.57	0.35	1.61	0.11
Sex	-0.46	0.39	-1.17	0.24
Choice within 1 minute or after	0.15	0.22	0.68	0.50
Side	-0.86	0.39	-2.23	0.03

Open in a new tab

Discussion

Our experimentally obtained results on house sparrows do not provide evidence of MHC-I scent discrimination in a passerine bird species. Although olfaction has been shown to play a major role in assessing genetic dissimilarity in birds [28, 29] as well as in other taxa [62], our results show that neither females nor males exhibited any preference for the scent of conspecifics with greater MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity. This is contrary to previous studies showing that female blue petrels (Halobaena caerulea) preferred the scent of MHC-II-similar males [28], and female song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) preferred the scent of MHC-II-dissimilar and more MHC-II-diverse males during the mating period [29]. Differences between our results using house sparrows and those using blue petrels could be due to different breeding conditions of birds used in the studies. While Leclaire and collaborators tested blue petrels that were already incubating [28] and thus not searching for a partner, we, in contrast, performed our experiment during the breeding period using birds that were separated by sex, preventing pairing or incubating. So, we expect birds would be interested in searching for a partner. Differences between our results and those obtained with song sparrows [29] cannot be attributed to differences in the breeding condition of birds, as in both studies birds were tested during the breeding period and were not incubating. Several explanations may account for the lack of preference for MHC-I dissimilar mates found in our study.

Previous experience with scent donor birds may have masked a preference for MHC-I diverse or dissimilar partners. However, we captured birds during February and March and kept females separated from males. Birds were separated by sex in different aviaries avoiding the establishment of any interaction with potential partners that may have affected olfactory preferences. Therefore, neither the timing of the experiment nor previous interactions during the breeding period or the physiological condition of the birds may explain the lack of preference for MHC-I dissimilar potential partners.

Another possibility to explain the lack of preference observed in our study is that a methodological artifact may have masked preference. In the study with song sparrows, Grieves and collaborators analysed the percentage of time spent close to the two stimuli after 5 minutes from the beginning of the trial. However, neither the first choice nor the preference of birds during the first 5 minutes of the trial was reported. We in contrast, analysed the first choice of birds after 5 minutes of exposure. The validity of first choice as a measure of bird interest in particular chemical stimuli has been previously shown [57, 58, 63–65], including MHC-related scents [28]. In general, first choice is a good measure of the spontaneous interest of an animal to a particular cue, whereas time spent close to a stimulus [66] may rather be related to the behaviour shown later on in the series of events to a certain cue. Using first choice in our experimental set-up using life birds devoid of any other cues, i.e., acoustic ones, reflects a valid measure to assess scent preference. However, to analyse whether the lack of preferences for the scent of most MHC-I diverse or dissimilar conspecifics is maintained over time, further studies are needed to assess the subsequent response of birds to the scent of potential partners.

We found a slight preference for the right side of the chamber that may be attributed to hemispherical asymmetry. House sparrows exhibited laterality in the brain towards the right, as previously reported in other sparrow species, such as American tree sparrows (Spizella arborea) [67]. Our results suggest that this laterality does not seem to affect olfactory preferences of focal birds. However, further studies are needed to explore olfactory laterality in avian species.

In addition, the lack of odour-based preference found in our study for more diverse or more dissimilar potential partners is unlikely the result of low olfactory capacities because house sparrows are known to use olfaction in social contexts [45].

Nevertheless, we consider our results robust due to the large sample size and the elimination of potential confounding factors i.e., body condition bias by using scent-donor birds of similar body condition. Based on preliminary statistical analysis using the difference in MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity between scent donor partners we observed that these differences did not explain the choice of birds (see S1 Table). Therefore, we can exclude that differences in MHC-I diversity or similarity were very small and house sparrows were not able to detect them. Moreover, due to expected differences in the volatile profile of feathers and uropygial gland secretions [68] we used live birds as scent sources as opposed to merely uropygial gland secretions to increase the robustness of our study approach.

However, while there is no reason to expect that all bird species use the same type of information to evaluate potential partners, our results are difficult to explain in a sexual context, because in house sparrows MHC-I diversity is associated with reproductive success [47]. Accordingly, house sparrow males with a low degree of MHC-I diversity or too dissimilar MHC-I alleles failed to form breeding pairs [47] and house sparrow females with low MHC-I allelic diversity choose males with high MHC-I allelic diversity [39], suggesting that house sparrow females show mate preferences based on the MHC-I status of potential partners ([39], but see [38]).

Collectively, the contradictory results of our study and others suggest that more research is needed to examine the mechanisms in more detail that may account for the olfactory assessment of MHC-I characteristics in birds. Although, several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the underlying mechanisms [62], it is still not completely understood how MHC genes influence scent [69, 70]. As MHC proteins appear in urine and sweat, it was proposed that these molecules may constitute odorants [71]. However, since MHC proteins are non-volatiles, this hypothesis is rather weak [72]. While MHC-related peptides may potentially be detected by the vomeronasal organ [73] in mammals, in birds, that lack a vomeronasal organ, this is less likely. An alternative hypothesis suggests that the peptides bound by MHC molecules are the precursors of volatile odorants [74], but this remains to be tested in birds. It has further been proposed that MHC genes may influence the bacterial profile that influences the scent of an individual [75–78] and that MHC-related scent could also be produced by symbiotic bacteria [79], whose diversity is associated with MHC-II diversity [77]. In many avian species, the main source of scent that birds can detect usually comes from externally applied secretions of the uropygial gland [80]. The quantity and composition of this secretion varies between species, sexes, ages, seasons, and is dependent on diet and hormonal levels [81]. This secretion conveys information on genetic compatibility [28, 42], which may play a role during kin recognition [82] and mate choice [28, 29, 40]. Evidence that birds are using the volatile compound of uropygial gland secretions for detecting the MHC-II characteristics of conspecifics [29] comes from a study in song sparrows that were able to assess MHC-II similarity when exposed only to the uropygial gland secretion. While a recent body of evidence suggests that MHC-II genes play a critical role in mate choice that can be assessed by olfaction as shown for blue petrels [28] and song sparrows [29], whether house sparrows employ olfaction to assess MHC-II genes or other genetic characteristics of potential partners is still not known.

Similarly, further research is needed to elucidate the source of MHC-I-related scent cues in birds. One of the major outstanding questions is whether house sparrow body odour does indeed convey information about the genetic make-up of MHC-I. We therefore propose further experiments examining whether chemical profiles vary in relation to MHC-I characteristics of individuals and to determine whether these potential differences in MHC-I characteristics can be assessed through olfaction in birds.

In conclusion, the observed lack of preference for the scent of MHC-I dissimilar potential partners suggests that the assessment of genetic diversity and dissimilarity in MHC-I is not based on olfaction in our study population of house sparrows. However, our results do not fully exclude the possibility that mate choice in house sparrows includes the selection of partners based on the degree of similarity or dissimilarity in MHC-I genes using other mechanisms rather than olfaction. Here, effects of increased MHC-I allele diversity in the progeny may result in higher resistance to pathogens [13] such as malaria parasites [14, 15, 83], that may increase reproductive success [47]. We suggest that different methodological approaches in future investigations may further the understanding of the mechanisms responsible for MHC-I based mate discrimination in birds.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Data obtained in the behavioural experiment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.8KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Aminoacid and functional diversity and distance of experimental birds.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(17.2KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Analysis of the choice of birds in relation to differences in the diversity or dissimilarity between scent donor birds.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.8KB, docx)}

Acknowledgments

We especially thank the associate editor, Dr. Rodríguez Ruiz, and the anonymous referees for their useful comments. We also thank Pilar Ochoa for laboratory analysis, Agustín López Goya, and the personnel of Madrid Zoo for allowing the capture of birds in the Zoo.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

LA was supported by the Ramón y Cajal program from MINECO (RYC-2012-11353). The study was financed by the Volkswagen Foundation (85 994-1). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

1.Bateman AJ. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948; 2: 349–368. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1948.21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
2.Trivers R. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell B. (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. Chicago: Aldine; 1972; pp. 136–179. [Google Scholar]
3.Hill GE. A Red Bird in a Brown Bag: The Function and Evolution of Colorful Plumage in the House Finch. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]
4.Hill GE, McGraw KJ. 2006. Bird Coloration: Function and Evolution. London: Harvard University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]
5.Rose EM, Prior NH, Ball GF. The singing question: re-conceptualizing birdsong. Biol Rev. 2021; doi: 10.1111/brv.12800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6.Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, Sollecito SV. Genetic similarity, extrapair paternity, and offspring quality in Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Behav Ecol. 2006; 17: 952–958. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arl031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
7.Rekdal SL, Anmarkrud JA, Lifjeld JT, Johnsen A. Extra-pair mating in a passerine bird with highly duplicated major histocompatibility complex class II: Preference for the golden mean. Mol Ecol. 2019; 28: 5133–5144. doi: 10.1111/mec.15273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8.Bernasconi G, Ashman TL, Birkhead TR, Bishop JDD, Grossniklaus U, Kubli E, et al. Evolutionary ecology of the prezygotic stage. Science 2004; 303: 971–975. doi: 10.1126/science.1092180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9.Gillingham MAF, Richardson DS, Løvlie H, Moynihan A, Worley K, Pizzari T. Cryptic preference for MHC-dissimilar females in male red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci 2009; 276: 1083–1092. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10.Hoover B, Alcaide M, Jennings S, Sin SYW, Edwards SV, Nevitt GA. Ecology can inform genetics: Disassortative mating contributes to MHC polymorphism in Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Molecular Ecology 2018; 27: 3371–3385. doi: 10.1111/mec.14801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11.Klein J. 1986. Natural history of the histocompatibility complex. New York: Wiley; 1986. [Google Scholar]
12.Janeway CA Jr. How the immune system recognizes invaders. Sci Am. 1993; 269: 73–79. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0993-72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13.Bonneaud C, Richard M, Faivre B, Westerdahl H, Sorci G. An Mhc class I allele associated to the expression of T-dependent immune response in the house sparrow. Immunogenetics 2004; 57: 782–789. doi: 10.1007/s00251-005-0046-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14.Bonneaud C, Perez-Tris J, Federici P, Chastel O, Sorci G. Major histocompatibility alleles associated with local resistance to malaria in a passerine. Evolution 2006; 60: 383–389. doi: 10.1554/05-409.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15.Loiseau C, Zoorob R, Garnier S, Birard J, Federici P, Julliard J, et al. Antagonistic effects of a Mhc class I allele on malaria-infected house sparrows. Ecol Let. 2008; 11: 258–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01141.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16.Lukasch B, Westerdahl H, Strandh M, Knauer F, Winkler H, Moodley Y, et al. Major histocompatibility complex genes partly explain early survival in house sparrows. Sci Reports 2017; 7: 6571. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06631-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17.Eizaguirre C, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M. Rapid and adaptive evolution of MHC genes under parasite selection in experimental vertebrate populations. Nature 2012; 3: 621. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
18.Penn DJ, Potts WK. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat. 1999; 153: 145–64. doi: 10.1086/303166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
19.Wedekind C, Penn D. MHC genes, body odours, and odour preferences. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2000; 15: 1269–1271. doi: 10.1093/ndt/15.9.1269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
20.Drury JP. Immunity and mate choice: a new outlook. Anim Behav. 2010; 79: 539–545. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
21.Piertney SB, Oliver MK. The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex. Heredity 2006; 96: 7–21. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
22.Freeman-Gallant CR, Meguerdichian M, Wheelwright NT, Sollecito SV. Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Mol Ecol. 2003; 12: 3077–3083. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01968.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
23.Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T, von Schantz T. MHC-based patterns of social and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2005; 272: 759–767. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.3028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
24.Bollner JL, Dunn PO, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA. Social and extra-pair mating in relation to major histocompatibility complex variation in common yellowthroats. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 4778–4785. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
25.Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt A. Extrapair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 1992; 357: 494–496. doi: 10.1038/357494a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
26.Andersson S, Örnborg J, Andersson M. Ultraviolet sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in blue tits. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 1998.; 265: 445–450. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0315 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
27.Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 2003; 425: 714–717. doi: 10.1038/nature01969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
28.Leclaire S, Strandh M, Mardon J, Westerdahl H, Bonadonna F. Odour-based discrimination of similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in birds. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2017; 284: 20162466. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
29.Grieves LA, Gloor GB, Bernards MA, MacDougall-Shackleton EA. Songbirds show odour-based discrimination of similarity and diversity at the major histocompatibility complex. Anim Behav. 2019; 158: 131–138. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
30.Searcy WA. The evolutionary effects of mate selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1982; 13: 57–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.000421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
31.Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L. “Good genes as heterozygosity”: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2001; 268: 1279–1285. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32.Apanius V, Penn D, Slev P, Ru LR, Potts WK. The nature of selection on the major histocompatibility complex. Crit Rev Immunol. 1997; 17: 179–224. doi: 10.1615/critrevimmunol.v17.i2.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33.Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, et al. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med. 1976; 144: 1324–1335. doi: 10.1084/jem.144.5.1324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
34.Cutrera AP, Fanjul MS, Zenuto RR. Females prefer good genes: MHC-associated mate choice in wild and captive tuco-tucos. Anim Behav. 2012; 83: 847–856. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
35.Havlicek J, Roberts SC. MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009; 34: 497–512. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
36.Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 2001; 414: 300–302. doi: 10.1038/35104547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
37.Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H. Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2003; 270: S254–S256. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
38.Bichet C, Penn DJ, Moodley Y, Dunoyer L, Cellier-Holzem E, Belvalette M, et al. Females tend to prefer genetically similar mates in an island population of house sparrows. BMC Evol Biol. 2014; 14: 47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
39.Griggio M, Biard C, Penn DJ, Hoi H. Female house sparrows “count on” male genes: experimental evidence for MHC-dependent mate preference in birds. BMC Evol Biol. 2011; 11: 44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
40.Strandh M, Westerdahl H, Pontarp M, Canbäck B, Dubois MP, Miquel C, et al. Major histocompatibility complex class II compatibility, but not class I, predicts mate choice in a bird with highly developed olfaction. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 4457–4463. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
41.Leclaire S, van Dongen WF, Voccia S, Merkling T, Ducamp C, Hatch SA, et al. Preen secretions encode information on MHC similarity in certain sex-dyads in a monogamous seabird. Sci Rep. 2014; 5;4:6920. doi: 10.1038/srep06920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
42.Slade JWG, Watson MJ, Kelly TR, Gloor GB, Bernards MA, MacDougall-Shackleton EA. Chemical composition of preen wax reflects major histocompatibility complex similarity in songbirds. Proc. R. Soc. B 2016; 283: 20161966. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
43.Jennings SL, Hoover BA, Wa Sin SY, Ebeler SE. Feather chemicals contain information about the major histocompatibility complex in a highly scented seabird. Proc. R. Soc. B.2022; 289: 2022056720220567. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
44.Griggio M, Fracasso G, Mahr K, Hoi H. Olfactory assessment of competitors to the nest site: an experiment on a passerine species. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0167905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
45.Fracasso G, Tuliozi B, Hoi H, Griggio M. Can house sparrows recognize familiar or kin-related individuals by scent? Current Zool. 2019; 65(1): 53–59. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoy018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
46.Bonneaud C, Sorci G, Morin V, Westerdahl H, Zoorob R, Wittzell H. Diversity of Mhc class I and IIB genes in house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Immunogenetics 2004; 55: 855–865. doi: 10.1007/s00251-004-0648-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
47.Bonneaud C, Chastel O, Federici P, Westerdahl H, Sorci G. Complex Mhc-based mate choice in a wild passerine. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2006; 273: 1111–1116. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
48.Griggio M, Hoi H. Only females in poor condition display a clear preference and prefer males with an average badge. BMC Evol Biol. 2010; 10: 261. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
49.Razali H, O’Connor E, Drews A, Burke T, Westerdarhl. A quantitative and qualitative comparison of illumina MiSeq and 454 amplicon sequencing for genotyping the highly polymorphic major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in a non-model species. BMC Research Notes 2017; 10: 346. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2654-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50.Drake LE, Cuff JP, Young RE, Machbank A, Chadwick EA, Symondson WOC. An assessment of minimum sequence copy thersholds for identifying and reducing the prevalence of artefacts in dietary metabarcoding data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2022; 13: 694–710. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13780 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
51.Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate Maximum-Likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010; 59: 307–321. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syq010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
52.Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Bioinformatics 1992, 8: 275–282. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/8.3.275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
53.Lefort V, Longueville JE, Gascuel O. SMS: Smart Model Selection in PhyML. Mol Biol Evol. 2017; 34: 2422–2424. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
54.Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R. UniFrac: An effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 2010; 5: 169e172. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
55.Wong RG, Wu JR, Gloor GB. Expanding the UniFrac toolbox. PLoS One 2016; 11(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161196 e0161196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56.Sandberg M, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, Sjöström M, Wold S. New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides: a multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. J Med Chem. 1998; 41: 2481–2491. doi: 10.1021/jm9700575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
57.Amo L, Avilés JM, Parejo D, Peña A, Rodríguez J, Tomás G. 2012a. Sex recognition by odour and variation in the uropygial gland secretion in starlings. J Anim Ecol. 2012; 81: 605–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01940.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58.Amo L, López-Rull I, Pagán I, Macías Garcia C. Male quality and conspecific scent preferences in the house finch Carpodacus mexicanus. Anim Behav 2012; 84: 1483–1489. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
59.Möller AP. Variation in badge size in male house sparrows Passer domesticus: evidence for status signalling. Anim Behav 1987; 37: 1637–1644. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80056-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
60.Sánchez-Tójar A, Nakagawa S, Sánchez-Fortún M, Martin DA, Ramani S, Girndt A, et al. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. Elife 2018; 13;7:e37385. doi: 10.7554/eLife.37385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. https://www.R-project.org/.
62.Penn D, Potts W. How do major histocompatibility complex genes influence odor and mating preferences? Adv Immunol. 1998; 69: 411–436. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60612-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
63.Bonadonna F, Nevitt G.A. Partner-specific odor recognition in an Antarctic seabird. Science 2004; 306: 835. doi: 10.1126/science.1103001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
64.Bonadonna F, Caro S, Jouventin P, Nevitt G.A. Evidence that blue petrel, Halobaena caerulea, fledglings can detect and orient to dimethyl sulfide. J Exp Biol. 2006; 209: 2165–2169. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
65.Krause ET, Brummel C, Kohlwey S, Baier MC, Müller C, et al. Differences in olfactory species recognition in the females of two Australian songbird species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68: 1819–1827. doi: 10.1007/s00265-014-1791-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]
66.Holveck MJ, Geberzahn N, Riebel K. An experimental test of condition dependent male and female mate choice in zebra finches. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e23974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
67.Franklin WE, Lima SL. Laterality in avian vigilance: do sparrows have a favourite eye? Animal Behaviour 2001; 62: 879–885. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1826 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
68.Mardon J, Saunders SM, Bonadonna F. From preen secretions to plumage: the chemical trajectory of blue petrels’ Halobaena caerulea social scent. Journal of Avian Biology 2011; 42: 29–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.05113.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
69.Boehm T, Zufall F. MHC peptides and the sensory evaluation of genotype. Trends in Neurosciences 2006; 29: 100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2005.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
70.Kwak J, Willse A, Preti G, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK. In search of the chemical basis for MHC odourtypes. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2010; 277: 2417–2425. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
71.Singh PB, Brown RE, Roser B. MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues. Nature 1987; 327: 161–164. doi: 10.1038/327161a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
72.Singer AG, Tsuchiya H, Wellington JL, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K. Chemistry of odor types in mice–fractionation and bioassay. J Chem Ecol. 1993; 19: 569–579. doi: 10.1007/BF00994326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
73.Leinders-Zufall T, Brennan P, Widmayer P, Chandramani P, Maul-Pavicic SA, Jäger M, et al. MHC class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science 2004; 306: 1033–1037. doi: 10.1126/science.1102818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
74.Singer AG, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K. Volatile signals of the major histocompatibility complex in male mouse urine. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1997; 94: 2210–2214. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.6.2210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
75.Howard JC. H-2 and mating preferences. Nature 1977; 266: 406–408. doi: 10.1038/266406a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
76.Mardon J, Saunders SM, Anderson MJ, Couchoux C, Bonadonna F. Species, gender, and identity: cracking petrels’ sociochemical code. Chem Senses 2010; 35: 309–321. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjq021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
77.Leclaire S, Strandh M, Dell’Ariccia G, Gabirot M, Westerdahl H, Bonadonna F. Plumage microbiota covaries with the major histocompatibility complex in blue petrels. Mol Ecol. 2019; 28: 833–846. doi: 10.1111/mec.14993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
78.Schubert N, Nichols HJ, Winternitz JC. How can the MHC mediate social odor via the microbiota community? A deep dive into mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 2021; 32(3): 359–373. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arab004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
79.Whittaker DJ, Slowinski SP, Greenberg JM, Alian O, Winters AD, Ahmad MM, et al. Experimental evidence that symbiotic bacteria produce chemical cues in a songbird. J Exp Biol. 2019; 222: jeb202978. doi: 10.1242/jeb.202978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
80.Whittaker DJ, Richmond KM, Miller AK, Kiley R, Burns CB, Atwell JW, et al. Intraspecific preen oil odor preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol. 2011; 22: 1256–1263. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
81.Campagna S, Mardon JA, Celerier A, Bonadonna F. Potential semiochemical molecules from birds: a practical and comprehensive compilation of the last 20 years studies. Chem Senses 2012; 37: 3–25. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjr067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
82.Bonadonna F, Sanz-Aguilar A. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim Behav. 2012; 84: 509–513. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
83.Dunn PO, Bollmer JL, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA. MHC variation is related to a sexually selected ornament, survival and parasite resistance in the common yellowthroat. Evolution 2012; 67: 679–687. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01799.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r001

Decision Letter 0

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

28 Mar 2022

PONE-D-22-00952House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I allele numbers and genetic distancesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Amo,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Both reviewers and myself agree in that this is a very interesting paper, although it would be necessary to perform some changes before accept it for publication. Please submit your revised manuscript by May 07 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please include a comment about the state of the animals following this research. Were they euthanized or housed for use in further research? If any animals were sacrificed by the authors, please include the method of euthanasia and describe any efforts that were undertaken to reduce animal suffering.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

(LA was supported by the Ramón y Cajal program. The study was funded by the Volkswagen Foundation (85 994-1).)

At this time, please address the following queries:

a) Please clarify the sources of funding (financial or material support) for your study. List the grants or organizations that supported your study, including funding received from your institution.

b) State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c) If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

d) If you did not receive any funding for this study, please state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Please note that in order to use the direct billing option the corresponding author must be affiliated with the chosen institute. Please either amend your manuscript to change the affiliation or corresponding author, or email us at plosone@plos.org with a request to remove this option.

5. In your Data Availability statement, you have not specified where the minimal data set underlying the results described in your manuscript can be found. PLOS defines a study's minimal data set as the underlying data used to reach the conclusions drawn in the manuscript and any additional data required to replicate the reported study findings in their entirety. All PLOS journals require that the minimal data set be made fully available. For more information about our data policy, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability.

Upon re-submitting your revised manuscript, please upload your study’s minimal underlying data set as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and include the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers within your revised cover letter. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories. Any potentially identifying patient information must be fully anonymized.

Important: If there are ethical or legal restrictions to sharing your data publicly, please explain these restrictions in detail. Please see our guidelines for more information on what we consider unacceptable restrictions to publicly sharing data: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions. Note that it is not acceptable for the authors to be the sole named individuals responsible for ensuring data access.

We will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide in your cover letter.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The manuscript is well written and easy to follow, and the experimental design as well as the results analyses are correct.

Maybe it is not very clear in the variables such as "amino acid variants", "amino acid distances" and "functional alleles", the mening of "more" and "less", when it is considered in each category.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The study investigates whether assortative mating for MHC-I diversity and dissimilarity is mediated by olfactory cues in a passerine bird, the house sparrow. Specifically, the authors experimentally test through behavioural observations if males and females show a preference for potential mating partners that differ in MHC-I amino acid and functional variance as well as in their similarity. Neither males nor females showed a significant preference for conspecifics differing in MHC-I amino acid and functional diversity or dissimilarity. Avian olfaction has recently gained interest in ornithology and behavioural ecology. However, the implications of olfactory perception in bird biology and evolution are for the most part still obscure. This study tries to fill the knowledge gap. The experimental hypothesis builds on a solid amount of literature and I’m glad that it has finally been tested, especially in this bird species. The manuscript is well-written, with sound statistical methods, and the conclusions follow the results obtained. However, some sections should be further improved before acceptance, in particular the discussion (see below).

Major comments:

1. ll. 53-56: Not clearly written. I guess here you want to say that the increased use of molecular techniques for assessing paternity and genetic compatibility showed that females can choose mates also based on traits and/or mechanisms other than the “good genes” hypothesis? Please, clarify. Also, keep in mind that mate choice can also occur in males. Since this study tested also for male mate choice I would definitely not narrow the reasoning to female mate choice in this entire paragraph. Finally, I would like to see a (review) reference to the different mechanisms of assortative mating to which you are referring to.

2. ll. 56-57. Extra-pair copulations and post-copulatory choice are specific mechanisms through which females modify the paternity of the offspring rather than mechanisms of choice of (social) mates and I would be careful in mixing the two. Please, explain better or remove the sentence.

3. ll. 65-67. From this sentence it is unclear why females should do that only when engaging in extra-pair copulations. Please, add details or remove “when engaging in extrapair copulations”.

4. ll. 124-126. As far as I understand the badge size was used to account for male dominance status (l. 229). I’m not against doing this but the reliability of the badge size as signal of dominance in house sparrows has recently been questioned and the reader should be warned about this. See: Sanchez-Tojar, Alfredo, et al. "Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias." Elife 7 (2018): e37385, https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.37385.

5. l. 201. How were doors opened? Was it remotely or the experimenter physically got close to the bird and opened them manually? Add details to understand if the focal bird may have been startled during the opening phase.

6. ll. 221-224. How long did every test lasted?

7. l. 226. How did you calculate body condition? Was it just body weight?

8. ll. 234-235. Out of the 68 pairs, how many were males and how many females? Only pairs of the opposite sex respect to the focal bird were tested, correct? State it clearly.

Second, there is no mention to the hypothesis that house sparrows may perceive the odour cues and mate assortatively based on the MHC-II alleles (not investigated here) rather than based on the MHC-I alleles. This is particularly relevant as some studies that you also mention (references nr. 7, 9, 15, 16 and 66) and that are central in supporting the hypothesis on the significant role of MHC in avian mate choice, focused on MHC-II alleles instead of MHC-I alleles.

10. l. 346. Could the use of olfactory cues for mate choice be seasonal?

11. ll. 372-374. This information has already been mentioned earlier in the study and it does not lead to further discussion here. I suggest to remove it.

12. l. 634. Try to merge together table 1 and 3 as well as tables 2 and 4 if possible. The legend of each table can be reduced since all the information is also in the methods section.

Minor comments:

13. l. 26. …selecting males with genetically compatible or heterozygous MHC.

14. l. 27. evidence suggests.

15. l. 31. number of MHC.

16. ll.32-35. The sentence is long and hard to read. Please, split it in two parts.

17. l. 36. responsible for mate discrimination based on MHC-I in birds.

18. ll. 45-50. Too long sentence. Please, split it in two parts. For instance “…[5]. These traits are…”.

19. ll. 50-51. The sentence doesn’t really follow the previous one. Move it after the first sentence of the introduction or remove it.

20. l. 58. Remove “alternative”. Alternative sexual selection doesn’t really exist.

21. l. 60. extra-pair relationships can. Please write “extra-pair” consistently throughout the text.

22. l. 63. Remove “in”.

23. l. 70. characteristics signaling male genetic heterozygosity.

24. l. 80. Write MHC-I (or MHC class I) and MHC-II consistently throughout the text.

25. l. 90. Well-described.

26. l. 93. Parenthesis opens but doesn’t close.

27. l. 99. During the breeding season.

28. l. 100. Females and males.

29. l. 133. 100% ethanol? Add the percentage.

30. l. 151. Remove space before %.

31. l. 199. Low noise-controlled.

32. l. 220. Differently from Mathematics, in Biology it’s close to impossible to “demonstrate” something as new evidence can change our theories and hypotheses. It’s better to prefer the wording “shown” or synonyms.

33. l. 237. Which kind of alcohol? Ethanol? Pure or diluted? Specify the percentage.

34. l. 252. donors were used.

35. l. 273. Missing space between “X” and “2.5”. Use the “X” symbol consistently (see also l. 278).

36. l. 277. birds used in the trials.

37. l. 290. Any bird preference for.

38. l. 299. Remove “as fixed factor” as you already mentioned it in the methods”.

39. l. 313. See comment 32.

40. l. 326. See comment 32.

41. l. 328. Remove the second “used”.

42. l. 348. [53], it is still.

43. l. 375. Investigations.

44. l. 403. Remove space between “extra-“ and “pair”.

Reviewer #2: This paper tests for evidence of odour-based discrimination in birds based on MHC class I diversity and similarity. As an understudied area of research, this paper makes a useful contribution to the literature, but I have two main concerns I would like to see addressed before recommending for acceptance: presentation of methods and data, and the focus and scope of the discussion. I discuss in more detail below.

Presentation of methods and data:

Relatedly, if the distances and diversity differences were very small, I recommend the authors analyze the subset of maximally different stimuli pairings (using some reasonable threshold determined a priori) to see if the focal birds presented with maximally different pairings responded differently.

Given that these were post hoc tests, it seems that these behavioural trials were not originally designed to test MHC-based odour preferences. The authors should be clear about this and state how and when these data were originally used. I don’t necessarily think it’s inappropriate to evaluate the data post hoc, but I think it is important to be clear and up front about this, and to clearly reference any other papers in which these data have been previously used.

Focus and scope of discussion:

Related to the methods and study design, the authors should discuss limitations of the study. For example, with respect to whether the MHC diversity and similarity distances were likely appropriate/sufficient for detection by house sparrows.

Currently, the authors spend a lot of time discussing the validity of using first choice, and of tapping on the maze after 1 min to force a choice, but they do not discuss the possibility that this method may not be as appropriate for passerines or sparrows in particular, compared to other species in which first choice is more commonly used, such as seabirds, which may reasonably be expected to behave differently in the test chamber than sparrows do. The authors argue that many studies use this method, but they do not point out that at least as many studies (if not more) use cumulative time spent with a sample type, also with good success (especially for passerines).

Finally, there is no discussion of how the timing of the experiment and the physiological condition of the birds could have impacted results or predictions of focal bird preference. In the Leclaire study referenced, birds were incubating and may have preferences related to this, whereas in the Grieves study birds were in breeding condition and may have been motivated differently than in the Leclaire study. This should be included in the discussion alongside consideration of the breeding condition of the birds used in the author’s present study and how this may have affected results and/or predictions/expected outcomes.

Detailed comments:

Line 86: why would MHC I be related to bacterial loads?

Lines 93-101: odd to name authors of one study but not the other, and name the study species in one study but not the other. Suggest rephrasing both sentences for consistency of results presentation. It is also worth explaining here or in the discussion the different predictions that can reasonably be made for each sex at different breeding stages (such as during mate choice and pairing vs during incubation) or different predictions that might be made for different taxonomic groups (seabirds vs songbirds) that may differ in level of parental care and investment between the sexes (sex roles, timing of care/investment for each sex, etc).

Line 101: results of Leclaire and Grieves are conflicting but are they controversial? Perhaps not, especially when considering time in breeding cycle as described above.

Line 115: MHC I, II, or both?

Line 120: high or intermediate MHC diversity

Line 133: when was the genotyping performed? Birds were captured Feb-Mar 2015 but it’s not clear when genotyping was done in relation to when the behavioural trials were conducted.

Line 136: given that all birds were initially allowed to interact in a group aviary, could it be that mate choice had already taken place, or preferences have otherwise been established? Should discuss whether/how this may have impacted results. Was any evidence of courtship or breeding activity observed during the time birds were group housed?

Line 143: include primer references/original source for primer development

Line 144: please describe what is meant by 'illumina sequencing primer sequences' in more detail so methods can be evaluated.

Line 148: please explain how index sequences differ from illumina sequencing primer sequences and why these were attached in a separate round of PCR

Line 149: demultiplexing?

Line 158: what criteria were used to set this 1% threshold? Overall, more information on sequence data processing methods is needed to properly evaluate these methods. The only reference given is 10 years old and, given the rapidly changing nature of data handling methods in this field, it is essential to ensure the most up to date and appropriate methods are being used for this type of data.

In Strandh et al. 2012, this 200 cutoff was based on inclusion of technical duplicates, which his reliable only within the sequencing run being evaluated. Were technical duplicates included in this study? If so, this procedure must be described and explained. If not, this method is inappropriate and should not be used. Instead, please update with more recent/current methods.

Line 169-170: JTT SMS explain/write out in full on first mention

Line 201: was the light turned on or was it kept dark throughout the trial?

Line 217: was experimenter present the entire time? Was experimenter visible to the focal / test birds? Was the test chamber opaque or transparent?

Line 224: admittedly, I struggle to accept this method as being appropriate... Regardless, it is important to present a summary of how many birds was this done for. A 1 min trial duration seems very short. Many similar studies allow 15 min for birds to choose, even those scoring first choice. I recognize you cannot change this now, but in future, why not use a longer trial duration and evaluate both first choice and choice / time?

Line 232: why were only 120 of the original 151 birds tested?

Line 235: please include discussion of the side bias exhibited by test birds. How often was the more vs less diverse and more vs less similar individual placed in the left or right side of the olfactometry chamber?

Line 237: what type and % of alcohol was used?

Line 266: what were the distances? How was it determined that this was a detectable threshold or that differences in allelic diversity and genetic similarity were otherwise reasonable? Must present data on what MHC distance and allelic diversity pairings were used.

Line 286: these trials appear to have been used for multiple experiments/to test multiple questions post hoc. If so, this should be clearly stated somewhere in the methods.

Line 316-321: again it's odd presentation to name author in one study and not the other, suggest rephrase so both are consistent.

Line 321: song sparrows are relatively asocial, blue petrels relatively social, and house sparrows relatively social, but all species may differ in level of sociality during breeding – please discuss how you think sociality may be involved.

Line 326: many of these studies set a maximum trial duration of 15 min, presumably to allow time for the birds to choose on their own. The present study seems to allow the birds only 1 min, followed by tapping on the test chamber to force the birds to move, which while use in prior studies of this group. The potential impacts of this should be discussed.

Line 327: but what MHC differences were used in terms of both diversity and dissimilarity? Again, this information needs to be provided.

Line 331-341: this would be a good place to discuss the results in terms of the relative differences in MHC I diversity and similarity of the stimuli, and how this may have affected the results.

Line 342: returning back to a justification of the first choice method is jarring here; what does this have to do with future work or using preen oil instead of whole body odour? Why would preen oil be superior to use of whole body odour? Suggest restructuring the relevant paragraphs for clarity/flow.

Line 347: potential mechanisms for scent-cues of MHC genotype would be better placed in the introduction to set up the study rationale. Since the study did not find evidence for odour choice, I don’t think this discussion of potential mechanisms needs to be here.

Line 353: birds lack a VNO – what is the relevance of including this information here?

Line 354: would MHC I be expected to be involved in influencing bacterial profiles?

Lines 357-360: please put this information in the context of the present study.

Line 374: a lot of time is spent early in the discussion justifying the use of first choice, but now seems to conclude by saying that different methods should be used - what methods should be used/are recommended? Isn't it worth suggesting that choice over time (cumulative time spent with stimulus) might be a good approach to consider for this type of research in songbirds? First choice has been used successfully in several studies, but so has cumulative time spent, and this should be acknowledged and evaluated. Overall, I think the discussion should be reorganized and more tightly focused around the research question and study results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-00952_ReviewerComments.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, docx)}

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0278892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0

30 May 2022

Response to comment of Reviewer 1

Review Comments to the Author

Response: Thanks, we have tried to improve the ms following your suggestions.

Major comments:

Response: Thanks, we have tried to improve this paragraph (lines 59-60): “In contrast, studies addressing the mate choice of females in relation to genetic dissimilarity are less well described. However, the increased use of molecular techniques for assessing paternity and genetic compatibility showed that females can choose mates also based on traits and/or mechanisms other than the “good genes” hypothesis, but indeed suggest additional mechanism critical to female choosiness. Females may thus use alternative mechanisms for choosing mates such as extra-pair copulations [6, 7], or post-copulatory choice [8]. Furthermore, molecular techniques have also revealed that male choice may also use alternative mechanisms for selecting females (Gillingham et al. 2009). For example, red jungle fowl (Gallus gallus) males decrease their investment in reproduction, i.e., by allocating less sperm, when copulating with females with similar MHC alleles (Gillingham et al. 2009).”

Response: Our aim was to describe mate selection, not only social partner selection, so, we have removed the sentence: “In fact, in many passerine species, male parental care of offspring is needed to ensure nestling survival.”

3. ll. 65-67. From this sentence it is unclear why females should do that only when engaging in extra-pair copulations. Please, add details or remove “when engaging in extrapair copulations”.

Response: Thanks, we have tried to explain this better “For example, although blue tit Cyanistes caeruleus females are known to use song [12] and plumage coloration [13] when selecting social mates, there is evidence that they select extra-pair partners based on their genetic dissimilarity, as extra-pair nestlings showed higher degree of heterozygosity compared to within-pair nestlings [14]. Since nestlings with higher degree of heterozygosity were more likely to survive [14], females may increase their fitness by selecting genetically dissimilar mates when engaging in extra-pair copulations. Although, females may ensure all nestling survival by choosing the best parental male based on phenotypical characteristics such as plumage coloration [13], they may indeed use other characteristics signalling male genetic heterozygosity [15, 16].

Response: Thanks, we have added this reference.

Response: We have added that “the doors were remotely opened with a rope”. Therefore, the chamber was not directly approached by the experimenter and did not scare the birds while opining the doors.

6. ll. 221-224. How long did every test lasted?

Response: We have explained that “Tests lasted up to 6 minutes”.

7. l. 226. How did you calculate body condition? Was it just body weight?

Response: Yes, we have changed body condition to body weight.

8. ll. 234-235. Out of the 68 pairs, how many were males and how many females? Only pairs of the opposite sex respect to the focal bird were tested, correct? State it clearly

Response: We have added that we used: “41 pairs of females and 27 pairs of males as scent donours”. We already said that we offered focal birds the scent of two potential mates of similar body condition and dominance status in the case of males. So, it is stated.

9. ll. 319-321. Before discussing the methodological differences, there are two (quite obvious) hypotheses that are not being mentioned and that I recommend discussing. First, passerine birds are among the bird species with the lowest olfactory bulb size (maybe this could also be mentioned in the introduction?). Hence, a reduced olfactory performance compared to other species, in particular versus procellariiformes that are on the opposite side of the spectrum, can be expected. See for instance: Corfield, Jeremy R., et al. "Diversity in olfactory bulb size in birds reflects allometry, ecology, and phylogeny." Frontiers in neuroanatomy 9 (2015): 102, https://doi.org/10.3389/fnana.2015.00102. Second, there is no mention to the hypothesis that house sparrows may perceive the odour cues and mate assortatively based on the MHC-II alleles (not investigated here) rather than based on the MHC-I alleles. This is particularly relevant as some studies that you also mention (references nr. 7, 9, 15, 16 and 66) and that are central in supporting the hypothesis on the significant role of MHC in avian mate choice, focused on MHC-II alleles instead of MHC-I alleles.

Response: In relation to the first hypothesis you mention, there is evidence that house sparrows can use olfaction in social contexts. We have mentioned this in the discussion: “The absence of odour-based preference for more diverse or more dissimilar potential partners could hardly be explained by a lack of olfactory abilities in house sparrows because house sparrows are known to use olfaction in social contexts [Fracasso et al. 2019], so a low olfactory capability is also not likely to explain this lack of preference.” In relation to the second hypothesis you suggest, it is true that house sparrows may perceive the odour cues related to MHC-II alleles instead of MHC-I alleles, but previous studies have shown that they can mate assortatively based on the MHC-I alleles [42], so we think it is worth to examine whether they may also assess the MHC-I allele characteristics of potential partners. Ultimately, we have mentioned that maybe house sparrows use olfaction to assess MHC-II status of potential partners: “However, while there is no reason to expect that all bird species use the same type of information to evaluate potential partners, our results are difficult to explain in a sexual context, because in house sparrows MHC-I diversity is associated with reproductive success [40]. It is also known that males with low degree of MHC-I diversity or too dissimilar MHC-I alleles fail to form breeding pairs [41]. Furthermore, results of a previous study showed that house sparrow females with low MHC-I allelic diversity choose males with high MHC-I allelic diversity [42], suggesting that house sparrow females show mate preferences based on the MHC-I of potential partners ([42], but see [43]). Collectively, in this study we tested whether olfaction is mediating olfactory recognition of MHC-I, but further experiments are needed to test whether house sparrows may use olfaction to assess MHC-II similarity of potential partners, as has been shown in blue petrels [15] and song sparrows [16].”

10. l. 346. Could the use of olfactory cues for mate choice be seasonal?

Response: Yes, the response to olfactory cues of conspecifics may be seasonal, but we performed the experiment during the breeding period with birds that were not reproducing, as they were separated by sex. Therefore, we may expect they were looking for a partner. We have explained in the discussion: “Differences between our results with house sparrows and those with blue petrels can be due to differences in the breeding conditions of birds between the studies, because Leclaire and collaborators tested blue petrels that were incubating [15] and thus, not searching for a partner. In contrast, we performed the experiment during the breeding period with birds that were separated by sex, and therefore, they were not paired or incubating, so, they may be interested in searching for a partner. Differences between our results and those obtained with song sparrows cannot be attributed to differences in the breeding condition of birds, as in both studies birds were tested during the breeding period and were not incubating. Several explanations may explain the lack of preference for MHC-I found in our study system. Previous experience with scent donour birds may have masked a preference for MHC-I diverse or dissimilar partners. However, we captured birds during February and March and kept females separated from males. Birds were separated by sex in different aviaries, to avoid establishing any interaction with potential partners that may have affected olfactory preferences. Therefore, neither the timing of the experiment nor previous interactions during the breeding period or the physiological condition of the birds explain the lack of preference for MHC-I dissimilar potential partners.”

11. ll. 372-374. This information has already been mentioned earlier in the study and it does not lead to further discussion here. I suggest to remove it.

Response: We have removed the sentence.

12. l. 634. Try to merge together table 1 and 3 as well as tables 2 and 4 if possible. The legend of each table can be reduced since all the information is also in the methods section.

Response: Thanks, we have merged table 1 and 3 in table 1a. and 1.b, and table 2 and 4 in table 2.a. and 2.b. and we have reduced the legend.

Minor comments:

13. l. 26. …selecting males with genetically compatible or heterozygous MHC.

Response: Thanks, we have changed the sentence.

14. l. 27. evidence suggests.

Response: Thanks

15. l. 31. number of MHC.

Response: Thanks

16. ll.32-35. The sentence is long and hard to read. Please, split it in two parts.

Response: thanks, we have split it.

17. l. 36. responsible for mate discrimination based on MHC-I in birds.

Response: Thanks.

18. ll. 45-50. Too long sentence. Please, split it in two parts. For instance “…[5]. These traits are…”.

Response: Thanks, we have split it.

19. ll. 50-51. The sentence doesn’t really follow the previous one. Move it after the first sentence of the introduction or remove it.

Response: We have removed it.

20. l. 58. Remove “alternative”. Alternative sexual selection doesn’t really exist.

Response: We have removed it.

21. l. 60. extra-pair relationships can. Please write “extra-pair” consistently throughout the text.

Response: Thanks, we have written extra-pair throughout the text.

22. l. 63. Remove “in”.

Response: Thanks.

23. l. 70. characteristics signaling male genetic heterozygosity.

Response: Thanks.

24. l. 80. Write MHC-I (or MHC class I) and MHC-II consistently throughout the text.

Response: Thanks, we have written MHC-I throughout the text.

25. l. 90. Well-described.

Response: Thanks.

26. l. 93. Parenthesis opens but doesn’t close.

Response: Thanks, we have corrected this.

27. l. 99. During the breeding season.

Response: We have written during the mating period, as we concretely referred to this period because the incubation period is also included in the breeding season.

28. l. 100. Females and males.

Response: Thanks.

29. l. 133. 100% ethanol? Add the percentage.

Response: We have added 94% ethanol.

30. l. 151. Remove space before %.

Response: Thanks.

31. l. 199. Low noise-controlled.

Response: Thanks.

Response: Thanks, we have changed it.

33. l. 237. Which kind of alcohol? Ethanol? Pure or diluted? Specify the percentage.

Response: We have added 94% ethanol.

34. l. 252. donors were used.

Response: We have maintained “could be used more than once” as some pairs were used only once.

35. l. 273. Missing space between “X” and “2.5”. Use the “X” symbol consistently (see also l. 278).

Response: Thanks.

36. l. 277. birds used in the trials.

Response: Thanks.

37. l. 290. Any bird preference for.

Response: Thanks.

38. l. 299. Remove “as fixed factor” as you already mentioned it in the methods”.

Response: Thanks, we have removed it.

39. l. 313. See comment 32.

Response: Thanks.

40. l. 326. See comment 32.

Response: Thanks.

41. l. 328. Remove the second “used”.

Response: Thanks, we have corrected it.

42. l. 348. [53], it is still.

Response: Thanks

43. l. 375. Investigations.

Response: Thanks.

44. l. 403. Remove space between “extra-“ and “pair”.

Response: Thanks.

Response to comment of Reviewer 2

Presentation of methods and data:

It is essential to present at least a summary (e.g. mean +/- SE) of the MHC class I diversity and distances of the stimuli presented to the focal birds. Such data are necessary to evaluate the differences in allelic diversity and genetic similarity of the paired stimuli birds were tested with. For example, it is possible that birds did not respond differentially to donor bird odours because differences in MHC diversity +/or similarity were very small – if that may be the case, it is important to discuss whether a detection capability threshold based on MHC diversity/similarity was likely to have been met or not. Relatedly, if the distances and diversity differences were very small, I recommend the authors analyze the subset of maximally different stimuli pairings (using some reasonable threshold determined a priori) to see if the focal birds presented with maximally different pairings responded differently.

Response: We have provided a table in the supplementary material to show the mean +/- SE and range of the MHC class I diversity and distances of the stimuli presented to the focal birds. In the manuscript, we show the results of a binomial test aimed to analyse whether birds preferred or not the focal bird with more diversity or more dissimilar in MHC-I. However, in a preliminary analysis we performed another binomial test to analyse whether birds could detect amino acid variant numbers of potential mates by using a generalized linear mixed model with binomial errors and a logit link function (GLMM). We modelled the probability that birds chose a particular side of the chamber (as a dichotomous variable: left (yes) vs. right (not)) in relation to the sex and the differences in the number of MHC-I amino acid variants, and in the body condition, between the two scent-donor birds. We included the interaction between the sex and the difference in amino acid variant numbers in the model to test whether males and females differed in their preferences for partners with different numbers of variants of MHC-I amino acids. We also included the pair of donor birds in the model as a random factor to control for the fact that pairs of donors could be used more than once. We included in the initial model a variable reflecting whether the experimental bird left the chamber when we opened the doors or after 1 min as fixed factor. As this variable was not significant (P > 0.49 in all cases), it was removed from the final models. We performed similar analysis to assess whether the difference in functional numbers, or the difference in amino acid distance or in functional distance influenced the choice of birds. Results of this analysis provided the same result, i.e. birds were not exhibiting any preference, so we decided (as previous referees suggested) to use a simpler analysis. We have also provided these analyses in the supplementary material. We have explained in the discussion: “Our results are robust because we used a large sample size and because we used scent-donor birds of similar body condition in each trial to exclude any potential effect of body condition of scent-donor birds in the choice of focal birds. Also, the large sample size used may guarantee that both the MHC-I diversity and similarity distances were likely appropriate for olfactory detection by house sparrows. Furthermore, we performed preliminary statistical analyses using the difference in MHC-I diversity between scent donour partners or the difference in distance between the scent donour partners the focal birds and we observed that the difference in diversity or distance did not explain the choice of birds (see supplementary material). Therefore, we can exclude that differences in MHC-I diversity or similarity were very small and therefore, house sparrows were not able to detect them.”

Response: In fact, the experiment was designed to test whether house sparrows can use olfaction to assess the number of MHC-I alleles of potential partners. Griggio and collaborators (2011) published the results of a study that showed that females with low allele numbers in MHC-I preferred males with greater allele numbers. So, we aimed to test whether olfaction may be involved in the detection of allele numbers. We captured the birds and determined the allele numbers, using molecular weight, as described in Griggio et al. (2011). Then, we offered the birds the scent of two potential partners differing in the allele numbers that we obtained. Unfortunately, there was a lab mistake in the assessment of allele numbers, that we discovered after performing the behavioural tests, when the breeding season was finished, and we already released the birds. So, we correctly analysed the allele numbers using the molecular weight and tried to publish the results, analysing a posteriori the number of alleles, because the previous analysis was wrong and therefore, the numbers did not match. When we submitted to ms to try to publish it, referees said that the number of alleles calculated using the molecular weight, following Griggio´s paper, was not longer good, so we performed the metabarcoding analysis and we recalculated the number of alleles using the metabarcoding data. In that way, we obtained the allele numbers as well as the functional distances of the conspecifics offered to the focal birds. As we could not use these data when we performed the behavioural experiment, we had to do the analysis a posteriori. We did not explain this in the text, as we think it does not provide relevant information to the readers to understand the ms, but we have now included in the methods that: “For methodological problems, we could not perform the MHC-I characterization before the behavioural tests. The MHC-I characterization was done a posteriori and therefore, we could not pair scent donour birds in relation to their MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity to focal birds.”

Focus and scope of discussion:

Response: Please, see previous response related to this issue. We have added this explanation to the discussion: “The absence of odour-based preference for more diverse or more dissimilar potential partners could hardly be explained by a lack of olfactory abilities in house sparrows because house sparrows are known to use olfaction in social contexts [Fracasso et al. 2019], so a low olfactory capability is also not likely to explain this lack of preference. Our results are robust because we used a large sample size and because we used scent-donor birds of similar body condition in each trial to exclude any potential effect of body condition of scent-donor birds in the choice of focal birds. Also, the large sample size used may guarantee that both the MHC diversity and similarity distances were likely appropriate for olfactory detection by house sparrows. We performed preliminary statistical analysis using the difference in MHC-I diversity between scent donour partners or the difference in distance between the scent donour partners the focal birds and we observed that the difference in diversity or distance did not explain the choice of birds (see supplementary material). Therefore, we can exclude that differences in MHC-I diversity or similarity were very small and that, house sparrows were not able to detect them.”

Response: We have tried to explain in detail the validity of using first choice, also for Passeriformes, and the limitations of this measure. However, we used live birds as scent donour sources, and therefore, it was not possible for us to assess the time they spent close to the stimuli. We have explained this possibility in the discussion: “Another possibility to explain the lack of preference observed in our study is that a methodological artifact may have masked a preference. In the study with song sparrows, Grieves and collaborators analysed the percentage of time spent close to the two stimuli after 5 minutes from the beginning of the trial. Neither the first choice nor the preference of birds during the first 5 minutes of the trial was reported. We in contrast, analysed the first choice of birds after 5 minutes of exposure. The validity of first choice as a measure of the interest of birds, in particular chemical stimuli, has been previously shown [50, 51, 54, 55, 56], including MHC related scents [15]. However, first choice is a good measure of the spontaneous interest of an animal to a particular cue, whereas time spent close to the stimulus [57] may rather be related to the behaviour shown later on in the series of events to a certain cue. Using life birds as scent donors, the first choice was a valid measure of the response of birds to scent in our study. However, to analyse whether the lack of preferences for the scent of most MHC-I diverse or dissimilar conspecifics is maintained over time, more studies are needed to assess the subsequent response of birds to the scent of potential partners, for instance using uropygial gland secretions as scent sources.”

Response: We explained in the methods section that we performed the experimental study during the mating period, i.e., during the breeding period with birds that were not paired with birds from the opposite sex and that were not laying or incubating, so they may be in breeding conditions. We now have remarked this point the discussion: “Differences between our results with house sparrows and those with blue petrels can be due to differences in the breeding conditions of birds between those studies, because Leclaire and collaborators tested blue petrels that were incubating [15] and therefore, not searching for a partner. In contrast, we performed the experiment during the breeding period with birds that were separated by sex, and therefore, they were not paired or incubating, so, they may be interested in searching for a partner. Differences between our results and those obtained with song sparrows cannot be attributed to differences in the breeding condition of birds, as in both studies birds were tested during the breeding period and were not incubating.”

Detailed comments:

Line 86: why would MHC I be related to bacterial loads?

Response: We do not know why the authors obtained that result, it may have been an unexpected finding. We have removed the reference.

Response: We have modified the paragraph to be consistent in the use of author names and species names. We have also specified that: “In this study we have experimentally explored whether olfactory signals play a role in the preference for potential partners with greater MHC-I dissimilarity and/or diversity in house sparrows, Passer domesticus, during the mating period.”

Line 101: results of Leclaire and Grieves are conflicting but are they controversial? Perhaps not, especially when considering time in breeding cycle as described above.

Response: “Thanks, we meant conflicting, we have rephrased”

Line 115: MHC I, II, or both?

Response: We have now added MHC-I.

Line 120: high or intermediate MHC diversity

Response: Thanks, we have added intermediate.

Line 133: when was the genotyping performed? Birds were captured Feb-Mar 2015 but it’s not clear when genotyping was done in relation to when the behavioural trials were conducted.

Response: We have explained that: “For methodological problems, we could not perform the MHC characterization before the behavioural tests. The MHC characterization was done a posteriori and therefore, we could not pair scent donour birds in relation to their MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity to focal birds.”

Response: We have now tried to explain better that birds were located in aviaries and separated by sex, i.e. there were aviaries containing only males and aviaries containing only females, therefore, no reproductive activity could be performed by birds. We have commented on this in the discussion: “Previous experience with scent donour birds may have masked a preference for MHC-I diverse or dissimilar partners. However, we captured birds during February and March and kept females separated from males. Birds were separated by sex in different aviaries, to avoid establishing any interaction with potential partners that may have affected olfactory preferences. Therefore, neither the timing of the experiment, previous interactions during the breeding period or the physiological condition of the birds may explain the lack of preference for MHC-I dissimilar potential partners.”.

Line 143: include primer references/original source for primer development

Response: We have added references, where the primers were designed and modified.

Line 144: please describe what is meant by 'illumina sequencing primer sequences' in more detail so methods can be evaluated.

Response: These Illumina primers (adaptors) are used for allowing the fragments to attach to the cell flow. Now it is explained in the text.

Line 148: please explain how index sequences differ from illumina sequencing primer sequences and why these were attached in a separate round of PCR

Response: These indexes are short sequences (usually around 6 base pairs combinations), unique for each specimen (now indicated in the main text). Two-step PCR is a convenient method to generate amplicon libraries for Illumina sequencing, as it was shown in multiple studies (see for instance, Cruaud et al. 2017. Scientific Reports 7: 41948).

Line 149: demultiplexing?

Response: We are referring here to the possibility of analysing multiple specimens together. The demultiplexing step is posterior.

Response: The 1% threshold is still adequate as a first filter to eliminate artefactual alleles. Studies such as Drake et al. (2022) (now cited) support this threshold. We have also added the reference of Razali et al. (2017), which explains the cleaning of the raw data in detail.

Line 159-160: rarefaction is not appropriate for these data (see McMurdie, P.J. and Holmes, S., 2014. Waste not, want not: why rarefying microbiome data is inadmissible. PLoS computational biology, 10(4), p.e1003531.). In Strandh et al. 2012, this 200 cutoff was based on inclusion of technical duplicates, which his reliable only within the sequencing run being evaluated. Were technical duplicates included in this study? If so, this procedure must be described and explained. If not, this method is inappropriate and should not be used. Instead, please update with more recent/current methods.

Response: We did not use duplicates in our data, but we counted on blanks. The number of reads per sample obtained indicated that 200 reads could represent spurious results. For that reason, we have considered this figure as adequate.

Line 169-170: JTT SMS explain/write out in full on first mention

Response: JTT stands for the initials of the authors' names who described this model. We have added the full name and the reference. We have also indicated the meaning of SMS.

Line 201: was the light turned on or was it kept dark throughout the trial?

Response: We have explained that: “Donor birds were kept in darkness during the whole trial duration and reduced space, preventing them from moving or calling.”

Line 217: was experimenter present the entire time? Was experimenter visible to the focal / test birds? Was the test chamber opaque or transparent?

Response: The experimenter was present during the entire trial, but not visible/audible to the focal bird, as the chamber was opaque to maintain birds in darkness.

Response: We have now explained in the methods that: “68 birds made their choice within less than 1 minute after opening the doors and 33 birds afterwards.” Only one minute may seem to be a short time but, in preliminary trials, we left birds for longer during trial duration and in some cases birds would not move for more than 30 minutes. So, it seems that most birds chose as soon as doors were opened but the ones that did not choose at that moment, spent a long time before moving. Previous results showed that knocking at the door did not influence bird choice, likely because the initial choice of birds was merely reenforced but nor influenced (Amo et al. 2012a,b, 2015). Results of this study showed that knocking at the door did not affect bird choice. Therefore, for ethical reasons, we decided not to unnecessarily increase the time of birds inside the chamber, because not only focal birds were in the chamber, but also scent donour birds.

Line 232: why were only 120 of the original 151 birds tested?

Response: The rest of birds were used in a different behavioural experiment.

Response: We have explained in more detail that: “Focal birds made 61 % of their first choices to the left and 39 % of the choices to the right side. There were not significant differences in the number of scent donour birds more diverse or more dissimilar between those located in the right side or in the left side of the aviary (GLZM, P > 0.30 in all cases). In relation to the amino acid diversity, in 47 trials the most diverse bird was located in the right side of the olfactometry chamber and in 50 trials in the left. In relation to the functional diversity, in 49 trials the most diverse bird was in the right side and in 47 trials in the left. In relation to amino acid distance, the most dissimilar bird was in the right side in 56 trials and in the left in 63 trials. In relation to the functional distance, in 54 trials the most dissimilar bird was in the right side and in 65 trials in the left.”

Line 237: what type and % of alcohol was used?

Response: We have explained that we used “94% ethanol”

Response: We have provided this data in supplementary material. Please, see the explanation below about the statistical analysis using differences in diversity and distance to explain the bird choice.

Line 286: these trials appear to have been used for multiple experiments/to test multiple questions post hoc. If so, this should be clearly stated somewhere in the methods.

Response: As we explained before, we did not use these trials in other experiment nor to test multiple questions post hoc. We have now explained that: “Due to methodological problems, we could not perform the MHC characterization before the behavioural tests. The MHC characterization was done a posteriori and therefore, we could not pair scent donour birds in relation to their MHC-I diversity or dissimilarity to focal birds.”

Line 316-321: again it's odd presentation to name author in one study and not the other, suggest rephrase so both are consistent.

Response: Thanks, we have corrected it.

Response: Despite that the three species may differ in sociality during the breeding period, we hardly believe that differences in sociality may explain the lack of preference for MHC-I dissimilar partners in our study. We have tried to improve the discussion to implement this potential explanation in our results.

Response: Birds were exposed for 5 minutes to the scents, not only one minute. Therefore, if they did not choose during the first minute, the trial duration was extended to 6 minutes in total. Despite that most birds chose within the first minute, we included a variable reflecting whether birds chose within the first minute or after and it did not influence the results.

Line 327: but what MHC differences were used in terms of both diversity and dissimilarity? Again, this information needs to be provided.

Response: We have provided in the supplementary material the means, the data, as well as the analysis of the choice of birds in relation to both the differences in diversity and dissimilarity.

Line 331-341: this would be a good place to discuss the results in terms of the relative differences in MHC I diversity and similarity of the stimuli, and how this may have affected the results.

Response: We have added a paragraph in the discussion. Please, see lines 272-282.

Response: We have tried to clarify it: “Using life birds as scent donors, assessing first choice is a valid measure of the response of birds to scent in our study, because we had to ensure scent-donor birds remain in silent during the trial to avoid acoustic cues that may have affected focal bird choice. However, further studies are needed to assess whether the lack of preference for the scent of most MHC-I diverse or dissimilar conspecifics is maintained over time, for instance using uropygial gland secretions as scent sources.”

Response: Thanks, we have tried to improve this paragraph. We have maintained it in the discussion as we argue that it is needed to perform additional research to examine the mechanisms that may allow MHC-I discrimination in birds.

Line 353: birds lack a VNO – what is the relevance of including this information here?

Response: We have now tried to better explained this.

Line 354: would MHC I be expected to be involved in influencing bacterial profiles?

Response: Thanks, we have tried to clarify.

Lines 357-360: please put this information in the context of the present study.

Response: We have tried to improve the whole paragraph to put the information in the context of our study.

Response: Thanks, we have tried to improve the discussion of our results.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(42.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r003

Decision Letter 1

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

12 Aug 2022

PONE-D-22-00952R1House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distancesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Amo,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Sep 26 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Partly

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: The authors exhaustively addressed my concerns and I’m quite satisfied of the work done. However, they forgot to replace body condition with body weight throughout the text (see my only major comment). I added some minor comments to this revised version. Line numbers refer to the manuscript with tracked changes. Finally, I suggest to include the line numbers referring to the changes that were made to the text next time, thus facilitating their revision from the reviewers.

Major comments

1. The authors state (authors’ response 7) that they have replaced body condition with body weight in the text after considering my comment. However, I still see several mentions to body condition throughout the manuscript (ll. 248-249, 250, twice in l. 397). Please change them as well.

Minor comments

2. ll. 59-60. The paragraph has greatly improved. However, I would remove the last part of the sentence (…but indeed suggest additional…) as it is repeated (in a better way) in the following sentence.

3. l. 68. The parenthesis closes but it is never opened.

4. l. 77. Remove comma after “Although”.

5. l. 245. …lasted up to…

6. l. 360. So, we expected birds would have been…

7. Table 1 and 2. The tables are now easier to read but I think the authors can go even further. They can physically link table 1b and 2b below table 1a and 2b respectively if in the top left cell of table 1a, 1b, 2a, 2b (now empty) they add the letter and a short title, e.g. for table 1a: a) amino acid diversity.

8. l. 262. What does GLZM stand for? Do you mean GZLM? Even so, I very rarely came across this abbreviation before.

9. l. 385. …live/living birds…

10. l. 387. …they remained silent during…

11. l. 378. …after 5 minutes of exposure to the birds’ scent during which no choice could be made.

12. ll. 220, 251, 254, 260, 366, 401, 402, 781, 794. scent-donor …

13. l. 384. …between the scent-donor partners and the focal birds, and…

14. Some sentences in the discussion are a bit convoluted. I believe a text revision from an external (mother tongue) English speaker would help to make the text more fluent.

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for PONE-D-22-00952.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(141.8KB, pdf)}

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0278892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1

21 Oct 2022

This study adds to the expanding field of avian chemical communication by studying the olfactory preferences of house sparrows as they relate to MHC-I genes. The authors find no preferences in either males or females. I think this is first study to look at MHC-I genes and olfactory preferences in birds, so this manuscript represents an important contribution to this growing field. I thought the writing could be benefit from some re-organization and editing to improve clarity and increase readability as I found it difficult to follow in certain places. I have tried to provide extensive comments to help identify the places where I think some changes would be beneficial. I also have several concerns relating to the decision to analyze continuous genetic distance/dissimilarity variables as a dichotomous categorical variable, and some questions about interpretation of the results, particularly the new supplementary results that were added in the prevision round of revisions. I have divided by review up with comments or questions for the various sections of the manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for the detailed and extensive comments. They were very helpful, and we have tried to implement them to improve the manuscript. Please find an explanation/response to each of your comments.

Introduction

I think the introduction could be more streamlined and the organization could be improved to better convey the important points. I have provided multiple suggestions below.

Paragraph 1:

This paragraph starts out discussing female choice and then makes a diversion to male choice in red jungle fowl in the last sentence. This currently reads awkwardly. Since the experiment described in this manuscript tested the ability of both males and females to discriminate MHC dissimilarity/diversity in opposite sex individuals, I think this entire paragraph would be stronger if it discussed mate choice as a process where both males and females may participate. This is a reasonable assumption for house sparrows (and many bird species) where there is some degree of biparental care. While females might be more motivated to be choosey because they invest more in reproduction, males are also contributing to parental care and therefore may also participate in mate choice. I assume the authors agree otherwise they would not have bothered to test the olfactory preferences of males. Lastly, a study in birds that documented MHC-based mate choice by males (for MHC Class II) is Hoover et al. 2018 Molecular Ecology (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/mec.14801). This could accompany the red jungle fowl citation to help strengthen the discussion of MHC-based mate choice by males.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added the reference. However, we have maintained the order trying to first emphasize the hypothesis of females being the choosy sex in mate choice. Our reasoning here was to first explain the choice-making of females, and later we have explained that “Furthermore, molecular techniques have revealed that males also select mates”, adding the reference you suggested.

Paragraphs 2 and 3:

MHC is not explained until Line 78, halfway through paragraph 3, but there are multiple references to MHC in the second paragraph (and also at the end of the first paragraph). This is not a great approach because it assumes the reader is already familiar with MHC. I recommend that the information from Lines 78 through 84 is presented a lot earlier in the introduction to avoid confusion.

Response: Thank you very much for these comments. We have now explained MHC functions earlier in the introduction.

The text in these paragraphs repeatedly uses the terms “genetic dissimilarity” and “heterozygosity” but it is unclear if this refers specifically to MHC genes or more widely to genome-wide heterozygosity or genetic dissimilarity at other loci. There are several studies from birds that have documented covariation between non-MHC genetic markers and odor profiles (see Leclaire et al. 2012 Proc B https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2011.1611 and Whittaker et al. 2019 Animal Behaviour https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0003347219300831). It should be clarified whether the studies included here are specifically relating to MHC genes or not.

Response: We have now added in the respective paragraphs that we refer to MHC-related genetic characteristics.

Paragraph 4:

Line 102. It is unclear to me why the findings of Leclaire et al. and Grieves at al. are being described as “controversial”. Is this word used because many people assume birds are unable to use odors in social contexts? I think this choice of word could come across as negative towards these past studies and I do not believe that is not the intention of the authors. I recommend the wording is changed here.

Response: Thank you for your comment and pointing out that this could be misread. We have now changed the wording as it was not our intention to imply any criticism of prior studies but to merely point out the opposite findings between prior studies and our findings. We have changed “controversial” to “opposite” results in the case of female preferences.

In my opinion, there are three pieces of evidence that work together to support olfactory mediated MHC-based mate choice in birds (or any vertebrate species):

1. Observations of non-random mating associated with MHC genes. There are a decent number of published studies in birds.

2. Studies showing that chemical profiles that contain information about MHC genes. In birds, this has been shown for preen oil (Leclaire et al. 2104 Scientific Reports https://www.nature.com/articles/srep06920, Slade et al. 2016 Proc B https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.1966#sec-7) and plumage (Jennings et al. 2022 Proc B

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2022.0567).

3. Behavioral experiments where individuals exhibit olfactory preferences for individuals based on their MHC genes.

This study clearly falls into the third category, but all three pieces are needed to make a strong case for MHC-based mate choice via olfaction. The introduction of this manuscript has several citations for MHC-based mate choice and there is a discussion of the behavioral evidence in the 4th paragraph. I think it would strengthen the introduction to briefly touch on the evidence from chemical profiles. This may help to convince anyone skeptical about the avian sense of smell that this area of research deserves more attention. I also think this is relevant to the non-significant results obtained in this study. One of the outstanding questions that remains based on the findings of this manuscript is whether or not house sparrow body odor contains information about MHC-I. One possibility is that their body odor does not reflect information about MHC-I.

Alternatively, information about MHC-I may be present, but the birds either do not detect it via olfaction or do not use it in the context of mate choice. These points could be easily added to the discussion if this idea had already been introduced in the introduction.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We do not think that previous studies about observations of non-random mating associated with MHC genes support that avian olfaction is involved in olfactory recognition of MHC characteristics of mates, as other cues may be used and are not excluded in those studies. Indeed, we agree that previous studies showing that chemical profiles vary in relation to MHC genes support the idea that olfaction can be a mechanism used by birds as well as other animals. We have included this idea in the introduction, as well as in the discussion. Thank you very much.

Methods

I had a number of questions about the details of the preference tests. I have grouped all of my comments together.

Timing of each trial:

I found the protocol for the behavioral trials difficult to follow. I believe there was a 5-minute acclimation period during which the focal bird was exposed to the odors from the two donor birds. After 5 minutes, the two trap doors were opened by the human observer and the focal bird was given one minute to make a choice. If they did not make a choice after 1 minute, the human observer tapped on the arena and the side the bird moved to following the tap was noted as their choice. The total duration of the experiment was 6 minutes per trial. I think this is correct, but it took me reading the methods section several times to get all this information. I struggled to understand the protocol because the section about the “Behavioural Experiment” jumps around a lot. The reader learns about the 5 min acclimation period in Line 205, but the 1 min period during which the bird is allowed to make a choice is not discussed until Line 228, almost an entire paragraph later. It is easy for the reader to lose track of what is going on. Interspersed between these two protocol details is a lot of information about the design of the experimental arena. I recommend that this section is restructured so that the design of the arena with its various compartments, fans, how the focal bird received the odors etc is provided first. Then, move into the specifics of the protocol for the experiments with the different timings (5 mins, 1 min, tap on arena etc).

Secondly, it reads to me like all individuals in the study made a choice. That is often not the case for olfactory preference tests where many protocols remove the individual after a certain amount of time and mark the trial as a “no choice” result. If would be helpful if the methods stated that the tapping always resulted in the bird selecting a donor bird. Somewhere around Line 231 seems like a logical place for this information.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have modified this section.

Size of cages:

Please add the dimensions of the two little cages discussed on Line 207 where the donor birds were housed.

Response: We have provided the dimensions of the cages.

Visual cues in the experiment:

I believe all the birds (donor and focal) were in the dark to eliminate visual information. Line 205 says “the bird was maintained in the dark for 5 min” and Line 216 says “donor birds were kept in darkness for the entire trial duration. Lastly, on Line 222 it says, “the chamber was opaque to maintain birds in darkness”. This all seems fine except I am unsure how the human observer who scored each trial was able to see which donor bird the focal bird selected under these conditions. Was the light in the center chamber turned on after the 5 min acclimation period? How exactly did this work? Was the observer able to hear where the bird moved and did not need to make a visual observation? Please add details to the methods to clarify.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have now explained in the methods that the experimenter could hear the choice of the bird and confirmed it by introducing a hand though the central chamber.

Pairing of donor birds based on morphometrics:

The two focal birds used in the trials were matched for a number of visual characteristics including body size, weight, and size of badge. As the focal bird was unable to see the donor birds, I assume this was done to remove any potential correlation between body condition/dominance status and avian body odor? I believe the intention was to have MHC be the primary factor that differed between the two donor birds so that any differences in odor profiles could most likely be attributed to MHC and not another confounding factor. If this is correct, I think it would be beneficial to clarify this in the paragraph that begins on Line 233.

Otherwise, it is not obvious why so much care was taken to match visual traits for the donor birds in an experiment that only examined olfactory preferences.

Response: Thank you for your comment. We have added an explanation in lines 258-264.

Data Analysis

I have a number of questions relating to the data analysis. If I had to replicate this analysis, I would have a hard time doing so because I am not entirely sure how each of the models are actually different. In certain places I have specific questions or comments. Throughout my comments, I have done by best to explain what I think was done. I hope this will help the authors make edits to clarify their methods, particularly in places where I have misunderstood the analysis.

I think there are two ways to examine the behavioral data. Each trial has a triad of individuals; one focal bird who performed the experiment and two donor birds that were used as scent sources. One set of analyses could compare the MHC genotypes of two donor birds to each other (ignoring the genotype of the focal bird). This could be done by measuring the number of amino acids encoded by each donor genotype or by obtaining a measure of functional diversity for each donor genotype. This type of analysis would determine if there was a preference by the focal bird for individuals with higher MHC diversity. A second set of analyses could examine the MHC genotype of the donors relative to the MHC of the focal bird. This approach differs from the first because it considers the genotype of the focal bird, which is important as individuals may be looking for a mate with a genotype that complements their own rather than simply preferring a mate who has maximum genetic diversity (a complementary mate vs a genetically diverse mate).

This analysis would require measuring the genetic distance between focal and donor birds, which could be based on amino acid differences or functional differences. This analysis would test whether the focal bird more often selects an individual who has more dissimilar MHC relative to their own genotype. I believe both these approaches were implemented to some degree in this study, although I am not entirely unsure.

Response: We always considered the MHC characteristics of the focal birds in the analysis. In a first set of analysis, we analysed whether the choice of focal birds was influenced by the diversity, both in the amino acid alleles as well as in the functional alleles of scent-donor birds, considering the diversity of MHC alleles of focal birds. MHC diversity of focal birds was included as an independent variable in the analysis. In a second set of analysis, we analysed whether the choice of focal birds was influenced by the dissimilarity in MHC alleles of scent donor birds. To estimate similarity (or dissimilarity) we calculate the distance between each scent donour bird and the focal bird. We have revised this section in the methods part trying to clarify the analysis: “We performed two sets of analyses to examine scent preferences of focal birds for diversity or similarity of potential partners, always considering the MHC of focal birds in the analysis. We performed a first set of analyses to examine the preferences of the focal birds for the diversity in amino acid alleles and functional alleles of scent donor birds, considering MHC diversity of the focal bird….. In a second set of analyses, we analysed the preference of the focal bird for the MHC similarity of scent donor birds, by using the genetic and functional distances between the scent donor birds and the focal bird. We analysed the preference of the focal bird for the MHC similarity of scent donor birds, considering the similarity between the focal bird and the scent donor birds.”

There are four main analyses described. I have done my best to describe what I think is going on in each analysis.

The first analysis is described in the paragraph starting on Line 261. It used amino acid variant number. Based on the information given in Line 266, it reads as if the number of amino acid variants of each donor bird was compared to the number of amino acid variants in the focal bird, and the two donors were classified as having either higher or lower numbers of amino acids than the focal bird. The model tested the probability that the focal bird preferred the donor with the higher number of amino acid variants than the donor with the lower number of amino acid variants. This type of analysis is similar to the second option I described above because it considers the genotype of the focal bird. I have two comments related to this analysis:

- Please give a definition or description for what “amino acid variant numbers” means. Is this the number of amino acids encoded by their various MHC alleles?

Response: We have revised this section in the methods part: “We calculated MHC amino acid diversity for each individual as the number of unique amino acid sequences. The amino acids in the particularly polymorphic peptide-binding regions of the MHC molecules determine what antigens can be bound and are therefore crucial for the function of each allele. We calculated functional diversity for each individual coding the amino acid sequences according to the chemical binding properties of the amino acids (Strand et al. 2012; Leclaire et al. 2017; Lucask et al. 2017).”

- As the MHC of the focal and donors was unknown during the experiment, how many trials occurred where both of the donor birds had a higher amino acid variant number compared to the focal bird? Similarly, both of the donor birds had a lower amino acid variant number compared to the focal bird? Another way of putting this is, how many trials did you have to exclude from your analyses after you obtained the genotype information?

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have included the missing explanations in the methods sections (lines 276-284): “Since MHC determination was performed a posteriori in the analysis of differences in the number of the difference in amino acid diversity we excluded 22 trials because difference in the amino acid diversity was 0. Therefore, for these trials it was not possible to assess preference based on this analysis. In the analysis of difference in the number of functional diversity, we excluded 23 trials because the difference in the functional diversity was 0.”

A second analysis is described in the paragraph starting on Line 275. It looks at the number of MHC functional alleles. This model includes the number of functional MHC alleles for the two donor birds and the number for the focal bird (I assume as a covariate), but it does not measure the difference in functional alleles between the focal bird and each of the donor birds. I think this is similar to the first type of analysis I described above.

Response: When analysing diversity, we included the MHC-I diversity of the focal bird as a covariable in the analysis, both when we analysed amino acid diversity and functional diversity. We analysed whether the focal bird selected (or not) the scent of a potential partner with a more diverse MHC-I, considering the MHC-I diversity of the focal bird as a covariable.

Lastly, two other analyses are described in the paragraph on Line 282. Both seem to be similar to the second type of analysis I have described above because they consider the difference in MHC between focal and donor birds. The first measures this difference using MHC-I amino acid distance and classifies each donor as having higher or lower. For example, if the amino acid distance between focal and donor 1 was 4 and the distance between focal and donor 2 was 18, the focal-donor 2 pairing would be assigned “higher” and focal-donor 1 pairing would be assigned “lower”, I think? Similarly, a second analysis was done in the same way except the genetic distance was measured as functional distance. If this is not correct, please consider making edits to clarify.

Response: Yes, as you understood correctly, this was our approach for the analysis.

Also, I have several specific questions:

- I am unclear how amino acid distance is different from the amino acid variants that was used in the first analysis. Possibly a better description of amino acid variants as I requested above would help clarify this.

Response: We have tried to clarify the term amino acid variants. Amino acid distance is the genetic distance between the scent donor bird and the focal bird considering amino acid alleles.

- Line 287: “in relation to the sex of the focal bird”. Why is the term “sex” used here?

Response: We have now explained that “We included the sex of birds in the analyses to examine whether the sex of the focal bird influenced the preference of birds.”

Line 290: please state the version of R that was used (e.g., 4.2.1) and double check the citation information. The current citation says 2012, which seems incorrect as I suspect the authors used a more recent version of the software for their analyses.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing this out. We have now added the correct reference for the R version that was used in our study.

I have a general question that relates to the analyses in the main text. Why were the data turned into a dichotomous variable of lower or higher? It seems that for each of the genetic distance/dissimilarity measures, there should be actual numbers (aka continuous variables) that describe the magnitude of the difference between different individuals. I think the analysis would be far more powerful if the values were kept. By converting to higher/lower you are treating trials as similar that could have been quite different. Here is an example:

Trial 1: distance between focal-donor 1 is 2, distance between focal-donor 2 is 3. In this example, focal-donor 1 would be classified as lower and focal-donor 2 as higher. In reality though, there is very little difference between the pairings, and we may expect that the focal bird would not have very strong preferences in this situation.

Trial 2: distance between focal-donor 1 is 15, distance between focal-donor 2 is 3. In this example focal-donor 1 would be classified as higher and focal-donor 2 as lower. Now there is a very large difference between focal-donor 1 and very little difference between focal-donor 2. If house sparrows are evaluating MHC-I using odors, I expect this scenario could play out differently than above. I think the authors need to better justify their decision to use the dichotomous classification as it is unclear to me why this was done, and it seems to result in a loss of information that make their results less conclusive.

Response: We agree with you that analysing exact differences in diversity and distance may be a more precise analysis. However, in the first version of the manuscript, we reported the analysis using distance measures as continuous variables, but previous referees suggested to use categorical variables to make the analysis easier to interpret. Previously, we used continuous variables, but this complicated the analysis because we were analysing differences between the distances, that is per se not easy to interpret, and results were similar, i.e., birds are not exhibiting a preference for the scent of more MHC diverse or dissimilar potential partners, even when we took the degree of diversity or dissimilarity into account. Therefore, following the advice from the previous reviewers we now show the results of the analysis using categorical variables in the main text. We have now added a supplementary file to show the results of the analysis using continuous variables as well in the current ms. We have revised the Data analysis section accordingly: “In these set of analyses, we considered the choice as a categorical variable, i.e. we analysed whether focal birds chose (or not) the most MHC diverse or dissimilar potential partner, without considering the degree of differences between the diversity or similarity of scent donor birds. The analyses and results considering the differences in diversity or dissimilarity of scent donor birds are provided in the supplementary material.”

Results

I have two main concerns relating to the results and the current interpretation of these findings.

On Line 245-248 the manuscript says “Focal birds made 61% of their first choices to the left and 39% of the choices to the right side. There were no significant difference in the number of scent donor birds more diverse or more dissimilar between those located in the right side or left side of the aviary”. This seems somewhat concerning. If there was no trend in the placement of more diverse or more dissimilar donors, then a strong preference for the left side of the aviary suggests that the choice made by the focal bird was less about the odor presented and possibly associated with a spatial preference for the left side that was unrelated to the presented odors. The models described in the data analysis do not appear to account for whether the choice was on the left or right side. I think this result needs to be carefully considered.

Response: We have now included the side in the analysis of the main text as well as in the supplementary material and mentioned it in the discussion, although, results of preferences do not change when including the side in the statistical analysis.

On Line 382 some preliminary analyses are mentioned. The findings from these analyses are given in supplementary Table 1. I think these analyses are similar to the analyses in the main text, but they used the genetic distance measures as continuous variables, which I think is actually a more powerful approach (as I have discussed above).

Response: In the first version of the manuscript, we reported the analysis using distance measures as continuous variables, but previous reviewers suggested to use categorical variables to make the analysis easier to interpret (see above). We agreed that using continuous variables makes the analysis more complicated to interpret because we analysed differences between the distances. Therefore, following their advice we now show the results of the analysis using categorical variables but adding a supplementary file to show the results of the analysis using continuous variables, providing both analyses to the reader.

This section goes on to conclude “therefore, we can exclude that the differences in MHC-I diversity were very small and house sparrows were not able to detect them” (Line 387). I do not agree with this statement based on the findings presented in supplementary Table 1. In the lower half of this table, the differences between the two focal birds, or the differences between each focal-donor pairing are given. The mean distance for each of these is very low and often very close to zero. My interpretation of these values is that for most of the trials there was very little difference in MHC-1 between all 3 individuals used.

Response: We do not think difference in the distances are low. As you can see in the table the mean difference between the focal bird and the donor birds was 0.70 + 0.01 from a maximum of 1. So, there were differences between the distances among birds. However, when we subtract the distances between both pair of birds (distance between scent donour left and focal – distance between the scent donour right and focal), the difference of both distances is a small value because some differences are positive and other differences are negative, depending on whether the scent donour bird with more distance is in the right or in the left. If you see the mean and maximum values of differences, minimum values are -0.7 or -0.4 and maximum values are 0.5. Please, take into account that distance between individuals range from 0 to 1.

If this was the case, this could be a very important reason why there were no significant findings in this study, which is the opposite of what is stated in Line 387. We would not expect the birds to exhibit strong olfactory preferences if the two donor birds had very similar MHC and/or the two donors had similar MHC relative to the focal bird. These values either need to be explained more clearly or the authors need to reconsider their interpretation of these values.

Response: We understand your concern, but the small value is not because distances between the focal bird and the scent donor birds are small, it is because of the difference between both distances. Therefore, we are quite confident that the lack of preferences of focal birds can not be attributed to a lack of differences in the genetic distances between the birds used. Furthermore, due to the large size and that birds come from the same population, differences in genetic distances may be quite realistic, and therefore, we consider that our results are not impacted by low genetic distances between the experimental birds.

I also have two minor comments relating to Table 1:

- Use decimal places rather than commas for the values in the table.

Response: Thank you for the remark. We have changed this.

- In the middle of the table, two rows have minimum values of -9 and positive values of +9. Is this a type or is this correct? It seems odd that these values would be the same for both amino acid diversity and functional diversity.

Response: The values are ok, these values are maximum and minimum values and it is because there are 3 birds that have 10 amino acid alleles that correspond to 10 functional alleles.

Discussion

The discussion focuses extensively on the methods of the experiment and how the methods may explain the results. This is fine but I think the paper would be stronger if it devoted a little more space to biological explanations and interpretations of the findings. The paragraph starting on Line 400 is the most interesting and I have provided some additional ideas to potentially expand the discussion.

Line 374: this is a pretty extreme statement. I recommend toning down the language a little.

Notably, the wording “could hardly be explained” is rather strong. I think it is fair to say that house sparrows use olfaction in other social contexts, so it seems probable that odors also play a role in mate choice. However, there is still a lot that is unknown about the sense of smell in this species and birds in general.

Response: We have rephrased this section to avoid the unintended strong expression of wording.

Secondly, assuming house sparrows do have a great sense of smell and use olfaction to evaluate mates, there seems to be two possible explanations that could be driving the lack of significant findings. First, as I discussed above, the body odor of house sparrows may contain no information about MHC-I genes. I think this should be mentioned in the discussion

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have now added this as a potential explanation to the discussion (lines 482-488): “Similarly, further research is needed to elucidate the source of MHC-I-related scent cues in birds. One of the major outstanding questions is whether house sparrow body odour does indeed convey information about the genetic make-up of MHC-I. We therefore propose further experiments examining whether chemical profiles vary in relation to MHC-I characteristics of individuals and to determine whether these potential differences in MHC-I characteristics can be assessed through olfaction in birds.”

Moreover, another potential factor driving the results of this manuscript is the influence of other MHC genes or other genetic markers on the odor of the birds, and thus their preferences in this experiment. Most of the evidence in birds that connects chemical profiles, olfaction, and social interactions has focused on MHC-II. This has been the focus because of its connection to the microbiome and the ability of bacteria produce volatile chemicals. As is pointed out in this manuscript, birds lack a vomeronasal organ and therefore likely only sense volatile chemicals using their olfactory system. Volatile information about MHC-II may be more important to house sparrows and driving their choices in this experiment. Furthermore, non-MHC genes can shape chemical profiles, and birds could be using odors associated with other genetic markers to form preferences. I would like to see more discussion around how other genes that were not examined in this study could be driving the results.

Response: We have mentioned that “ Evidence that birds are using the volatile compound of uropygial gland secretions for detecting the MHC-II characteristics of conspecifics [29] comes from a study in song sparrows that were able to assess MHC-II similarity when exposed only to the uropygial gland secretion. While a recent body of evidence suggests that MHC-II genes play a critical role in mate choice that can be assessed by olfaction as shown for blue petrels [28] and song sparrows [29], whether house sparrows employ olfaction to assess MHC-II genes or other genetic characteristics of potential partners is still not known.”

One aspect of this study that I thought was particularly strong was the use of live birds as the scent source. This is in contrast to the Leclaire et al. 2017 which used cotton swabs and bags as the odor source and Grieves et al. which used a sample of preen oil. While preen oil is thought to be the primary source of chemicals that make up avian body odor, there are differences between the compounds on bird feathers and the preen oil (see Mardon et al. 2011 J Avian Biology https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.05113.x) Arguably, using a live bird is the most accurate approach because it ensures all the odorants are present, even if the sounds and movements produced by live birds may complicate things. The authors may want to consider including slightly more discussion on their decision to use live birds and why this is a strength of their study.

Response: Thank you very much for your comments and remarks. We have tried to improve the discussion regarding the methodology used.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to referees.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(36.2KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r005

Decision Letter 2

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

27 Oct 2022

PONE-D-22-00952R2House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distancesPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Amo,

Please submit your revised manuscript by Dec 11 2022 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

In the manuscript PONE-D-22-00952R2, authors have made a great effort to improve the quality and clarity of the manuscript. They answered in detail every concern of the reviewers, and performed the requested changes. I appreciate that finally they present the analysis of genetic distances as continuous and categorical variables.

This manuscript is ready to be published in Plos One, but first, I would like to suggest some minor changes:

L178: include some explanation after “and”. E.g. “… of our reads and previous research (40)).

L384: Remove the comma after ).

L430: I think that there is a mistake, given that the preference was for the left side of the chamber.

L434: Is there any reference to support that the laterality does not affect the olfactory preferences of birds?

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. 2022 Dec 21;17(12):e0278892. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r006

Author response to Decision Letter 2

28 Oct 2022

Response: We would like to thank you and the referees for your comments that have substantially improved our ms.

This manuscript is ready to be published in Plos One, but first, I would like to suggest some minor changes:

L178: include some explanation after “and”. E.g. “… of our reads and previous research (40)).

Response: Thanks, we have added “and previous research”.

L384: Remove the comma after ).

Response: Thanks, we have removed the comma.

L430: I think that there is a mistake, given that the preference was for the left side of the chamber.

Response: Thank you for taking notice of the mistake. In fact, we have realized that the mistake was in the Result Section, as preference was for the right size of the chamber. We have corrected in lines 382-384: “However, we found a general side bias impacting the analysis of the bird’s choice with more birds choosing the right side of the chamber (Z = -0.83, P = 0.03, and Z = -2.23, P = 0.03, respectively).”.

L434: Is there any reference to support that the laterality does not affect the olfactory preferences of birds?

Response: To our knowledge, there is no previous evidence that brain laterality affects olfactory preferences of birds. We have rephrased the paragraph (lines 430-435): “We found a slight preference for the right side of the chamber that may be attributed to hemispherical asymmetry. House sparrows exhibited laterality in the brain towards the right, as previously reported in other sparrow species, such as American tree sparrows (Spizella arborea) [67]. Our results suggest that this laterality does not seem to affect olfactory preferences of focal birds. However, further studies are needed to explore olfactory laterality in avian species.”

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to referees.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r007

Decision Letter 3

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

24 Nov 2022

House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distances

PONE-D-22-00952R3

Dear Dr. Amo,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

PLoS One. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278892.r008

Acceptance letter

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

13 Dec 2022

PONE-D-22-00952R3

House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distances

Dear Dr. Amo:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

S1 Table. Data obtained in the behavioural experiment.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(29.8KB, docx)}

S2 Table. Aminoacid and functional diversity and distance of experimental birds.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(17.2KB, docx)}

S3 Table. Analysis of the choice of birds in relation to differences in the diversity or dissimilarity between scent donor birds.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.8KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: PONE-D-22-00952_ReviewerComments.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(19.1KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(42.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review for PONE-D-22-00952.pdf

Click here for additional data file.^{(141.8KB, pdf)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to referees.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(36.2KB, docx)}

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to referees.docx

Click here for additional data file.^{(16.3KB, docx)}

Data Availability Statement

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

[pone.0278892.ref001] 1.Bateman AJ. Intra-sexual selection in Drosophila. Heredity 1948; 2: 349–368. doi: 10.1038/hdy.1948.21 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref002] 2.Trivers R. Parental investment and sexual selection. In Campbell B. (Ed.), Sexual Selection and the Descent of Man. Chicago: Aldine; 1972; pp. 136–179. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref003] 3.Hill GE. A Red Bird in a Brown Bag: The Function and Evolution of Colorful Plumage in the House Finch. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2002. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref004] 4.Hill GE, McGraw KJ. 2006. Bird Coloration: Function and Evolution. London: Harvard University Press; 2006. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref005] 5.Rose EM, Prior NH, Ball GF. The singing question: re-conceptualizing birdsong. Biol Rev. 2021; doi: 10.1111/brv.12800 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref006] 6.Freeman-Gallant CR, Wheelwright NT, Meiklejohn KE, Sollecito SV. Genetic similarity, extrapair paternity, and offspring quality in Savannah sparrows (Passerculus sandwichensis). Behav Ecol. 2006; 17: 952–958. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arl031 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref007] 7.Rekdal SL, Anmarkrud JA, Lifjeld JT, Johnsen A. Extra-pair mating in a passerine bird with highly duplicated major histocompatibility complex class II: Preference for the golden mean. Mol Ecol. 2019; 28: 5133–5144. doi: 10.1111/mec.15273 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref008] 8.Bernasconi G, Ashman TL, Birkhead TR, Bishop JDD, Grossniklaus U, Kubli E, et al. Evolutionary ecology of the prezygotic stage. Science 2004; 303: 971–975. doi: 10.1126/science.1092180 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref009] 9.Gillingham MAF, Richardson DS, Løvlie H, Moynihan A, Worley K, Pizzari T. Cryptic preference for MHC-dissimilar females in male red junglefowl, Gallus gallus. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci 2009; 276: 1083–1092. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2008.1549 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref010] 10.Hoover B, Alcaide M, Jennings S, Sin SYW, Edwards SV, Nevitt GA. Ecology can inform genetics: Disassortative mating contributes to MHC polymorphism in Leach’s storm-petrels (Oceanodroma leucorhoa). Molecular Ecology 2018; 27: 3371–3385. doi: 10.1111/mec.14801 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref011] 11.Klein J. 1986. Natural history of the histocompatibility complex. New York: Wiley; 1986. [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref012] 12.Janeway CA Jr. How the immune system recognizes invaders. Sci Am. 1993; 269: 73–79. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0993-72 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref013] 13.Bonneaud C, Richard M, Faivre B, Westerdahl H, Sorci G. An Mhc class I allele associated to the expression of T-dependent immune response in the house sparrow. Immunogenetics 2004; 57: 782–789. doi: 10.1007/s00251-005-0046-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref014] 14.Bonneaud C, Perez-Tris J, Federici P, Chastel O, Sorci G. Major histocompatibility alleles associated with local resistance to malaria in a passerine. Evolution 2006; 60: 383–389. doi: 10.1554/05-409.1 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref015] 15.Loiseau C, Zoorob R, Garnier S, Birard J, Federici P, Julliard J, et al. Antagonistic effects of a Mhc class I allele on malaria-infected house sparrows. Ecol Let. 2008; 11: 258–265. doi: 10.1111/j.1461-0248.2007.01141.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref016] 16.Lukasch B, Westerdahl H, Strandh M, Knauer F, Winkler H, Moodley Y, et al. Major histocompatibility complex genes partly explain early survival in house sparrows. Sci Reports 2017; 7: 6571. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-06631-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref017] 17.Eizaguirre C, Lenz TL, Kalbe M, Milinski M. Rapid and adaptive evolution of MHC genes under parasite selection in experimental vertebrate populations. Nature 2012; 3: 621. doi: 10.1038/ncomms1632 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref018] 18.Penn DJ, Potts WK. The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes. Am Nat. 1999; 153: 145–64. doi: 10.1086/303166 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref019] 19.Wedekind C, Penn D. MHC genes, body odours, and odour preferences. Nephrol Dial Transpl. 2000; 15: 1269–1271. doi: 10.1093/ndt/15.9.1269 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref020] 20.Drury JP. Immunity and mate choice: a new outlook. Anim Behav. 2010; 79: 539–545. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.12.023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref021] 21.Piertney SB, Oliver MK. The evolutionary ecology of the major histocompatibility complex. Heredity 2006; 96: 7–21. doi: 10.1038/sj.hdy.6800724 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref022] 22.Freeman-Gallant CR, Meguerdichian M, Wheelwright NT, Sollecito SV. Social pairing and female mating fidelity predicted by restriction fragment length polymorphism similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in a songbird. Mol Ecol. 2003; 12: 3077–3083. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-294x.2003.01968.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref023] 23.Richardson DS, Komdeur J, Burke T, von Schantz T. MHC-based patterns of social and extra-pair mate choice in the Seychelles warbler. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2005; 272: 759–767. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2004.3028 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref024] 24.Bollner JL, Dunn PO, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA. Social and extra-pair mating in relation to major histocompatibility complex variation in common yellowthroats. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 4778–4785. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1885 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref025] 25.Kempenaers B, Verheyen GR, Van den Broeck M, Burke T, Van Broeckhoven C, Dhondt A. Extrapair paternity results from female preference for high-quality males in the blue tit. Nature 1992; 357: 494–496. doi: 10.1038/357494a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref026] 26.Andersson S, Örnborg J, Andersson M. Ultraviolet sexual dimorphism and assortative mating in blue tits. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 1998.; 265: 445–450. doi: 10.1098/rspb.1998.0315 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref027] 27.Foerster K, Delhey K, Johnsen A, Lifjeld JT, Kempenaers B. Females increase offspring heterozygosity and fitness through extra-pair matings. Nature 2003; 425: 714–717. doi: 10.1038/nature01969 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref028] 28.Leclaire S, Strandh M, Mardon J, Westerdahl H, Bonadonna F. Odour-based discrimination of similarity at the major histocompatibility complex in birds. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2017; 284: 20162466. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.2466 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref029] 29.Grieves LA, Gloor GB, Bernards MA, MacDougall-Shackleton EA. Songbirds show odour-based discrimination of similarity and diversity at the major histocompatibility complex. Anim Behav. 2019; 158: 131–138. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2019.10.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref030] 30.Searcy WA. The evolutionary effects of mate selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst. 1982; 13: 57–85. doi: 10.1146/annurev.es.13.110182.000421 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref031] 31.Landry C, Garant D, Duchesne P, Bernatchez L. “Good genes as heterozygosity”: the major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2001; 268: 1279–1285. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2001.1659 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref032] 32.Apanius V, Penn D, Slev P, Ru LR, Potts WK. The nature of selection on the major histocompatibility complex. Crit Rev Immunol. 1997; 17: 179–224. doi: 10.1615/critrevimmunol.v17.i2.40 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref033] 33.Yamazaki K, Boyse EA, Mike V, Thaler HT, Mathieson BJ, Abbott J, et al. Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex. J Exp Med. 1976; 144: 1324–1335. doi: 10.1084/jem.144.5.1324 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref034] 34.Cutrera AP, Fanjul MS, Zenuto RR. Females prefer good genes: MHC-associated mate choice in wild and captive tuco-tucos. Anim Behav. 2012; 83: 847–856. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.01.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref035] 35.Havlicek J, Roberts SC. MHC-correlated mate choice in humans: A review. Psychoneuroendocrinology 2009; 34: 497–512. doi: 10.1016/j.psyneuen.2008.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref036] 36.Reusch TBH, Häberli MA, Aeschlimann PB, Milinski M. Female sticklebacks count alleles in a strategy of sexual selection explaining MHC polymorphism. Nature 2001; 414: 300–302. doi: 10.1038/35104547 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref037] 37.Olsson M, Madsen T, Nordby J, Wapstra E, Ujvari B, Wittsell H. Major histocompatibility complex and mate choice in sand lizards. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2003; 270: S254–S256. doi: 10.1098/rsbl.2003.0079 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref038] 38.Bichet C, Penn DJ, Moodley Y, Dunoyer L, Cellier-Holzem E, Belvalette M, et al. Females tend to prefer genetically similar mates in an island population of house sparrows. BMC Evol Biol. 2014; 14: 47. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-14-47 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref039] 39.Griggio M, Biard C, Penn DJ, Hoi H. Female house sparrows “count on” male genes: experimental evidence for MHC-dependent mate preference in birds. BMC Evol Biol. 2011; 11: 44. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-11-44 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref040] 40.Strandh M, Westerdahl H, Pontarp M, Canbäck B, Dubois MP, Miquel C, et al. Major histocompatibility complex class II compatibility, but not class I, predicts mate choice in a bird with highly developed olfaction. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2012; 279: 4457–4463. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2012.1562 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref041] 41.Leclaire S, van Dongen WF, Voccia S, Merkling T, Ducamp C, Hatch SA, et al. Preen secretions encode information on MHC similarity in certain sex-dyads in a monogamous seabird. Sci Rep. 2014; 5;4:6920. doi: 10.1038/srep06920 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref042] 42.Slade JWG, Watson MJ, Kelly TR, Gloor GB, Bernards MA, MacDougall-Shackleton EA. Chemical composition of preen wax reflects major histocompatibility complex similarity in songbirds. Proc. R. Soc. B 2016; 283: 20161966. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2016.1966 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref043] 43.Jennings SL, Hoover BA, Wa Sin SY, Ebeler SE. Feather chemicals contain information about the major histocompatibility complex in a highly scented seabird. Proc. R. Soc. B.2022; 289: 2022056720220567. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2022.0567 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref044] 44.Griggio M, Fracasso G, Mahr K, Hoi H. Olfactory assessment of competitors to the nest site: an experiment on a passerine species. PLoS ONE 2016; 11: e0167905. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0167905 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref045] 45.Fracasso G, Tuliozi B, Hoi H, Griggio M. Can house sparrows recognize familiar or kin-related individuals by scent? Current Zool. 2019; 65(1): 53–59. doi: 10.1093/cz/zoy018 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref046] 46.Bonneaud C, Sorci G, Morin V, Westerdahl H, Zoorob R, Wittzell H. Diversity of Mhc class I and IIB genes in house sparrows (Passer domesticus). Immunogenetics 2004; 55: 855–865. doi: 10.1007/s00251-004-0648-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref047] 47.Bonneaud C, Chastel O, Federici P, Westerdahl H, Sorci G. Complex Mhc-based mate choice in a wild passerine. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2006; 273: 1111–1116. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2005.3325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref048] 48.Griggio M, Hoi H. Only females in poor condition display a clear preference and prefer males with an average badge. BMC Evol Biol. 2010; 10: 261. doi: 10.1186/1471-2148-10-261 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref049] 49.Razali H, O’Connor E, Drews A, Burke T, Westerdarhl. A quantitative and qualitative comparison of illumina MiSeq and 454 amplicon sequencing for genotyping the highly polymorphic major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in a non-model species. BMC Research Notes 2017; 10: 346. doi: 10.1186/s13104-017-2654-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref050] 50.Drake LE, Cuff JP, Young RE, Machbank A, Chadwick EA, Symondson WOC. An assessment of minimum sequence copy thersholds for identifying and reducing the prevalence of artefacts in dietary metabarcoding data. Methods in Ecology and Evolution 2022; 13: 694–710. doi: 10.1111/2041-210X.13780 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref051] 51.Guindon S, Dufayard JF, Lefort V, Anisimova M, Hordijk W, Gascuel O. New algorithms and methods to estimate Maximum-Likelihood phylogenies: assessing the performance of PhyML 3.0. Syst Biol. 2010; 59: 307–321. doi: 10.1093/sysbio/syq010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref052] 52.Jones DT, Taylor WR, Thornton JM. The rapid generation of mutation data matrices from protein sequences. Bioinformatics 1992, 8: 275–282. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/8.3.275 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref053] 53.Lefort V, Longueville JE, Gascuel O. SMS: Smart Model Selection in PhyML. Mol Biol Evol. 2017; 34: 2422–2424. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msx149 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref054] 54.Lozupone C, Lladser ME, Knights D, Stombaugh J, Knight R. UniFrac: An effective distance metric for microbial community comparison. ISME J. 2010; 5: 169e172. doi: 10.1038/ismej.2010.133 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref055] 55.Wong RG, Wu JR, Gloor GB. Expanding the UniFrac toolbox. PLoS One 2016; 11(9). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0161196 e0161196. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref056] 56.Sandberg M, Eriksson L, Jonsson J, Sjöström M, Wold S. New chemical descriptors relevant for the design of biologically active peptides: a multivariate characterization of 87 amino acids. J Med Chem. 1998; 41: 2481–2491. doi: 10.1021/jm9700575 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref057] 57.Amo L, Avilés JM, Parejo D, Peña A, Rodríguez J, Tomás G. 2012a. Sex recognition by odour and variation in the uropygial gland secretion in starlings. J Anim Ecol. 2012; 81: 605–613. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2656.2011.01940.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref058] 58.Amo L, López-Rull I, Pagán I, Macías Garcia C. Male quality and conspecific scent preferences in the house finch Carpodacus mexicanus. Anim Behav 2012; 84: 1483–1489. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.09.021 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref059] 59.Möller AP. Variation in badge size in male house sparrows Passer domesticus: evidence for status signalling. Anim Behav 1987; 37: 1637–1644. doi: 10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80056-8 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref060] 60.Sánchez-Tójar A, Nakagawa S, Sánchez-Fortún M, Martin DA, Ramani S, Girndt A, et al. Meta-analysis challenges a textbook example of status signalling and demonstrates publication bias. Elife 2018; 13;7:e37385. doi: 10.7554/eLife.37385 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref061] 61.R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2021. https://www.R-project.org/.

[pone.0278892.ref062] 62.Penn D, Potts W. How do major histocompatibility complex genes influence odor and mating preferences? Adv Immunol. 1998; 69: 411–436. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2776(08)60612-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref063] 63.Bonadonna F, Nevitt G.A. Partner-specific odor recognition in an Antarctic seabird. Science 2004; 306: 835. doi: 10.1126/science.1103001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref064] 64.Bonadonna F, Caro S, Jouventin P, Nevitt G.A. Evidence that blue petrel, Halobaena caerulea, fledglings can detect and orient to dimethyl sulfide. J Exp Biol. 2006; 209: 2165–2169. doi: 10.1242/jeb.02252 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref065] 65.Krause ET, Brummel C, Kohlwey S, Baier MC, Müller C, et al. Differences in olfactory species recognition in the females of two Australian songbird species. Behav Ecol Sociobiol. 2014; 68: 1819–1827. doi: 10.1007/s00265-014-1791-y [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref066] 66.Holveck MJ, Geberzahn N, Riebel K. An experimental test of condition dependent male and female mate choice in zebra finches. PLoS ONE 2011; 6: e23974. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023974 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref067] 67.Franklin WE, Lima SL. Laterality in avian vigilance: do sparrows have a favourite eye? Animal Behaviour 2001; 62: 879–885. doi: 10.1006/anbe.2001.1826 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref068] 68.Mardon J, Saunders SM, Bonadonna F. From preen secretions to plumage: the chemical trajectory of blue petrels’ Halobaena caerulea social scent. Journal of Avian Biology 2011; 42: 29–38. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-048X.2010.05113.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref069] 69.Boehm T, Zufall F. MHC peptides and the sensory evaluation of genotype. Trends in Neurosciences 2006; 29: 100–107. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2005.11.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref070] 70.Kwak J, Willse A, Preti G, Yamazaki K, Beauchamp GK. In search of the chemical basis for MHC odourtypes. Proc Royal Soc B Biol Sci. 2010; 277: 2417–2425. doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.0162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref071] 71.Singh PB, Brown RE, Roser B. MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues. Nature 1987; 327: 161–164. doi: 10.1038/327161a0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref072] 72.Singer AG, Tsuchiya H, Wellington JL, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K. Chemistry of odor types in mice–fractionation and bioassay. J Chem Ecol. 1993; 19: 569–579. doi: 10.1007/BF00994326 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref073] 73.Leinders-Zufall T, Brennan P, Widmayer P, Chandramani P, Maul-Pavicic SA, Jäger M, et al. MHC class I peptides as chemosensory signals in the vomeronasal organ. Science 2004; 306: 1033–1037. doi: 10.1126/science.1102818 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref074] 74.Singer AG, Beauchamp GK, Yamazaki K. Volatile signals of the major histocompatibility complex in male mouse urine. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1997; 94: 2210–2214. doi: 10.1073/pnas.94.6.2210 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref075] 75.Howard JC. H-2 and mating preferences. Nature 1977; 266: 406–408. doi: 10.1038/266406a0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref076] 76.Mardon J, Saunders SM, Anderson MJ, Couchoux C, Bonadonna F. Species, gender, and identity: cracking petrels’ sociochemical code. Chem Senses 2010; 35: 309–321. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjq021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref077] 77.Leclaire S, Strandh M, Dell’Ariccia G, Gabirot M, Westerdahl H, Bonadonna F. Plumage microbiota covaries with the major histocompatibility complex in blue petrels. Mol Ecol. 2019; 28: 833–846. doi: 10.1111/mec.14993 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref078] 78.Schubert N, Nichols HJ, Winternitz JC. How can the MHC mediate social odor via the microbiota community? A deep dive into mechanisms. Behav. Ecol. 2021; 32(3): 359–373. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arab004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref079] 79.Whittaker DJ, Slowinski SP, Greenberg JM, Alian O, Winters AD, Ahmad MM, et al. Experimental evidence that symbiotic bacteria produce chemical cues in a songbird. J Exp Biol. 2019; 222: jeb202978. doi: 10.1242/jeb.202978 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref080] 80.Whittaker DJ, Richmond KM, Miller AK, Kiley R, Burns CB, Atwell JW, et al. Intraspecific preen oil odor preferences in dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis). Behav Ecol. 2011; 22: 1256–1263. doi: 10.1093/beheco/arr122 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref081] 81.Campagna S, Mardon JA, Celerier A, Bonadonna F. Potential semiochemical molecules from birds: a practical and comprehensive compilation of the last 20 years studies. Chem Senses 2012; 37: 3–25. doi: 10.1093/chemse/bjr067 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref082] 82.Bonadonna F, Sanz-Aguilar A. Kin recognition and inbreeding avoidance in wild birds: the first evidence for individual kin-related odour recognition. Anim Behav. 2012; 84: 509–513. doi: 10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.06.014 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

[pone.0278892.ref083] 83.Dunn PO, Bollmer JL, Freeman-Gallant CR, Whittingham LA. MHC variation is related to a sexually selected ornament, survival and parasite resistance in the common yellowthroat. Evolution 2012; 67: 679–687. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2012.01799.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

PERMALINK

House sparrows do not exhibit a preference for the scent of potential partners with different MHC-I diversity and genetic distances

Luisa Amo

Guillermo Amo de Paz

Johanna Kabbert

Annie Machordom

Roles

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Study species

MHC characterization

Amino acid and functional distance between birds

Behavioural experiment

Fig 1. Olfactometry chamber.

Data analysis

Ethical note

Results

Table 1. Model for bird choice in relation to: The number of MHC- I amino acid alleles of a potential partner (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC amino acid diversity (yes) vs. lower number of MHC amino acid diversity).

Fig 2. Number of birds that chose the side of the olfactometry chamber containing the scent of a conspecific of the opposite sex with greater (black) or lower (grey) a) MHC-I amino acid diversity or b) MHC-I functional diversity.

Table 2. Model for bird choice in relation to: The number of MHC-I functional alleles of a potential partner (as a dichotomous variable: Greater functional diversity (yes) vs. lower functional diversity).

Table 3. Model for bird choice in relation to: The difference in the MHC-I amino acid distance between the focal birds and the two scent donor birds of the opposite sex (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC-I amino acid distance (yes) vs. lower MHC-I amino acid distance (no)).

Fig 3. Number of birds that chose the side of the olfactometry chamber containing the scent of a conspecific of the opposite sex with greater (black) or lower (grey) a) MHC-I amino acid distance or b) MHC-I functional distance.

Table 4. Model for bird choice in relation to: The difference in the MHC-I functional distance between the focal birds and the two scent donor birds of the opposite sex (as a dichotomous variable: Greater MHC-I functional distance (yes) vs. lower MHC-I functional distance (no)).

Discussion

Supporting information

Acknowledgments

Data Availability

Funding Statement

References

Decision Letter 0

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 0

Decision Letter 1

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 1

Decision Letter 2

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Roles

Author response to Decision Letter 2

Decision Letter 3

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Roles

Acceptance letter

Magdalena Ruiz-Rodriguez

Roles

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

Data Availability Statement

ACTIONS

PERMALINK

RESOURCES

Similar articles

Cited by other articles

Links to NCBI Databases