==== Front
Sci Rep
Sci Rep
Scientific Reports
2045-2322
Nature Publishing Group UK London

37386286
37547
10.1038/s41598-023-37547-6
Article
Mate genetic similarity affects mating behaviour but not maternal investment in mice
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6399-1388
Auer Kerstin E. kerstin.auer@vetmeduni.ac.at

1
Primus Jasmin 1
Istel Sonja 2
http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9189-7631
Dahlhoff Maik 1
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2121-9496
Rülicke Thomas 2
1 grid.6583.8 0000 0000 9686 6466 Institute of in vivo and in vitro Models, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria
2 grid.6583.8 0000 0000 9686 6466 Department of Biomedical Sciences, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria
29 6 2023
29 6 2023
2023
13 105367 4 2023
23 6 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Maternal investment can affect the survival and development of offspring. Here we experimentally investigated in mice, whether females alter implantation rates and pup survival after embryo transfer depending on the genetic similarity with their vasectomised mating partner. We selected the MHC genotype and genetic background of males and paired females either with males that shared the same MHC haplotype and genetic background (CBA/J inbred males, isogenic group), that shared half of the MHC haplotype and genetic background (B6CBAF1 hybrid males, semi-isogenic group), or that had a different MHC haplotype and genetic background (C57BL/6N inbred males, allogenic group). We performed 304 pairings, resulting in 81 vaginal plugs, which confirmed mating. Plug rates were significantly higher in the semi-isogenic group (36.9%) compared to the isogenic group (19.5%), but not the allogenic group (26%). We found no difference in the number of implantation sites, the number of born or surviving pups until weaning, or litter weight or sex ratio between groups. Even though we found a mating bias, we found no difference in maternal investment under laboratory conditions. At least under pathogen-free conditions our study does not provide any evidence for differential maternal investment when females could increase offspring genetic diversity or heterozygosity.

Subject terms

Sexual selection
Behavioural ecology
issue-copyright-statement© Springer Nature Limited 2023
==== Body
pmcIntroduction

Female mating preferences are well studied in various species, and there is ample evidence that female mate choice can influence female fitness1–4. Direct evidence that mate choice can increase female fitness comes from studies that compare the fitness of offspring from females that were experimentally mated with their preferred versus non-preferred males. For example, in house mice (Mus musculus domesticus), females paired with preferred males produced more litters and gave birth to offspring that were more viable5, and better able to survive an experimental infection6, compared to females that were mated with non-preferred males. These differences in offspring survival can be attributed to direct or indirect genetic benefits from mate choice. However, alternatively and not mutually exclusive, survival differences can also arise by differential maternal investment into offspring7,8.

Female reproductive investment should increase when females mate with males, which they perceive as more attractive or of high (genetic) quality9. This pattern is known as differential allocation8–10. In some cases, however, female reproductive investment has also been shown to increase when females mate with males that offer fewer benefits to offspring fitness. This phenomenon has been termed reproductive compensation7,11,12. Attributing differences in offspring viability to maternal effects is not simple, as effects arising from a male's heritable genetic quality, or other confounding paternal effects13 have to be discounted. Empirical evidence for differential maternal investment comes from studies in birds, fish, insects and mammals5,9,14,15 . However, most studies on differential allocation have considered mate quality in the context of good genes, i.e. assuming all females prefer the same males of high additive genetic quality9,15, and only a handful of studies have considered the influence of mate genetic diversity or genetic compatibility on maternal investment16–20.

The MHC (major histocompatibility complex) is a group of highly polymorphic genes that are crucial in host-parasite interactions21 and mate choice22. Increased MHC diversity or heterozygosity is expected to lead to increased disease resistance in offspring, and MHC-correlated mating preferences have been found in several mammalian species22–32. In these examples the MHC appears to bias mate choice through its effects on body odor and odor perception. In mice, females are known to discriminate between individuals with similar or dissimilar MHC genotypes, and female mating preferences are disassortative with regard to their MHC genotype28,33. Besides MHC mating preferences, female mice mate with multiple males and show a mating bias towards dominant, territorial males34. Under semi-natural conditions, when females are allowed to choose between two males, they actively engage in multiple mating35,36, thereby creating an arena for post-copulatory sexual selection and cryptic female choice.

MHC genes could play a role in cryptic female choice, either in leading to a selective fertilization37, and/or a selective abortion of offspring of certain males38,39. Studies on humans and rodents indicate that females are more likely to abort MHC-similar pregnancies40,41, and in vitro fertilizations are more likely to fail when couples share MHC alleles42. Moreover, couples that share MHC haplotypes have unusually long interbirth intervals, which could be explained by selective abortion43. Recently, a correlational study in horses found that females were more likely to become pregnant after instrumental insemination, when mares at the time of fertilization were exposed to stallions with more MHC dissimilar profiles44. Given that pregnancy rates were independent of the genotype of the actual sperm donor, this study suggests that females might selectively bias fertilization or implantation based on the genetic constitution of a perceived mating partner. However, we are not aware of any study in mammals that has experimentally tested whether male genetic similarity—genome-wide or at a specific locus—affects maternal investment in implantation rates and offspring development.

Differential maternal investment into offspring can be considered a form of post-copulatory mate choice. Surprisingly, the implication of differential maternal investment for sexual selection has received comparatively little attention, and its potential value for other research areas has not been considered. For example, studies on reproduction rarely consider evolutionary theory45. This lack of contact between the two fields is problematic, as sexual selection, and especially post-copulatory sexual selection can affect the evolution of male ejaculates, as well as female reproductive behavior and physiology39. Understanding female reproductive strategies and their investment into early pregnancies and gestation can improve reproductive outcomes, which can be beneficial for other research areas like reproductive medicine, the 3Rs in experimental use of laboratory animals, animal breeding, and species conservation46.

Here, we aimed to test whether females alter maternal investment depending on the genetic similarity of their mating partner. We paired females with males that either shared the same MHC haplotype and genetic background (isogenic), that shared half of the heterozygous MHC haplotype and genetic background (semi-isogenic), or that had a different MHC haplotype and genetic background (allogenic). We vasectomized males prior to pairing and performed embryo transfers in pseudo pregnant females to control for confounding effects arising though male or female genetic effects. We recorded mating and pregnancy rates, determined the number of implantation sites, and assessed pup survival until weaning. We expected that females were more attracted to males in the semi-isogenic or allogenic group compared to the isogenic group, and that embryo transfer rates and pup survival would be higher in these pairings, as females might invest more into offspring when they are paired with males that allow them to enhance offspring genetic diversity and heterozygosity, especially at the MHC47.

Material and methods

Experimental animals

All experimental mice were purchased from Janvier Labs, France. Animals were kept in same-sex groups in Typ IIL mouse IVC-cages (Tecniplast) equipped with wooden bedding (Lignocel 3–4 S, Rettenmaier and Söhne), nesting material (Pur-Zellin 4 × 5 cm; Paul Hartmann GmbH) and cardboard tubes (7.6 × 3.8 cm diameter, Special Diet Service) as enrichment. Commercial mouse diet (ssniff, V1534) and tab water were provided ad libitum and standard laboratory conditions (21 ± 1 °C temperature, 40–55% humidity,12:12 h light–dark cycle with lights on at 6:00 a.m.) were maintained before and during the experiment.

We used a pool of 120 CBA/J female mice as potential surrogate mothers and 11 CBA/J, 11 C57BL/6N and 11 B6CBAF1 hybrids (F1 from C57BL/6N females and CBA/J males) as vasectomized males for pairings. CBA/J females were purchased at the age of 6 weeks and kept in triplets until mating was performed at the age of 9 to 11 weeks. Males were purchased between 7 and 9 weeks and used at the age of 16 to 19 weeks for the experiment. In addition, we used 99 B6D2F1 hybrid females at the age of 8 to 11 weeks as oocyte donors and 11 B6D2F1 hybrid males at the age of 10 to 13 weeks as sperm donors for in vitro fertilization assays to generate embryos. We used F2 embryos as they show high genetic variability, thereby avoiding an implantation bias related to specific genetic interactions between surrogate mothers and embryos.

Study design

We aimed to test whether females differentially invest into offspring survival and development depending on the genetic similarity of their potential sire. Therefore, we paired females with vasectomized males that either shared the same MHC haplotype and genetic background (isogenic), that shared half of the heterozygous MHC haplotype and genetic background (semi-isogenic), or that had a different MHC haplotype and genetic background (allogenic). To maximize potential effects of genetic similarity on maternal investment we simultaneously manipulated MHC and genome wide genetic similarity. In the isogenic group, CBA/J females were paired with CBA/J males. In the semi-isogenic group CBA/J females were paired with B6CBAF1 hybrid males and in the allogenic group the CBA/J females were paired with C57BL/6N males (see Table 1).Table 1 Genetic background and MHC haplotype of recipient females and their vasectomized mating partners to induce pseudo pregnancy before embryo transfers.

Experimental group	♀ Background	♀ MHC haplotype	♂ Background	♂ MHC haplotype	
isogenic	CBA/J	H2k	CBA/J	H2k	
semi-isogenic	CBA/J	H2k	B6CBAF1	H2b/k	
allogenic	CBA/J	H2k	C57BL/6N	H2b	

We aimed to perform 25 embryo transfers in each experimental group. We performed odor stimulation in females to synchronize and time their estrus cycles by the Whitten effect48 before randomly assigning them to vasectomized males. After approximately 40 h, stimulated females were individually introduced to male home cages overnight and separated the following morning. We checked for the presence of a vaginal plug, which confirmed mating. Plug positive females were subsequently prepared for embryo transfers, unplugged females returned to the colony. Unplugged females that appeared to ovulate within 24 h (showing a swollen vulva, moist, and reddish vagina with large opening) were re-introduced to the same male’s cage in the evening. All other males were paired with a new female in the evening. Unplugged and unreceptive females were re-housed in same-sex groups for at least 5 days before being used for pairings again.

As we did not monitor mating behavior, we cannot exclude that mating occurred in the absence of a vaginal plug in females that appeared to ovulate soon. We re-introduced on average 26.5% of females (isogenic: 24.1%, semi-isogenic: 28.5% allogenic:26.9%). Approximately one third of the re-introduced females showed a mating plug and there was no apparent difference in the plug rate between groups (isogenic: 32.1%, semi-isogenic: 41.7% allogenic: 35.7%).

Measurements of maternal investment

We recorded mating frequencies in the respective pairing groups and monitored females daily after embryo transfers to record pregnancies and births. We counted the number of offspring born and tracked pup development and pup loss on a daily basis. After 21 ± 1 days all remaining pups were weaned, and we determined individual pup body mass and sex. After weaning all female recipients (including those that did not give birth after embryo transfer) were sacrificed to determine the number of implantation sites by visual inspection of uteri after staining with 10% ammonium sulphide49.

Embryo transfer

Embryo transfers were conducted over the course of three weeks. Every day, the order of embryo transfers was randomized. For transfers, females were anaesthetized by an intraperitoneal injection of ketamine/xylazine (ketamine: 100 mg/kg; xylazine: 4 mg/kg; Richter Pharma AG) and meloxicam (5 mg/kg Metacam; Böhringer Ingelheim-Vetmedica GmbH,) was administered subcutaneously for postoperative analgesia. Eyes were covered with eye ointment (Oleovit; Fresenius Kabi) and the skin around the surgery site was disinfected with 70% ethanol and rinsed with distilled water. Embryo transfers were conducted unilaterally into the right oviduct by a surgeon who was blinded for the pairing group. An incision of the unshaved skin and the peritoneum near the ovary was made to pull out the reproductive tract. The ovarian bursa was carefully ruptured, and sixteen 2-cell-stage embryos were transferred via the ovarian infundibulum into the ipsilateral ampulla of the uterine tube. Then, the reproductive tract was gently placed back into the abdominal cavity, the peritoneum sutured, and the skin closed with a Michel clamp. We performed surgery on a warmed table (37 °C) to prevent hypothermia. After waking up, animals returned to their home cage, and we checked animal wellbeing daily.

In vitro fertilizations

We performed in vitro fertilization (IVF) assays to obtain 2-cell-stage embryos for embryo transfers. We performed IVF instead of flushing the oviducts of mated females, as this approach allowed us to control embryo environment and prevent potential effects from donor females. Donor females were super-ovulated by an intraperitoneal injection of 7.5 IU pregnant mare serum gonadotropin (PMSG, Folligon; Intervet), followed by 5 IU human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG, Chorulon; Intervet) 48 h later. Fifteen hours after the administration of hCG females were sacrificed by cervical dislocation to dissect the oviduct and to retrieve the cumulus oocyte complexes (COCs). COCs were transferred to a Petri dish containing a 200 µl drop of HTF medium covered with oil (NidOil™, Nidacon), and incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO2 until sperm was added.

Sperm donors were sacrificed before both caudae epididymides were extracted and transferred into a Petri dish containing a 90 μl drop of TYH medium covered with oil. We cut the epididymides open to enable sperm swim out before the tissue was removed and the sperm suspension was incubated for 60 min at 37 °C and 5% CO2 for capacitation. Afterwards 5 μl of the sperm suspension were added to the COCs and the IVF dish was incubated at 37 °C and 5% CO2 for fertilization.

After 4 h, we stopped the incubation of the IVF dish and washed all oocytes by transferring them through four 100 μl drops of HTF medium. We subsequently cultured vital cells overnight at 37 °C and 5% CO2 in a culture dish containing HTF. The next morning, we visually inspected cells and selected vital and evenly shaped 2-cell stages for embryo transfers.

Vasectomy

Vasectomy was performed when males were 8 to 9 weeks old. Males were anaesthetized and treated for pain relief according to the same regime as used for embryo transfer. Once surgical anaesthesia was reached, the eyes were covered with eye ointment (Oleovit; Fresenius Kabi). Males were laid on their back and the abdomen was disinfected with 70% ethanol and rinsed with distilled water. Then, a longitudinal incision was made through the skin and the wall of the scrotum. The vasa deferentia were located and severed by cautery. The incision in the tunica vaginalis and the skin was then closed with sutures (Vicryl 5.0). Surgery was performed on a warmed table (37 °C) to prevent hypothermia. After surgery, animals returned to their home cage and daily health checks were performed.

After one week of recovery, we performed test matings to ensure that vasectomies were successful, and that the procedure did not affect male sexual behaviour. For test matings, each male was paired with a single, receptive female until a vaginal plug was detected. This treatment also ensured that all males were sexually experienced when used in the experiment.

Data analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics 28 was used for statistical analysis. To test for differences in the probability of mating in females between the pairing groups we manually calculated Chi2 tests. To assess if pairing group affected the number of implantation sites, the number of pups born or weaned, litter weight at weaning, or sex ratio within litters we run linear mixed models (LMM) and included pairing group (isogenic, semi-isogenic, or allogenic) as fixed factor. Given that maternal body condition is expected to impact maternal investment into offspring7 we added female body mass at embryo transfer as covariate to the models. We further included male ID as random factor, as males were repeatedly used for mating trials, and data were non-independent. We confirmed that model assumptions were fulfilled in all models and transformed data if necessary.

Ethical statement

Experimental procedures were discussed and approved by the Ethics and Welfare Committee of the University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna and the national authority (Austrian Federal Ministry of Education, Science and Research) according to §§ 26ff. of the Animal Experiments Act, Tierversuchsgesetz 2012-TVG 2012 under license numbers BMBWF-68.205/0158-V/3b/2019 and GZ 2020-0.848.524 and performed in accordance with these regulations.

The reporting in this manuscript is in line with the recommendations in the ARRIVE guidelines50.

Results

We performed 304 pairings between females and vasectomized males, resulting in 81 vaginal plugs with subsequent embryo transfers (Table 2). The likelihood of detecting a vaginal plug differed significantly between pairing groups (χ2 = 7.31, df = 2, p = 0.026), and plug rates were higher in the semi-isogenic than isogenic group (χ2 = 7.21, df = 1, p = 0.007). No difference in the number of vaginal plugs was found between the semi-isogenic and allogenic (χ2 = 2.61, df = 1, p = 0.106), or the allogenic and isogenic group (χ2 = 1.17, df = 1, p = 0.279).Table 2 Number of pairings, resulting mating plugs and litters after embryo transfers in the different pairing groups.

Pairing group	Pairings (#)	Mating plugs (#)	Recipients /w implantations (#)	Litters (#)	Plug rate (%)	Pregnancy rate (%)	Birth rate (%)	
Isogenic	116	23	21	21	19.8	91.3	91.3	
Semi-isogenic	84	31	30	29	36.9	96.8	93.6	
Allogenic	104	27	25	24	26.0	92.6	88.9	
Pregnancy rate refers to the percentage of recipients that implanted at least one embryo and birth rate to the percentage of recipients that gave birth to at least one offspring after embryo transfer.

We performed 81 embryo transfers (isogenic N = 23, semi-isogenic N = 31, allogenic N = 27) and the number of implantation sites after embryo transfers was on average 9.4, ranging from 0 to 14. However, the number of implanted embryos per female did not differ between pairing groups (LMM: F = 0.45, p = 0.645, Fig. 1). A total of 74 litters was born, and litter size at birth was on average 5.7, ranging from 1 to 10. The number of born pups per female after embryo transfer did not differ between pairing groups (LMM: F = 1.10, p = 0.338, Fig. 1), nor did the number of weaned pups (LMM: F = 0.53, p = 0.592, Fig. 1). Similarly, we found no effect of female body mass on the number of implantation sites (LMM: F = 1.54, p = 0.219), or the number of born (LMM: F = 0.38, p = 0.541) or weaned (LMM: F = 0.12, p = 0.732) pups.Figure 1 Boxplot of female reproductive investment in relation to male genetic similarity. Number of implantation sites, born and weaned pups after embryo transfer in females of the isogenic (white), semi-isogeneic (striped) or allogenic (grey) pairing group. Female recipients in all groups received 16 2-cell embryos each. Dot = mild outlier (Q1-1.5*IQ, or Q3 + 1.5*IQ).

Other parameters related to female investment like litter weight at weaning (LMM: F = 0.77, p = 0.476, Fig. 2a) and offspring sex ratio (LMM: F = 0.71, p = 0.503, Fig. 2b) did also not differ between experimental groups. However, we found that female body mass at embryo transfer was related to litter weight, and heavier females weaned significantly heavier litters on average (LMM: F = 8.57, p = 0.005). No relationship was found between female body mass and offspring sex ratio (LMM: F = 0.00, p = 0.986).Figure 2 Boxplot of female reproductive investment in relation to male genetic similarity. (a) Litter weight at weaning and (b) male sex ratio in litters of females from the isogenic, semi-isogenic or allogenic pairing group.

Discussion and conclusion

We experimentally tested whether females adjust maternal investment into offspring depending on the genetic quality of their mating partner. Precisely, we manipulated the degree of genetic similarity between females and their mates, thereby altering the level of genetic benefits females could get for their offspring in terms of genetic diversity or heterozygosity.

We found highest mating rates in the semi-isogenic group, where females were paired with hybrid males, with which they shared half of their genome. Almost 37% of pairings in this group resulted in a mating plug, compared to 19.5% in the isogenic group, where both sexes originated from the same inbred strain, and 26% in the allogenic group, where females were paired with males from a different inbred strain. Hybrid mice are known for their hybrid vigor51, i.e. they show increased libido, improved disease resistance and higher fertility, and the significantly higher mating rate in the semi-isogenic than isogenic group could be explained by females being more attracted to such vital males. Hybrid males used in our study are produced by crossing C57BL/6N inbred with CBA/J inbred mice and are heterozygous at all loci for which their parents have different alleles. Given that males in the isogenic (CBA/J) and allogenic (C57BL/6N) group were both inbred and thus homozygous at almost all loci, our observed mating bias could also be explained by a female preference for heterozygous males, both at the MHC and genome wide. In wild mice, it has been shown that females are attracted to the scent of more heterozygous males and that this effect is stronger when females themselves are inbred52. Surprisingly though, only few studies have found support for this idea and most studies have failed to find statistically significant evidence that females prefer heterozygous males53.

Across various species, a positive relationship between individual heterozygosity at specific (e.g., MHC) or genome‐wide loci and various fitness traits has been found53. Thus, in theory, females can benefit from choosing a mate that will increase heterozygosity at some or many loci in their offspring54. However, as stated by Kempenaers, optimal mate choice will depend on whether the relationship between heterozygosity and fitness is linear (i.e., the more heterozygous, the better) or quadratic (i.e., individuals with intermediate levels of heterozygosity will have the highest fitness)53. We had no a priori prediction on whether females would be more attracted to males in the semi-isogenic or allogenic group, as females could gain genetic benefits for their offspring in both groups. Based on the observed mating plug rates in our study, females show a trend to preferentially mate with males that would allow them to optimize rather than maximize offspring heterozygosity. However, given that we did not investigate female mating preferences directly, the observed mating bias in this study could additionally, or alternatively be explained by males, if hybrid males are better in courting or coercing females into mating than inbred males. Whatever the underlying mechanisms, using hybrid males in assisted reproduction can elevate mating plug rates, thereby increasing the rate of pseudo pregnancy in females and reducing the number of animals required for the generation or rederivation of mouse lines when applying embryo transfer.

Even though we observed a mating bias, we did not find any evidence that females differentially invest into the survival or development of their offspring, as we found no difference in the number of implanted, born, or weaned pups, and no difference in the weight or sex ratio of weaned offspring depending on the genetic similarity between females and their mates. Given that we did not have a large enough sample size to exclude a type II error, we performed a power analysis to estimate the effect sizes, and the sample sizes that would be necessary to have an 80% chance to detect a potential effect of male genetic similarity on female implantation, birth or weaning rates. We found that effect sizes were small, ranging from f = 0.156 to f = 0.190, and would require sample sizes of 399 to 270 respectively to be able to detect a potential effect.

In mice, females could theoretically adjust maternal investment after copulation in physiologically inhibiting fertilization or implantation; and after pregnancy has occurred, females may abort fetuses or cannibalize newborn pups. In our study we performed embryo transfers to control for confounding effects arising from male or female genetic quality, and thus we could only test for differential maternal investment after the two-cell embryos had been transferred into the oviducts. It has previously been shown in mice that fertilization and the second meiotic division in the egg is not random with respect to the MHC haplotype of sperm37, and that this non-random fertilization and selective zygote development will lead to the production of more MHC heterozygous embryos when females were challenged with a viral infection41. These studies have two implications for the interpretation of our results:

First, in performing embryo transfers we might have missed any potential effects of differential maternal investment that occur prior to, or directly after fertilization. For example, females might adjust the number of ovulated oocysts in anticipation of the genetic similarity or compatibility of males. Second, females might only show differential maternal investment to improve offspring heterozygosity or genetic diversity under ecologically relevant conditions, i.e., when facing one or several pathogens in their environment. Mice in our experiment were kept under strict hygienic conditions and were free of all pathogens listed in the FELASA guidelines55. It has previously been shown that infected females adjust mate choice and can become more choosy when selecting a mate56.Thus, females might also selectively adjust maternal investment into offspring, if this increases the probability of producing disease‐resistant offspring. Future studies are required to assess how infection and pathogen-rich environments affect maternal investment when females can produce more disease-resistant offspring.

A recent study in horses showed that mares were more likely to become pregnant after instrumental insemination when they had previously been exposed to an MHC dissimilar than an MHC similar male44. Results from a follow up study, that investigated embryo survival in the oviduct, suggest that differences in pregnancy rates might rather be explained by selective embryo implantations than differential survival in the oviduct57. We found no evidence for differential implantations, even though mice have been shown to be capable of selectively blocking pregnancies in preventing implantations—at least in the context of infanticide avoidance58. Similar to our result, previous studies in mice also found no evidence that females would block pregnancies in within-strain matings, when genetically uniform offspring would be produced59, or alter mating behavior to increase offspring genetic diversity36.

Finally, we also found no evidence that females differentially invested into their offspring after giving birth. Infanticide was rare and weaning rates were above 90% in all three groups (see Table 3). We found a positive relationship between female body mass (which did not differ between pairing groups) and offspring weaning weights. This result is not surprising, as a strong link between a mother’s condition and her offspring can be expected given that gestation in mammals is one of the most energetically costly stages of reproduction for females60.Table 3 Pup survival until weaning in the different pairing groups.

Pairing group	Litters (#)	Born pups (#)	Weaned pups (#)	Deceased pups (#)	Weaning rate (%)	Mortality rate (%)	
Isogenic	21	126	116	10	92.1	7.9	
Semi-isogenic	29	161	150	11	93.2	6.8	
Allogenic	23	118	108	10	91.5	8.5	
Weaning rate refers to the percentage of weaned pups and mortality rate to the percentage of deceased pups across all litters. In the allogenic group one litter with 8 pups had to be excluded from this analysis since the surrogate mother died after giving birth.

In conclusion, we experimentally tested whether females would increase maternal investment into the survival and development of offspring, depending on the genetic similarity of their mating partner at the MHC and genome wide. We vasectomized males prior to pairing and performed embryo transfers to control for confounding factors arising through male or female genetic effects. We found a mating bias in females for hybrid over same strain inbred males, indicating that females prefer to mate with more heterozygous males and avoid inbreeding. Alternatively, hybrid males could be better in courting or coercing females into mating. We found no evidence that females adjust maternal investment based on the genetic similarity of their mating partners. Our mice were kept under strict hygienic conditions and given that genetic benefits from mate choice are especially important under infection pressure, we cannot exclude that females might alter their investment when kept under more ecologically relevant conditions, or when challenged with a pathogen.

Acknowledgements

We gratefully acknowledge Tina Bernthaler and Denise Klein for their support in conducting the study.

Author contributions

Conceptualization K.E.A. and T.R.; Data curation K.E.A.; Formal analysis K.E.A.; Investigation K.E.A., J.P. and S.I; Methodology K.E.A. and J.P.; Project administration K.E.A.; Supervision K.E.A. and T.R.; Visualization K.E.A.; Writing-original draft K.E.A.; Writing-review & editing K.E.A., M.D. and T.R.

Data availability

The datasets supporting this article are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
==== Refs
References

1. Kokko H Brooks R Jennions MD Morley J The evolution of mate choice and mating biases Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2003 270 653 664 10.1098/rspb.2002.2235
2. Andersson M Sexual Selection 2019 Princeton University Press
3. Bateson PPG Mate Choice 1983 Cambridge University Press
4. Jennions MD Petrie M Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: A review of causes and consequences Biol. Rev. 1997 72 283 327 10.1017/S0006323196005014 9155244
5. Drickamer LC Gowaty PA Holmes CM Free female mate choice in house mice affects reproductive success and offspring viability and performance Anim. Behav. 2000 59 371 378 10.1006/anbe.1999.1316 10675259
6. Raveh S Female partner preferences enhance offspring ability to survive an infection BMC Evolut. Biol. 2014 14 14 10.1186/1471-2148-14-14
7. Harris WE Uller T Reproductive investment when mate quality varies: differential allocation versus reproductive compensation Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. Ser. B Biol. Sci. 2009 364 1039 1048 10.1098/rstb.2008.0299 19324609
8. Burley N Sexual selection for aesthetic traits in species with biparental care Am. Nat. 1986 127 415 445 10.1086/284493
9. Sheldon BC Differential allocation: Tests, mechanisms and implications Trends Ecol. Evol. 2000 15 397 402 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01953-4 10998516
10. Kempenaers B Sheldon BC Studying paternity and paternal care: Pitfalls and problems Anim. Behav. 1997 53 423 427 10.1006/anbe.1996.0377
11. Gowaty PA Reproductive compensation J. Evol. Biol. 2008 21 1189 1200 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2008.01559.x 18564347
12. Gowaty PA The hypothesis of reproductive compensation and its assumptions about mate preferences and offspring viability Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 2007 104 15023 15027 10.1073/pnas.0706622104 17848509
13. Edwards AM Cameron EZ Cryptic male choice: Experimental evidence of sperm sex ratio and seminal fluid adjustment in relation to coital rate Reprod. Fertil. Dev. 2017 29 1401 1404 10.1071/RD16123 27237795
14. Ratikainen II Kokko H Differential allocation and compensation: Who deserves the silver spoon? Behav. Ecol. 2010 21 195 200 10.1093/beheco/arp168
15. Horváthová T Nakagawa S Uller T Strategic female reproductive investment in response to male attractiveness in birds Proc. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2012 279 163 170 10.1098/rspb.2011.0663
16. Sardell RJ DuVal EH Differential allocation in a lekking bird: females lay larger eggs and are more likely to have male chicks when they mate with less related males Proc. Biol. Sci. 2014 281 20132386 10.1098/rspb.2013.2386 24225457
17. Pryke SR Griffith SC Maternal adjustment of parental effort in relation to mate compatibility affects offspring development Behav. Ecol. 2010 21 226 232 10.1093/beheco/arp180
18. Pryke SR Griffith SC Genetic incompatibility drives sex allocation and maternal investment in a polymorphic finch Science (New York, NY) 2009 323 1605 1607 10.1126/science.1168928
19. Potvin DA MacDougall-Shackleton EA Parental investment amplifies effects of genetic complementarity on growth rates in song sparrows, Melospiza melodia Anim. Behav. 2009 78 943 948 10.1016/j.anbehav.2009.07.023
20. Potvin DA MacDougall-Shackleton EA Paternal song complexity predicts offspring sex ratios close to fledging, but not hatching, in song sparrows Wilson J. Ornithol. 2010 122 146 152 10.1676/09-069.1
21. Klein J Natural History of the Major Histocompatibility Complex 1986 Wiley
22. Penn DJ Potts WK The evolution of mating preferences and major histocompatibility complex genes Am. Nat. 1999 153 145 164 10.1086/303166 29578757
23. Yamazaki K Control of mating preferences in mice by genes in the major histocompatibility complex J. Exp. Med. 1976 144 1324 1335 10.1084/jem.144.5.1324 1032893
24. Yamazaki K Recognition among mice. Evidence from the use of a Y-maze differentially scented by congenic mice of different major histocompatibility types J. Exp. Med. 1979 150 755 760 10.1084/jem.150.4.755 512584
25. Yamazaki K Beauchamp GK Genetic basis for MHC-dependent mate choice Genet. Sex. Differ. Sex. Dimorphic Behav. 2007 59 129 145 10.1016/S0065-2660(07)59005-X
26. Beauchamp GK Yamazaki K Chemical signalling in mice Biochem. Soc. Trans. 2003 31 147 151 10.1042/bst0310147 12546673
27. Egid K Brown JL The major histocompatibility complex and female mating preferences in mice Anim. Behav. 1989 38 548 550 10.1016/S0003-3472(89)80051-X
28. Potts WK Manning CJ Wakeland EK Mating patterns in seminatural populations of mice influenced by MHC genotype Nature 1991 352 619 621 10.1038/352619a0 1865924
29. Singh PB Brown RE Roser B MHC antigens in urine as olfactory recognition cues Nature 1987 327 161 164 10.1038/327161a0 3574476
30. Brown RE Roser B Singh PB Class I and class II regions of the major histocompatibility complex both contribute to individual odors in congenic inbred strains of rats Behav. Genet. 1989 19 659 674 10.1007/BF01066029 2508616
31. Wedekind C Seebeck T Bettens F Paepke AJ MHC-dependent mate preferences in humans Proc. R. Soc. B-Biol. Sci. 1995 260 245 249 10.1098/rspb.1995.0087
32. Ober C HLA and mate choice in humans Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1997 61 497 504 10.1086/515511 9326314
33. Yamazaki K Familial imprinting determines H-2 selective mating preferences Science (New York, N.Y.) 1988 240 1331 1332 10.1126/science.3375818 3375818
34. de Fraipont M Berdoy M Rolland C MacDonald D Free female choice in house mice: Leaving best for last Behaviour 2003 140 1371 1388 10.1163/156853903771980639
35. Thonhauser KE Raveh S Hettyey A Beissmann H Penn DJ Why do female mice mate with multiple males? Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 2013 67 1961 1970 10.1007/s00265-013-1604-8 24273373
36. Thonhauser KE Raveh S Penn DJ Multiple paternity does not depend on male genetic diversity Anim. Behav. 2014 93 135 141 10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.04.028 25018559
37. Wedekind C Chapuisat M Macas E Rülicke T Non-random fertilization in mice correlates with the MHC and something else Heredity 1996 77 400 409 10.1038/hdy.1996.160 8885381
38. Eberhard WG Cordero C Sexual selection by cryptic female choice on male seminal products—A new bridge between sexual selection and reproductive physiology Trends Ecol. Evolut. 1995 10 493 496 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)89205-8
39. Eberhard W Female Control: Sexual Selection by Cryptic Female Choice 1996 Princeton University Press
40. Ober C Elias S Kostyu DD Hauck WW Decreased fecundability in Hutterite couples sharing HLA-DR Am. J. Hum. Genet. 1992 50 6 1729895
41. Rülicke T Chapuisat M Homberger FR Macas E Wedekind C MHC-genotype of progeny influenced by parental infection Proc. Biol. Sci. 1998 265 711 716 10.1098/rspb.1998.0351 9608731
42. Ho H-N Sharing of human leukocyte antigens in couples with unexplained infertility affects the success of in vitro fertilization and tubal embryo transfer Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 1994 170 63 71 10.1016/S0002-9378(94)70385-X 8296846
43. Ober C HLA and reproduction: Lessons from studies in the Hutterites Placenta 1995 16 569 577 10.1016/0143-4004(95)90026-8 8577656
44. Burger D Major histocompatibility complex-linked social signalling affects female fertility Proc. Biol Sci. 2017 10.1098/rspb.2017.1824 29212724
45. Stearns SC Evolutionary medicine: Its scope, interest and potential Proc. Biol. Sci. 2012 279 4305 4321 10.1098/rspb.2012.1326 22933370
46. Wedekind C Sexual selection and life-history decisions: Implications for supportive breeding and the management of captive populations Conserv. Biol. 2002 16 1204 1211 10.1046/j.1523-1739.2002.01217.x
47. Kamiya T O'Dwyer K Westerdahl H Senior A Nakagawa S A quantitative review of MHC-based mating preference: The role of diversity and dissimilarity Mol. Ecol. 2014 23 5151 5163 10.1111/mec.12934 25251264
48. Whitten WK Modification of the oestrous cycle of the mouse by external stimuli associated with the male J. Endocrinol. 1956 13 399 404 10.1677/joe.0.0130399 13345955
49. Salewski E Farbemethode zum makroskopischen Nachweis von Implantationsstellen am Uterus der Ratte Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch. Exp. Pathol. Pharmakol. 1964 247 367 10.1007/BF02308461
50. Kilkenny C Browne WJ Cuthill IC Emerson M Altman DG Improving bioscience research reporting: The ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research PLoS Biol. 2010 8 e1000412 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412 20613859
51. Lynch M Walsh B Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits 1998 Sinauer Sunderland
52. Ilmonen P Stundner G Thoß M Penn DJ Females prefer the scent of outbred males: Good-genes-as-heterozygosity? BMC Evol. Biol. 2009 9 1 10 10.1186/1471-2148-9-104 19121213
53. Kempenaers, B. Mate Choice and Genetic Quality: A Review of the Heterozygosity Theory. Vol. 37. 189–278 (Elsevier, 2007).
54. Brown JL A theory of mate choice based on heterozygosity Behav. Ecol. 1997 8 60 65 10.1093/beheco/8.1.60
55. FELASA Working Group on Revision of Guidelines for Health Monitoring of Rodents and Rabbits et al. FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of mouse, rat, hamster, guinea pig and rabbit colonies in breeding and experimental units. Lab. Anim. 48, 178–192 (2014).
56. Buchholz R Effects of parasitic infection on mate sampling by female wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo): Should infected females be more or less choosy? Behav. Ecol. 2004 15 687 694 10.1093/beheco/arh066
57. Jeannerat E Embryo survival in the oviduct not significantly influenced by major histocompatibility complex social signaling in the horse Sci. Rep. 2020 10 1056 10.1038/s41598-020-58056-w 31974438
58. Bruce HM An exteroceptive block to pregnancy in the mouse Nature 1959 184 105 10.1038/184105a0 13805128
59. Rülicke T Guncz N Wedekind C Early maternal investment in mice: No evidence for compatible-genes sexual selection despite hybrid vigor J. Evolut. Biol. 2006 19 922 928 10.1111/j.1420-9101.2005.01039.x
60. Gittleman JL Thompson SD Energy allocation in mammalian reproduction Am. Zool. 1988 28 863 875 10.1093/icb/28.3.863