These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

116 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 22946794)

  • 1. Meta-analysis suggests choosy females get sexy sons more than "good genes".
    Prokop ZM; Michalczyk Ł; Drobniak SM; Herdegen M; Radwan J
    Evolution; 2012 Sep; 66(9):2665-73. PubMed ID: 22946794
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Genetic quality and sexual selection: an integrated framework for good genes and compatible genes.
    Neff BD; Pitcher TE
    Mol Ecol; 2005 Jan; 14(1):19-38. PubMed ID: 15643948
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Indirect benefits for choosy female grasshoppers (Chorthippus biguttulus)?
    Klappert K; Reinhold K
    Zoology (Jena); 2007; 110(5):354-9. PubMed ID: 17720463
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Genic capture, sex linkage, and the heritability of fitness.
    Connallon T
    Am Nat; 2010 May; 175(5):564-76. PubMed ID: 20331359
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Nongenetic inheritance and the evolution of costly female preference.
    Bonduriansky R; Day T
    J Evol Biol; 2013 Jan; 26(1):76-87. PubMed ID: 23163399
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Good parent and good genes models of handicap evolution.
    Iwasa Y; Pomiankowski A
    J Theor Biol; 1999 Sep; 200(1):97-109. PubMed ID: 10479542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Can non-directional male mating preferences facilitate honest female ornamentation?
    Chenoweth SF; Doughty P; Kokko H
    Ecol Lett; 2006 Feb; 9(2):179-84. PubMed ID: 16958883
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Genetic variation in male attractiveness: It is time to see the forest for the trees.
    Prokop ZM; Drobniak SM
    Evolution; 2016 Apr; 70(4):913-21. PubMed ID: 26940698
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Paternal genetic effects on offspring fitness are context dependent within the extrapair mating system of a socially monogamous passerine.
    Schmoll T; Dietrich V; Winkel W; Epplen JT; Schurr F; Lubjuhn T
    Evolution; 2005 Mar; 59(3):645-57. PubMed ID: 15856706
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Female mate preferences in Drosophila simulans: evolution and costs.
    Sharma MD; Tregenza T; Hosken DJ
    J Evol Biol; 2010 Aug; 23(8):1672-9. PubMed ID: 20546089
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Negative genetic correlation between male sexual attractiveness and survival.
    Brooks R
    Nature; 2000 Jul; 406(6791):67-70. PubMed ID: 10894542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Condition-dependence, genotype-by-environment interactions and the lek paradox.
    Kokko H; Heubel K
    Genetica; 2008 Feb; 132(2):209-16. PubMed ID: 17619173
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Mate-sampling costs and sexy sons.
    Kokko H; Booksmythe I; Jennions MD
    J Evol Biol; 2015 Jan; 28(1):259-66. PubMed ID: 25399634
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The evolution of female mating preferences: differentiation from species with promiscuous males can promote speciation.
    McPeek MA; Gavrilets S
    Evolution; 2006 Oct; 60(10):1967-80. PubMed ID: 17133854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An integrative view of sexual selection in Tribolium flour beetles.
    Fedina TY; Lewis SM
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2008 May; 83(2):151-71. PubMed ID: 18429767
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Mate choice evolution, dominance effects, and the maintenance of genetic variation.
    Lehmann L; Keller LF; Kokko H
    J Theor Biol; 2007 Jan; 244(2):282-95. PubMed ID: 16979189
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Sexy sons from re-mating do not recoup the direct costs of harmful male interactions in the Drosophila melanogaster laboratory model system.
    Orteiza N; Linder JE; Rice WR
    J Evol Biol; 2005 Sep; 18(5):1315-23. PubMed ID: 16135126
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Evolution of mate choice for genome-wide heterozygosity.
    Fromhage L; Kokko H; Reid JM
    Evolution; 2009 Mar; 63(3):684-94. PubMed ID: 19220455
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Mate choice for nonadditive genetic benefits correlate with MHC dissimilarity in the rose bitterling (Rhodeus ocellatus).
    Agbali M; Reichard M; Bryjová A; Bryja J; Smith C
    Evolution; 2010 Jun; 64(6):1683-96. PubMed ID: 20148959
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Evolution of mating system and the genetic covariance between male and female investment in Clarkia (onagraceae): selfing opposes the evolution of trade-offs.
    Mazer SJ; Delesalle VA; Paz H
    Evolution; 2007 Jan; 61(1):83-98. PubMed ID: 17300429
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 6.