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 *

212 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 25399634)

  • 21. Mate-choice copying: A fitness-enhancing behavior that evolves by indirect selection.
    Santos M; Sapage M; Matos M; Varela SAM
    Evolution; 2017 Jun; 71(6):1456-1464. PubMed ID: 28334416
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Veiled preferences and cryptic female choice could underlie the origin of novel sexual traits.
    Moehring AJ; Boughman JW
    Biol Lett; 2019 Feb; 15(2):20180878. PubMed ID: 30958124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Female preference for rare males is maintained by indirect selection in Trinidadian guppies.
    Potter T; Arendt J; Bassar RD; Watson B; Bentzen P; Travis J; Reznick DN
    Science; 2023 Apr; 380(6642):309-312. PubMed ID: 37079663
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Evolution by fisherian sexual selection in diploids.
    Greenspoon PB; Otto SP
    Evolution; 2009 Apr; 63(4):1076-83. PubMed ID: 19236473
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Quantitative genetic models of female choice based on "arbitrary" male characters.
    Heisler IL
    Heredity (Edinb); 1985 Oct; 55 ( Pt 2)():187-98. PubMed ID: 4055415
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Leader preference in Neoconocephalus ensiger katydids: a female preference for a nonheritable male trait.
    Murphy MA; Gerhardt HC; Schul J
    J Evol Biol; 2017 Dec; 30(12):2222-2229. PubMed ID: 28976614
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. 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]  

  • 28. Reconciling sexual selection to species recognition: a process-based model of mating decision.
    Castellano S; Cermelli P
    J Theor Biol; 2006 Oct; 242(3):529-38. PubMed ID: 16712871
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Experimental tests of mate choice in nonhuman mammals: the need for an integrative approach.
    Charlton BD
    J Exp Biol; 2013 Apr; 216(Pt 7):1127-30. PubMed ID: 23487265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Sampling and assessment accuracy in mate choice: a random-walk model of information processing in mating decision.
    Castellano S; Cermelli P
    J Theor Biol; 2011 Apr; 274(1):161-9. PubMed ID: 21237179
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Coevolution of male and female mate choice can destabilize reproductive isolation.
    Aubier TG; Kokko H; Joron M
    Nat Commun; 2019 Nov; 10(1):5122. PubMed ID: 31719522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Sexy sons: a dead end for cytoplasmic genes.
    Zeh JA
    Proc Biol Sci; 2004 Aug; 271 Suppl 5(Suppl 5):S306-9. PubMed ID: 15504002
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Evolution of a mating preference for a dual-utility trait used in intrasexual competition in genetically monogamous populations.
    Stern CA; Servedio MR
    Ecol Evol; 2017 Oct; 7(19):8008-8016. PubMed ID: 29043052
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. The Fisher process of sexual selection with the coevolution of preference strength.
    Xu K; Lerch BA; Servedio MR
    Evolution; 2023 Apr; 77(4):1043-1055. PubMed ID: 36757067
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. The evolution of female mate choice by sexual conflict.
    Gavrilets S; Arnqvist G; Friberg U
    Proc Biol Sci; 2001 Mar; 268(1466):531-9. PubMed ID: 11296866
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Direct fitness benefits explain mate preference, but not choice, for similarity in heterozygosity levels.
    Zandberg L; Gort G; van Oers K; Hinde CA
    Ecol Lett; 2017 Oct; 20(10):1306-1314. PubMed ID: 28868784
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. 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]  

  • 38. THE EVOLUTION OF COSTLY MATE PREFERENCES I. FISHER AND BIASED MUTATION.
    Pomiankowski A; Iwasa Y; Nee S
    Evolution; 1991 Sep; 45(6):1422-1430. PubMed ID: 28563819
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Non-random mating and information theory.
    Carvajal-Rodríguez A
    Theor Popul Biol; 2018 Mar; 120():103-113. PubMed ID: 29391186
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. 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]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 11.