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 *

166 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 30817033)

  • 21. Sexual conflict over the maintenance of sex: effects of sexually antagonistic coevolution for reproductive isolation of parthenogenesis.
    Kawatsu K
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(2):e58141. PubMed ID: 23469150
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. A cost of sexual attractiveness to high-fitness females.
    Long TA; Pischedda A; Stewart AD; Rice WR
    PLoS Biol; 2009 Dec; 7(12):e1000254. PubMed ID: 19997646
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Secondary sexual ornamentation and non-additive genetic benefits of female mate choice.
    Reid JM
    Proc Biol Sci; 2007 Jun; 274(1616):1395-402. PubMed ID: 17374595
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Coevolution of costly mate choice and condition-dependent display of good genes.
    Houle D; Kondrashov AS
    Proc Biol Sci; 2002 Jan; 269(1486):97-104. PubMed ID: 11788042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Sexual selection on Drosophila serrata male pheromones does not vary with female age or mating status.
    Gershman S; Delcourt M; Rundle HD
    J Evol Biol; 2014 Jun; 27(6):1279-86. PubMed ID: 24828752
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Sexual selection and assortative mating: an experimental test.
    Debelle A; Ritchie MG; Snook RR
    J Evol Biol; 2016 Jul; 29(7):1307-16. PubMed ID: 26970522
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Intrasexual competition facilitates the evolution of alternative mating strategies in a colour polymorphic fish.
    Hurtado-Gonzales JL; Uy JA
    BMC Evol Biol; 2010 Dec; 10():391. PubMed ID: 21182755
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. 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]  

  • 29. Male versus female mate choice: sexual selection and the evolution of species recognition via reinforcement.
    Servedio MR
    Evolution; 2007 Dec; 61(12):2772-89. PubMed ID: 17924955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. Artificial selection reveals sex differences in the genetic basis of sexual attractiveness.
    Gosden TP; Reddiex AJ; Chenoweth SF
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2018 May; 115(21):5498-5503. PubMed ID: 29735676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Male courtship behavior and weapon trait as indicators of indirect benefit in the bean bug, Riptortus pedestris.
    Suzaki Y; Katsuki M; Miyatake T; Okada Y
    PLoS One; 2013; 8(12):e83278. PubMed ID: 24386170
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Variation in mate choice and mating preferences: a review of causes and consequences.
    Jennions MD; Petrie M
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 1997 May; 72(2):283-327. PubMed ID: 9155244
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Monogamy and the battle of the sexes.
    Hosken DJ; Stockley P; Tregenza T; Wedell N
    Annu Rev Entomol; 2009; 54():361-78. PubMed ID: 18793102
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Inter-genomic sexual conflict drives antagonistic coevolution in harvester ants.
    Herrmann M; Cahan SH
    Proc Biol Sci; 2014 Dec; 281(1797):. PubMed ID: 25355474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Antagonistic coevolution between hosts and sexually transmitted infections.
    Ashby B
    Evolution; 2020 Jan; 74(1):43-56. PubMed ID: 31732970
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. The evolution of sex peptide: sexual conflict, cooperation, and coevolution.
    Hopkins BR; Perry JC
    Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc; 2022 Aug; 97(4):1426-1448. PubMed ID: 35249265
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. An experimental test for indirect benefits in Drosophila melanogaster.
    Rundle HD; Odeen A; Mooers AØ
    BMC Evol Biol; 2007 Mar; 7():36. PubMed ID: 17349042
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. The evolution of mating preferences for genetic attractiveness and quality in the presence of sensory bias.
    Henshaw JM; Fromhage L; Jones AG
    Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A; 2022 Aug; 119(33):e2206262119. PubMed ID: 35939704
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. Neutral fitness outcomes contradict inferences of sexual 'coercion' derived from male's damaging mating tactic in a widow spider.
    Baruffaldi L; Andrade MCB
    Sci Rep; 2017 Dec; 7(1):17322. PubMed ID: 29229932
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. How choosy should I be? The relative searching time predicts evolution of choosiness under direct sexual selection.
    Etienne L; Rousset F; Godelle B; Courtiol A
    Proc Biol Sci; 2014 Jun; 281(1785):20140190. PubMed ID: 24789896
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.