Sex Differences in Parasitic Infections: Beyond the Dogma of Female-Biased Resistance

For over 50 years immunologists have based their thoughts, experiments, and clinical treatments on the idea that the immune system functions by making a distinction between self and nonself. Although this paradigm has often served us well, years of detailed examination have revealed a number of inherent problems. This Viewpoint outlines a model of immunity based on the idea that the immune system is more concerned with entities that do damage than with those that are foreign.

The power of sexual selection to drive changes in mate recognition traits gives it the potential to be a potent force in speciation. Much of the evidence to support this possibility comes from comparative studies that examine differences in the number of species between clades that apparently differ in the intensity of sexual selection. We argue that more detailed studies are needed, examining extinction rates and other sources of variation in species richness. Typically, investigations of extant natural populations have been too indirect to convincingly conclude speciation by sexual selection. Recent empirical work, however, is beginning to take a more direct approach and rule out confounding variables.

Sex differences in parasite infection rates, intensities, or population patterns are common in a wide range of taxa. These differences are usually attributed to 1 of 2 causes: (1) ecological (sociological in humans); and (2) physiological, usually hormonal in origin. Examples of the first cause include differential exposure to pathogens because of sex-specific behavior or morphology. The second cause may stem from the well-documented association between testosterone and the immune system; sexually mature male vertebrates are often more susceptible to infection and carry higher parasite burdens in the field. Although many researchers favor one explanation over the other, the requisite controlled experiments to rule out confounding variables are often neglected. We suggest that sex differences in disease have evolved just as sex differences in morphology and behavior, and are the result of selection acting differently on males and females. Research has often focused on proximate mechanistic explanations for the sex difference in infection rates, but it is equally important to understand the generality of the patterns in an evolutionary context. Because males potentially gain more than females by taking risks and engaging in competition, sexual selection pressure has shaped male behavior and appearance to maximize competitive ability and attractiveness. Many of the classic male attributes such as antlers on deer are testosterone-dependent, putting males in what appears to be a cruel bind: become vulnerable to disease by developing an attractive secondary sexual ornament, or risk lowered mating success by reducing it. A variety of hypotheses have been put forward to explain why males have not circumvented this dilemma. The mating system of the host species will influence the likelihood of sex differences in parasite infection, because males in monogamous species are subject to weaker sexual selection than males in polygynous species. Whether these evolutionary generalizations apply to invertebrates, which lack testosterone, remains to be seen.