Women who are not pregnant or on birth control prefer men whose MHCs (Major histocompatibility complexes) are different than their own. The same is true of mice, and has been studied in mice though it's hard to find out about the actual chemicals. How MHCs change a person's scent isn't immediately clear. The scents probably aren't complex protiens since heat sufficient to denature a protein doesn't kill the attractiveness of male mouse urine.

My question, then, is; would making male scent profiles more 'diverse' make men more attractive since it's more likely a novel scent would be detected? And which chemicals should be added? Or would making scents more diverse make it more likely that women would smell something that they didn't like? I'm still exploring this issue, but I figured someone must have looked into this before me.

Quote:In a 1995 experiment, a group of female college students smelled t-shirts that had been worn by male students for two nights, without deodorant, cologne or scented soaps. Overwhelmingly, the women preferred the odors of men with dissimilar MHCs to their own. However, their preference was reversed if they were taking oral contraceptives. [4] The hypothesis is that MHCs affect mate choice and that oral contraceptives can interfere with this. A study in 2005 showed similar results.[5]


http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Major_h...ty_complex

http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/ne...marck.html
http://www.reuniting.info/download/pdf/M...delity.pdf


This is unlikely since MHC molecules are large, involatile proteins, and furthermore, denaturation of proteins in urine does not destroy the distinguishability of MHC‐mediated odours by mice
http://ndt.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/9/1269.full


After the identification of volatile odor components by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry, the odor profiles of urine samples were analyzed quantitatively by using stir bar sorptive extraction and gas chromatography/atomic emission detection. Results showed that MHC genes influenced the amounts of testosterone-mediated pheromones, sulfur-containing compounds, and several carbonyl metabolites. This is the first report to quantitatively link known mouse pheromones to classical, antigen-binding MHC loci. Surprisingly, these compounds were not influenced by TAP genes, even though these loci are MHC-linked and play a role in peptide presentation. Whereas identification of MHC-determined odorants does not reveal their metabolic origin, some constituents were also present in blood serum, and their levels were not altered by antibiotics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17191155 (2007)


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685707

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20356897

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19082183

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18424142

Wouldn't the very fact we use synthetic pheromones be sufficient to alter our "MHC signature"?

Who else has such a varied scent signature than a pheromone user?

Riding this train of thought, any fairly balanced blend would be enough to stand out among the ordinary guys, i think.

Check this:

http://hackingthehive.com/main/2011/eau-...ne-output/

I've always ask a woman that I'm interested in what kind of scent they like. There's only two classifilcation that I have founded, Musty or fresh. Most women I found perfer Fresh.

I don't believe pheromones currently available on the market will modify your MHC signature.

From a practical point of view, I have never found a woman start to find me very significantly less attractive after changing my phero sig, or curtailing phero use altogether. I think they can still pick out your MHC signature beneath the mones.

There have been previous posts on the MHC at pherotalk (although non definitive).

(02-10-2012 6:50 AM)Fly So Hi Wrote:  Wouldn't the very fact we use synthetic pheromones be sufficient to alter our "MHC signature"?

That's very possible. It would fit with some of the data I've seen from experiments on mice. Female mice aren't attracted to the urine of a male mouse who is sick. They treat that urine the same as water. But they are attracted to the urine of a healthy male mouse. And many mammals tend to produce fewer androgens when they're sick. Scientists used to think that androgens suppressed the immune system, but that notion looks like it's being disproved. When you're sick, your body doesn't waste energy producing all the stuff (androgens, pheromones) it normally does. And the known pheromones (except DHEAS) do seem to be heat tolerant as well which is a requirement for whatever chemicals signal our MHC signature.

So so far, everything I can find is at least in line with the notion that an array of mones are what signal our MHC signature to others.

But I haven't found any evidence in the literature to actually prove the notion that the mones we play with are the things that communicate our MHC signature to women. I thought someone here might be able to lay it down for me.

I suppose one test would be if someone wore mones and their sister or some female family member that they grew up with reacted... Has anyone had this happen by accident? If so, please tell. It's for science. ;-)

Thanks for that, Quirk!

So what components are in the MCH signature other than pheromones?
I mean, if they diffuse and act by smell/scent, aren't those components pheromones? Or at least could be considered that?

p.s. @ fly so high - I saw dbots article previously. It's been helpful. Thanks! :-)

(02-10-2012 12:33 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  From a practical point of view, I have never found a woman start to find me very significantly less attractive after changing my phero sig, or curtailing phero use altogether. I think they can still pick out your MHC signature beneath the mones.

I'll search for the other conversations, but haven't found anything that I can use so far. Is there any evidence that a negative MHC is actively repulsive as opposed to simply non-attractive? In other words, is it possible that a "good" MHC is just a matter of pushing the right buttons and the more buttons you push the better? It seems a simple experiment would be to check whether combinations of male sweat are ever less attractive than either alone. Do you know of an experiment like this?

I've been leaning towards the second notion (the more buttons we push, the better), but would welcome correction.

(02-10-2012 12:49 PM)wiserd Wrote:  I'll search for the other conversations, but haven't found anything that I can use so far. Is there any evidence that a negative MHC is actively repulsive as opposed to simply non-attractive? In other words, is it possible that a "good" MHC is just a matter of pushing the right buttons and the more buttons you push the better? It seems a simple experiment would be to check whether combinations of male sweat are ever less attractive than either alone. Do you know of an experiment like this?

I've been leaning towards the second notion (the more buttons we push, the better), but would welcome correction.

Women are repelled by MHC-dissimilar men when pregnant.

I think it highly unlikely that it is a question of pushing as many buttons as possible.

(02-10-2012 12:53 PM)Pheroquirk Wrote:  Women are repelled by MHC-dissimilar men when pregnant.

I think it highly unlikely that it is a question of pushing as many buttons as possible.

Perhaps Pheroquirk. I could certainly buy that. I'm not claiming to know anything for certain, here. but I'm not sure if aversion by itself demonstrates the invalidity of the 'push lots of buttons' theory. If non-pregnant off-the-pill Jane is attracted to a man whose scent pushes non-self buttons A, B, C and D why can't she then become averse to the same stimuli when pregnant?

Preferring some men doesn't require an actual attraction to them, even. It could be accomplished simply through an aversion to other men.

Hmm... this study also suggests that MHC signalling is not additive...

Oh well. I'm that much more confused, then.