Display options
Cite
Trindade LS, Aigaki T, Peixoto AA, et al. A novel classification system for evolutionary aging theories. Front Genet. 2013;4:25doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00025.
Trindade, L. S., Aigaki, T., Peixoto, A. A., Balduino, A., Mânica da Cruz, I. B., & Heddle, J. G. (2013). A novel classification system for evolutionary aging theories. Frontiers in genetics, 425. https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00025
Trindade, Lucas S, et al. "A novel classification system for evolutionary aging theories." Frontiers in genetics vol. 4 (2013): 25. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2013.00025
Trindade LS, Aigaki T, Peixoto AA, Balduino A, Mânica da Cruz IB, Heddle JG. A novel classification system for evolutionary aging theories. Front Genet. 2013 Mar 06;4:25. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00025. eCollection 2013. PMID: 23508239; PMCID: PMC3589719.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Front Genet. 2013 Mar 06;4:25. doi: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00025. eCollection 2013.

A novel classification system for evolutionary aging theories.

Frontiers in genetics

Lucas S Trindade, Toshiro Aigaki, Alexandre A Peixoto, Alex Balduino, Ivana B Mânica da Cruz, Jonathan G Heddle

Affiliations

  1. Heddle Initiative Research Unit, Advanced Science Institute Wako, Saitama, Japan ; Department of Investigative Pathology, Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences, Nagasaki University Nagasaki, Japan ; Department of Biological Sciences, Tokyo Metropolitan University Hachioji, Tokyo, Japan.

PMID: 23508239 PMCID: PMC3589719 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2013.00025

Abstract

Theories of lifespan evolution are a source of confusion amongst aging researchers. After a century of aging research the dispute over whether the aging process is active or passive persists and a comprehensive and universally accepted theoretical model remains elusive. Evolutionary aging theories primarily dispute whether the aging process is exclusively adapted to favor the kin or exclusively non-adapted to favor the individual. Interestingly, contradictory data and theories supporting both exclusively programmed and exclusively non-programmed theories continue to grow. However, this is a false dichotomy; natural selection favors traits resulting in efficient reproduction whether they benefit the individual or the kin. Thus, to understand the evolution of aging, first we must understand the environment-dependent balance between the advantages and disadvantages of extended lifespan in the process of spreading genes. As described by distinct theories, different niches and environmental conditions confer on extended lifespan a range of fitness values varying from highly beneficial to highly detrimental. Here, we considered the range of fitness values for extended lifespan and develop a fitness-based framework for categorizing existing theories. We show that all theories can be classified into four basic types: secondary (beneficial), maladaptive (neutral), assisted death (detrimental), and senemorphic aging (varying between beneficial to detrimental). We anticipate that this classification system will assist with understanding and interpreting aging/death by providing a way of considering theories as members of one of these classes rather than consideration of their individual details.

Keywords: altruism; caloric restriction; evolution; longevity; senemorphism; senescence

References

  1. J Chem Ecol. 2003 Feb;29(2):453-63 - PubMed
  2. PLoS Biol. 2011 May;9(5):e1000615 - PubMed
  3. Evolution. 1994 Aug;48(4):1244-1257 - PubMed
  4. EMBO Rep. 2005 Jul;6 Spec No:S39-44 - PubMed
  5. Trends Ecol Evol. 2007 Apr;22(4):173-4 - PubMed
  6. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1961 Apr;47(4):609-21 - PubMed
  7. Evolution. 2002 May;56(5):1008-20 - PubMed
  8. Rejuvenation Res. 2010 Apr-Jun;13(2-3):322-6 - PubMed
  9. Am Nat. 1999 Aug;154(2):140-159 - PubMed
  10. Proc Biol Sci. 2010 Dec 7;277(1700):3659-67 - PubMed
  11. Science. 1996 Nov 8;274(5289):993-5 - PubMed
  12. J Theor Biol. 1964 Jul;7(1):1-16 - PubMed
  13. Proc Biol Sci. 2003 Nov 7;270 Suppl 2:S183-5 - PubMed
  14. Biogerontology. 2012 Aug;13(4):457-66 - PubMed
  15. Aging Dis. 2010 Oct 1;1(2):72-74 - PubMed
  16. Proc Biol Sci. 2011 Nov 22;278(1723):3313-20 - PubMed
  17. Science. 1977 Dec 2;198(4320):948-51 - PubMed
  18. Free Radic Res. 2008 May;42(5):474-80 - PubMed
  19. PLoS One. 2011;6(9):e24328 - PubMed
  20. Science. 2009 Nov 13;326(5955):954-8 - PubMed
  21. Am Nat. 1998 Jul;152(1):24-44 - PubMed
  22. Nature. 2008 May 29;453(7195):583-5 - PubMed
  23. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1979 Sep 21;205(1161):531-46 - PubMed
  24. Cell. 2005 Feb 25;120(4):449-60 - PubMed
  25. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2009 Oct;1790(10):951-62 - PubMed
  26. Free Radic Res. 2006 Dec;40(12):1230-8 - PubMed
  27. Age (Dordr). 2010 Mar;32(1):79-84 - PubMed
  28. Bioessays. 1989 Apr;10(4):125-7 - PubMed
  29. Science. 2012 Jan 6;335(6064):79-82 - PubMed
  30. Sci Rep. 2012;2:238 - PubMed
  31. J Evol Biol. 2006 May;19(3):682-9 - PubMed
  32. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1967;21:179-213 - PubMed
  33. Ecol Lett. 2007 Oct;10(10):867-72 - PubMed
  34. Evolution. 1984 Sep;38(5):1004-1010 - PubMed

Publication Types