Evolution favours aging in populations with assortative mating and in sexually dimorphic populations

Predation has small, short-term, and in certain conditions random effects on the evolution of aging

Background

The pace of aging varies considerably in nature. The best-known explanation of the evolution of specific rates of aging is the Williams’ hypothesis suggesting that the aging rate should correlate with the level of extrinsic mortality. However, the current evidence is inconclusive with various examples where the Williams' hypothesis seems to be correct and where it doesn’t. Here we explore the relationship between extrinsic mortality and aging rate by developing a simulation model of the evolution of aging rate in prey subject to predation.

Results

Our results suggest that more intense predation leads to the evolution of faster pace of aging in prey. However, this effect slowly vanishes when the predator diet breadth is allowed to evolve, too. Furthermore, in our model, the evolution of a specific aging rate is driven mainly by a single parameter, the strength of a trade-off between aging and fecundity. Indeed, in the absence of this trade-off the evolutionary impacts of predation on the prey aging rate appear random.

Conclusions

We show that the William’s hypothesis appears valid when there is a trade-off between aging and fecundity and predators and prey do not coevolve. However, we also show that when the prey and predators coevolve or if there is no trade-off between aging and fecundity the William`s hypothesis is no longer applicable.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12862-021-01815-8.

From gerontology to geroscience: a synopsis on ageing

Biological ageing can be tentatively defined as an intrinsic and inevitable degradation of biological function that accumulates over time at every level of biological organisation from molecules to populations. Senescence is characterised by a progressive loss of physiological integrity, leading to impaired function and increased vulnerability to death. With advancing age, all components of the human body undergo these cumulative, universal, progressive, intrinsic and deleterious (CUPID) changes. Although ageing is not a disease per se, age is the main risk factor for the development of a panoply of age-related diseases. From a mechanistic perspective, a myriad of molecular processes and components of ageing can be studied. Some of them seem especially important and they are referred to as the hallmarks of ageing. There is compelling evidence that senescence has evolved as an emergent metaphenomenon that originates in the difficulty in maintaining homeodynamics in biological systems. From an evolutionary perspective, senescence is the inevitable outcome of an evolutionarily derived equilibrium between the amount of resources devoted to somatic maintenance and the amount of resources devoted to sexual reproduction. Single-target, single-molecule and disease-oriented approaches to ageing are severely limited because they neglect the dynamic, interactive and networking nature of life. These limitations notwithstanding, many authors promote single-target and disease-oriented approaches to senescence, e.g. repurposed drugs, claiming that these methods can enhance human health and longevity. Senescence is neither a disease nor a monolithic process. In this review, the limitations of these methods are discussed. The current state of biogerontology is also summarised.

If ageing is a disease, then life is also a disease

Ageing is distinct from a disease. Sound arguments have been adduced to explain that senescence cannot be understood as a pathological process. Nevertheless, this distinction is believed to be artificial (Holliday 1995), and other eminent researchers argue that the senescence-pathology dichotomy is also misleading. Recently, it has been suggested that ageing should be classified as a complex pathological syndrome or a ‘pre-disease’ that is treatable. Proponents of this new paradigm argue that: (i) modern evolutionary theory predicts that ‘although organismal senescence is not an adaptation, it is genetically programmed’, (ii) ‘insofar as it is genetically determined, organismal senescence is a form of genetic disease’ (Janac et al. 2017) and (iii) ‘ageing is something very much like a genetic disease: it is a set of pathologies resulting from the action of pleiotropic gene mutations’ (Gems 2015). Also new generations of researchers, free of these traditional shackles, come with the belief that it is time to classify ageing as a disease, as the distinction between normal dysfunction and abnormal dysfunction is not completely clear and should be abandoned. Although they marshal their arguments in a convincing manner, persuasive counterarguments can be mounted. Here, the senescence-pathology dichotomy is critically discussed. A deeper analysis of this subject reveals the underlying problem of undefined terminology in science.