The Williams’ legacy: A critical reappraisal of his nine predictions about the evolution of senescence
Williams’ evolutionary theory of senescence based on antagonistic pleiotropy has become a landmark in evolutionary biology, and more recently in biogerontology and evolutionary medicine. In his original article, Williams launched a set of nine “testable deductions” from his theory. Although some of...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Evolution 2017-12, Vol.71 (12), p.2768-2785 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2785 |
---|---|
container_issue | 12 |
container_start_page | 2768 |
container_title | Evolution |
container_volume | 71 |
creator | Gaillard, Jean-Michel Lemaître, Jean-François |
description | Williams’ evolutionary theory of senescence based on antagonistic pleiotropy has become a landmark in evolutionary biology, and more recently in biogerontology and evolutionary medicine. In his original article, Williams launched a set of nine “testable deductions” from his theory. Although some of these predictions have been repeatedly discussed, most have been overlooked and no systematic evaluation of the whole set of Williams’ original predictions has been performed. For the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the Williams’ article, we provide an updated evaluation of all these predictions. We present the pros and cons of each prediction based on recent accumulation of both theoretical and empirical studies performed in the laboratory and in the wild. From our viewpoint, six predictions are mostly supported by our current knowledge at least under some conditions (although Williams’ theory cannot thoroughly explain why for some of them). Three predictions, all involving the timing of senescence, are not supported. Our critical review of Williams’ predictions highlights the importance of William’s contribution and clearly demonstrates that, 60 years after its publication, his article does not show any sign of senescence. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1111/evo.13379 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_hal_p</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03264014v1</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>48575231</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>48575231</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4419-3e7669c2cb3736fd42812f21070820930cf229f995f09c3a363b8fff06e26a73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkMFOAjEQhhujEUQPXrxpSLzoYaHttN3tkRAUExIuRI9NWVpZ0mVxy2K4-Rq-nk9iYZGDvUzT-f75Oz9C1wR3SDhdsyk6BCCWJ6hJOE8iLpg4RU2MCYsgobiBLrxfYIwlJ_IcNajEHEgMTXQzmZv2W-ZcpnP_8_XdduZdp9tLdGa18-bqUFto8jSY9IfRaPz80u-NopQxIiMwsRAypekUYhB2xmhCqKUExzi4SsCppVRaKbnFMgUNAqaJtRYLQ4WOoYUe67Fz7dSqzHJdblWhMzXsjdTuDQMVLGyxIYF9qNlVWXxUxq9VnvnUOKeXpqi8IpKznW_CAnr_D10UVbkMiwQqfJRRzmWg7g5UNc3N7Oj_F04AujXwmTmzPfYJVrvUVUhd7VNXg9fx_hIUt7Vi4ddFeVSwhMecAoFf0EZ4-A</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1973642559</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Williams’ legacy: A critical reappraisal of his nine predictions about the evolution of senescence</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Gaillard, Jean-Michel ; Lemaître, Jean-François</creator><creatorcontrib>Gaillard, Jean-Michel ; Lemaître, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><description>Williams’ evolutionary theory of senescence based on antagonistic pleiotropy has become a landmark in evolutionary biology, and more recently in biogerontology and evolutionary medicine. In his original article, Williams launched a set of nine “testable deductions” from his theory. Although some of these predictions have been repeatedly discussed, most have been overlooked and no systematic evaluation of the whole set of Williams’ original predictions has been performed. For the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the Williams’ article, we provide an updated evaluation of all these predictions. We present the pros and cons of each prediction based on recent accumulation of both theoretical and empirical studies performed in the laboratory and in the wild. From our viewpoint, six predictions are mostly supported by our current knowledge at least under some conditions (although Williams’ theory cannot thoroughly explain why for some of them). Three predictions, all involving the timing of senescence, are not supported. Our critical review of Williams’ predictions highlights the importance of William’s contribution and clearly demonstrates that, 60 years after its publication, his article does not show any sign of senescence.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0014-3820</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1558-5646</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/evo.13379</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29053173</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley</publisher><subject>Ageing ; Animals ; Antagonistic pleiotropy ; Biological Evolution ; Cellular Senescence ; Evaluation ; Evolution ; Evolutionary medicine ; Growth ; Humans ; Life Sciences ; Longevity ; Menopause ; Models, Biological ; PERSPECTIVE ; Pleiotropy ; Selection, Genetic ; Senescence ; Sex‐differences ; Theory ; Trade‐off</subject><ispartof>Evolution, 2017-12, Vol.71 (12), p.2768-2785</ispartof><rights>2017 The Author(s). Evolution © 2017 The Society for the Study of Evolution</rights><rights>2017 The Author(s). © 2017 The Society for the Study of Evolution.</rights><rights>2017 The Author(s). Evolution © 2017 The Society for the Study of Evolution.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2017, Society for the Study of Evolution</rights><rights>Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4419-3e7669c2cb3736fd42812f21070820930cf229f995f09c3a363b8fff06e26a73</citedby><orcidid>0000-0001-9898-2353 ; 0000-0003-0174-8451</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/48575231$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/48575231$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,776,780,799,881,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29053173$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://hal.science/hal-03264014$$DView record in HAL$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Gaillard, Jean-Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemaître, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><title>The Williams’ legacy: A critical reappraisal of his nine predictions about the evolution of senescence</title><title>Evolution</title><addtitle>Evolution</addtitle><description>Williams’ evolutionary theory of senescence based on antagonistic pleiotropy has become a landmark in evolutionary biology, and more recently in biogerontology and evolutionary medicine. In his original article, Williams launched a set of nine “testable deductions” from his theory. Although some of these predictions have been repeatedly discussed, most have been overlooked and no systematic evaluation of the whole set of Williams’ original predictions has been performed. For the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the Williams’ article, we provide an updated evaluation of all these predictions. We present the pros and cons of each prediction based on recent accumulation of both theoretical and empirical studies performed in the laboratory and in the wild. From our viewpoint, six predictions are mostly supported by our current knowledge at least under some conditions (although Williams’ theory cannot thoroughly explain why for some of them). Three predictions, all involving the timing of senescence, are not supported. Our critical review of Williams’ predictions highlights the importance of William’s contribution and clearly demonstrates that, 60 years after its publication, his article does not show any sign of senescence.</description><subject>Ageing</subject><subject>Animals</subject><subject>Antagonistic pleiotropy</subject><subject>Biological Evolution</subject><subject>Cellular Senescence</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Evolution</subject><subject>Evolutionary medicine</subject><subject>Growth</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Life Sciences</subject><subject>Longevity</subject><subject>Menopause</subject><subject>Models, Biological</subject><subject>PERSPECTIVE</subject><subject>Pleiotropy</subject><subject>Selection, Genetic</subject><subject>Senescence</subject><subject>Sex‐differences</subject><subject>Theory</subject><subject>Trade‐off</subject><issn>0014-3820</issn><issn>1558-5646</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2017</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkMFOAjEQhhujEUQPXrxpSLzoYaHttN3tkRAUExIuRI9NWVpZ0mVxy2K4-Rq-nk9iYZGDvUzT-f75Oz9C1wR3SDhdsyk6BCCWJ6hJOE8iLpg4RU2MCYsgobiBLrxfYIwlJ_IcNajEHEgMTXQzmZv2W-ZcpnP_8_XdduZdp9tLdGa18-bqUFto8jSY9IfRaPz80u-NopQxIiMwsRAypekUYhB2xmhCqKUExzi4SsCppVRaKbnFMgUNAqaJtRYLQ4WOoYUe67Fz7dSqzHJdblWhMzXsjdTuDQMVLGyxIYF9qNlVWXxUxq9VnvnUOKeXpqi8IpKznW_CAnr_D10UVbkMiwQqfJRRzmWg7g5UNc3N7Oj_F04AujXwmTmzPfYJVrvUVUhd7VNXg9fx_hIUt7Vi4ddFeVSwhMecAoFf0EZ4-A</recordid><startdate>201712</startdate><enddate>201712</enddate><creator>Gaillard, Jean-Michel</creator><creator>Lemaître, Jean-François</creator><general>Wiley</general><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7QG</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>7QR</scope><scope>7SN</scope><scope>7SS</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>7TM</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>P64</scope><scope>RC3</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>1XC</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-2353</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0174-8451</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201712</creationdate><title>The Williams’ legacy</title><author>Gaillard, Jean-Michel ; Lemaître, Jean-François</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4419-3e7669c2cb3736fd42812f21070820930cf229f995f09c3a363b8fff06e26a73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2017</creationdate><topic>Ageing</topic><topic>Animals</topic><topic>Antagonistic pleiotropy</topic><topic>Biological Evolution</topic><topic>Cellular Senescence</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Evolution</topic><topic>Evolutionary medicine</topic><topic>Growth</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Life Sciences</topic><topic>Longevity</topic><topic>Menopause</topic><topic>Models, Biological</topic><topic>PERSPECTIVE</topic><topic>Pleiotropy</topic><topic>Selection, Genetic</topic><topic>Senescence</topic><topic>Sex‐differences</topic><topic>Theory</topic><topic>Trade‐off</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Gaillard, Jean-Michel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lemaître, Jean-François</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>Animal Behavior Abstracts</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>Chemoreception Abstracts</collection><collection>Ecology Abstracts</collection><collection>Entomology Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>Nucleic Acids Abstracts</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Biotechnology and BioEngineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Genetics Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>Hyper Article en Ligne (HAL)</collection><jtitle>Evolution</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Gaillard, Jean-Michel</au><au>Lemaître, Jean-François</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Williams’ legacy: A critical reappraisal of his nine predictions about the evolution of senescence</atitle><jtitle>Evolution</jtitle><addtitle>Evolution</addtitle><date>2017-12</date><risdate>2017</risdate><volume>71</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>2768</spage><epage>2785</epage><pages>2768-2785</pages><issn>0014-3820</issn><eissn>1558-5646</eissn><abstract>Williams’ evolutionary theory of senescence based on antagonistic pleiotropy has become a landmark in evolutionary biology, and more recently in biogerontology and evolutionary medicine. In his original article, Williams launched a set of nine “testable deductions” from his theory. Although some of these predictions have been repeatedly discussed, most have been overlooked and no systematic evaluation of the whole set of Williams’ original predictions has been performed. For the sixtieth anniversary of the publication of the Williams’ article, we provide an updated evaluation of all these predictions. We present the pros and cons of each prediction based on recent accumulation of both theoretical and empirical studies performed in the laboratory and in the wild. From our viewpoint, six predictions are mostly supported by our current knowledge at least under some conditions (although Williams’ theory cannot thoroughly explain why for some of them). Three predictions, all involving the timing of senescence, are not supported. Our critical review of Williams’ predictions highlights the importance of William’s contribution and clearly demonstrates that, 60 years after its publication, his article does not show any sign of senescence.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley</pub><pmid>29053173</pmid><doi>10.1111/evo.13379</doi><tpages>18</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9898-2353</orcidid><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0174-8451</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0014-3820 |
ispartof | Evolution, 2017-12, Vol.71 (12), p.2768-2785 |
issn | 0014-3820 1558-5646 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_hal_primary_oai_HAL_hal_03264014v1 |
source | Jstor Complete Legacy; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
subjects | Ageing Animals Antagonistic pleiotropy Biological Evolution Cellular Senescence Evaluation Evolution Evolutionary medicine Growth Humans Life Sciences Longevity Menopause Models, Biological PERSPECTIVE Pleiotropy Selection, Genetic Senescence Sex‐differences Theory Trade‐off |
title | The Williams’ legacy: A critical reappraisal of his nine predictions about the evolution of senescence |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T16%3A51%3A37IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_hal_p&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Williams%E2%80%99%20legacy:%20A%20critical%20reappraisal%20of%20his%20nine%20predictions%20about%20the%20evolution%20of%20senescence&rft.jtitle=Evolution&rft.au=Gaillard,%20Jean-Michel&rft.date=2017-12&rft.volume=71&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2768&rft.epage=2785&rft.pages=2768-2785&rft.issn=0014-3820&rft.eissn=1558-5646&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/evo.13379&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_hal_p%3E48575231%3C/jstor_hal_p%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1973642559&rft_id=info:pmid/29053173&rft_jstor_id=48575231&rfr_iscdi=true |