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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Evolution 2017-12, Vol.71 (12), p.2768-2785
Hauptverfasser: Gaillard, Jean-Michel, Lemaître, Jean-François
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 &amp; 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