4.8 Article

Selective benefits of damage partitioning in unicellular systems and its effects on aging

Publisher

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0804550105

Keywords

computational modeling; protein damage; fitness; asymmetry

Funding

  1. Swedish Natural Research Council
  2. Goran Gustafsson Foundation
  3. European Commission [MEST-CT2004-514169]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cytokinesis in unicellular organisms sometimes entails a division of labor between cells leading to lineage-specific aging. To investigate the potential benefits of asymmetrical cytokinesis, we created a mathematical model to simulate the robustness and fitness of dividing systems displaying different degrees of damage segregation and size asymmetries. The model suggests that systems dividing asymmetrically (size-wise) or displaying damage segregation can withstand higher degrees of damage before entering clonal senescence. When considering population fitness, a system producing different-sized progeny like budding yeast is predicted to benefit from damage retention only at high damage propagation rates. In contrast, the fitness of a system of equal-sized progeny is enhanced by damage segregation regardless of damage propagation rates, suggesting that damage partitioning may also provide an evolutionary advantage in systems dividing by binary fission. Indeed, by using Schizosaccharomyces pombe as a model, we experimentally demonstrate that damaged proteins are unevenly partitioned during cytokinesis and the damage-enriched sibling suffers from a prolonged generation time and accelerated aging. This damage retention in S. pombe is, like in Saccharomyces cerevisiae, Sir2p- and cytoskeleton-dependent, suggesting this to be an evolutionarily conserved mechanism. We suggest that sibling-specific aging may be a result of the strong selective advantage of damage segregation, which may be more common in nature than previously anticipated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available