4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Damage-Fitness Model: Evaluation and synthesis

Journal

INTEGRATIVE AND COMPARATIVE BIOLOGY
Volume 59, Issue 2, Pages 282-291

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/icb/icz060

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [IOS-1553657]
  2. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology divisions of animal behavior (DAB), comparative endocrinology (DCE), comparative physiology and biochemistry (DCPB), and neurobiology, neuroethology, and sensory biology (DNNSB)
  3. NSF [IOC-1840903]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Decades of research into stress responses have highlighted large variation among individuals, populations, and species, and the sources of this variation have been a center of research across disciplines. The most common measure of the vertebrate stress response is glucocorticoids. However, the predictive power of glucocorticoid responses to fitness is surprisingly low. This is partly because the hormone levels rapidly change in response to stressor exposure and elevated levels at one time point can indicate either that glucocorticoids are helping the organism cope with the stressor or that dysregulation of hormone release is harming the organism. Meaning, the fitness consequences of the stressor depends on how efficient the stress responses are at negating the harmful impacts of stressors to cells and tissues. To encompass the idea of the efficiency of stress responses and to integrate cellular and organismal stress responses, a new theoretical model called the Damage-Fitness Model was developed. The model focuses on the downstream effects of stress responses and predicts that the accumulation of damage in cells and tissues (e.g., persistent damage to proteins, lipids, and DNA) negatively impacts fitness components. In this mini-review, we examine evidence supporting the Damage-Fitness Model and explore new directions forward.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available