4.3 Article

Blood Cell Telomere Lengths and Shortening Rates of Chimpanzee and Human Females

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN BIOLOGY
Volume 26, Issue 4, Pages 452-460

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/ajhb.22538

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS 0717886]
  2. National Institutes of Health [P51 RR000165, P5 1RR013986, OD P51 OD011133]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: Slower rates of aging distinguish humans from our nearest living cousins. Chimpanzees rarely survive their forties while large fractions of women are postmenopausal even in high-mortality hunter-gatherer populations. Cellular and molecular mechanisms for these somatic aging differences remain to be identified, though telomeres might play a role. To find out, we compared telomere lengths across age-matched samples of female chimpanzees and women. Methods: We used a monochrome multiplex quantitative polymerase chain reaction to assay canonical telomere repeats in blood cells from captive female chimpanzees (65 individuals; age: 6.2-56.7 years) and compared them to the same measure in human females (43 individuals; age: 7.4-57.3 years). Results: Our samples showed little difference in attrition rates between the species (similar to 0.022 T/S per year for chimpanzees and similar to 0.012 T/S per year for humans with overlapping 95% confidence intervals), but telomeres were twice as long in chimpanzees as in humans (T/S ratios = 2.70 and 1.26, respectively). Conclusions: Based on the longevity differences, we initially hypothesized that telomere shortening rates would be faster in chimpanzees than in humans. Instead, it is shorter telomere length that appears to be the derived state in humans. This comparison indicates that better characterization of physiological aging in our closest living relatives will be indispensable for understanding the evolution of distinctive human longevity. (C) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available