4.5 Article

Patterns of intraspecific variability in the response to caloric restriction

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL GERONTOLOGY
Volume 51, Issue -, Pages 28-37

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.exger.2013.12.005

Keywords

Caloric restriction; Evolution of aging; Rotifer; Resource allocation; Trade-off; Intermittent fasting

Funding

  1. Ellison Medical Foundation/American Federation for Aging Research Post-doctoral Fellows in Aging Research Program
  2. National Institute on Aging Division of Aging Biology [R01 AG037960-01]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Caloric restriction (CR) is cited as the most robust means of increasing lifespan across a range of taxa, yet there is a high degree of variability in the response to CR, both within and between species. To examine the intraspecific evolutionary conservation of lifespan extension by CR, we tested the effects of chronic caloric restriction (CCR) at multiple food levels and of intermittent fasting (IF) in twelve isolates from the Brachionus plicatilis species complex of monogonont rotifers. While CCR generally increased or did not change lifespan and total fecundity, IF caused increased, unchanged, or decreased lifespan, depending upon the isolate, and decreased total fecundity in all but one isolate. Lifespan under ad libitum (AL) feeding varied among isolates and predicted the lifespan response to CR: longer-lived isolates under AL were less likely to have a significant increase in lifespan under CCR and were more likely to have a significantly shortened lifespan under IF. Lifespan under AL conditions and the response to CR were not correlated with hydroperiodicity of native habitat or with time in culture. Lack of trade-off between lifespan and fecundity under CCR, and differences in lifespan and fecundity under CCR and IF, even when average food intake was similar, suggest that longevity changes are not always directly determined by energy intake and that CCR and IF regimens extend lifespan through diverse genetic mechanisms. (C) 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available