4.6 Article

Near-to-perfect homeostasis: Examples of universal aging rule which germline evades

期刊

JOURNAL OF CELLULAR BIOCHEMISTRY
卷 113, 期 2, 页码 388-396

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcb.23366

关键词

AGING; HOMEOSTASIS; ACCUMULATION; LOSS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aging is considered to be a progressive decline in an organism's functioning over time and is almost universal throughout the living world. Currently, many different aging mechanisms have been reported at all levels of biological organization, with a variety of biochemical, metabolic, and genetic pathways involved. Some of these mechanisms are common across species, and others work different, but each of them is constitutive. This review describes the common characteristics of the aging processes, which are consistent changes over time that involve either the accumulation or depletion of particular system components. These accumulations and depletions may result from imperfect homeostasis, which is the incomplete compensation of a particular biological process with another process evolved to compensate it. In accordance with disposable-soma theory, this imperfection in homeostasis may originate as a function of cell differentiation as early as in yeasts. It may result either from antagonistic pleiotropy mechanisms, or be simply negligible as a subject of natural selection if an adverse effect of the accumulation phenotypically manifests in organism's post-reproductive age. If this phenomenon holds true for many different functions it would lead to the occurrence of a wide variety of aging mechanisms, some of which are common among species, while others unique, because aging is the inherent property of most biological processes that have not yet evolved to be perfectly in balance. Examples of imperfect homeostasis mechanisms of aging, the ways in which germ line escapes from them, and the possibilities of anti-aging treatment are discussed in this review. J. Cell. Biochem. 113: 388396, 2012. (C) 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据