4.8 Article

Aging of the cerebral cortex differs between humans and chimpanzees

出版社

NATL ACAD SCIENCES
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1016709108

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Science Foundation [BCS-0515484, BCS-0549117, BCS-0827531, DGE-0801634]
  2. National Institutes of Health [NS42867]
  3. James S. McDonnell Foundation [22002078]
  4. Mathers Foundation
  5. Yerkes Center [RR000165]
  6. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke [NS 19632]
  7. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie
  8. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci [0827531] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Several biological changes characterize normal brain aging in humans. Although some of these age-associated neural alterations are also found in other species, overt volumetric decline of particular brain structures, such as the hippocampus and frontal lobe, has only been observed in humans. However, comparable data on the effects of aging on regional brain volumes have not previously been available from our closest living relatives, the chimpanzees. In this study, we used MRI to measure the volume of the whole brain, total neocortical gray matter, total neocortical white matter, frontal lobe gray matter, frontal lobe white matter, and the hippocampus in a cross-sectional sample of 99 chimpanzee brains encompassing the adult lifespan from 10 to 51 y of age. We compared these data to brain structure volumes measured in 87 adult humans from 22 to 88 y of age. In contrast to humans, who showed a decrease in the volume of all brain structures over the lifespan, chimpanzees did not display significant age-related changes. Using an iterative age-range reduction procedure, we found that the significant aging effects in humans were because of the leverage of individuals that were older than the maximum longevity of chimpanzees. Thus, we conclude that the increased magnitude of brain structure shrinkage in human aging is evolutionarily novel and the result of an extended lifespan.

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

4.8
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