4.5 Review

Arctica islandica: the longest lived non colonial animal known to science

期刊

REVIEWS IN FISH BIOLOGY AND FISHERIES
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 297-310

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11160-010-9171-9

关键词

Bivalves; Model organism; Negligible senescence; Arctica islandica

资金

  1. Research into AgeingTrademark Discipline Hoppers Award [319]
  2. BBSRC [BB/H020535/1] Funding Source: UKRI
  3. Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council [BB/H020535/1] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The ocean quahog, Arctica islandica is not just the longest living bivalve, it is also the longest lived, non-colonial animal known to science. With the maximum life span potential ever increasing and currently standing in excess of 400 years the clam has recently gained interest as a potential model organism for ageing research. This review details what is known about the biology of A. islandica, it discusses observed age-associated changes and reviews previous ageing research undertaken on the species and other long-lived bivalves which may be applicable to future ageing research and discusses future directions for ageing research with A. islandica. Historically much of the research on bivalves has been targeted at their utilization as a food source, environmental sentinels and more recently the use of their shells as archives of environmental change. The result of this has been an abundance of knowledge on bivalve life strategies, and a limited amount of information on the physiological changes in the cells and tissues of bivalves during the ageing process. However, research into the mechanisms of senescence of long-lived bivalves from a biogerontological perspective has advanced only recently. The research undertaken thus far has documented age-related differences in anti-oxidant defences and accumulation of oxidative products but despite the recent attention into ageing of A. islandica it is still to be ascertained if the species experiences senescence. Future directions for ageing research using A. islandica are discussed.

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

4.5
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