de Grey Aubrey D N J
Department of Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Gerontology. 2005 Mar-Apr;51(2):73-82. doi: 10.1159/000082192.
Much research interest, and recently even commercial interest, has been predicated on the assumption that reasonably closely-related species--humans and mice, for example--should, in principle, respond to ageing-retarding interventions with an increase in maximum lifespan roughly proportional to their control lifespan (that without the intervention). Here, it is argued that the best-studied life-extending manipulations of mice are examples of a category that is highly unlikely to follow this rule, and more likely to exhibit only a similar absolute increase in maximum lifespan from one species to the next, independent of the species' control lifespan. That category--reduction in dietary calories or in the organism's ability to metabolize or sense them--is widely recognized to extend lifespan as an evolutionary adaptation to transient starvation in the wild, a situation which alters the organism's optimal partitioning of resources between maintenance and reproduction. What has been generally overlooked is that the extent of the evolutionary pressure to maintain adaptability to a given duration of starvation varies with the frequency of that duration, something which is--certainly for terrestrial animals and less directly for others--determined principally by the weather. The pattern of starvation that the weather imposes is suggested here to be of a sort that will tend to cause all terrestrial animals, even those as far apart phylogenetically as nematodes and mice, to possess the ability to live a similar maximum absolute (rather than proportional) amount longer when food is short than when it is plentiful. This generalization is strikingly in line with available data, leading (given the increasing implausibility of further extending human mean but not maximum lifespan in the industrialized world) to the biomedically and commercially sobering conclusion that interventions which manipulate caloric intake or its sensing are unlikely ever to confer more than 2 or 3 years' increase in human mean or maximum lifespan at the most.
许多研究兴趣,最近甚至商业兴趣,都基于这样一种假设:例如,亲缘关系相当密切的物种——人类和小鼠——原则上应该对延缓衰老的干预措施做出反应,其最大寿命的增加大致与它们的对照寿命(即不进行干预时的寿命)成比例。在此,有人认为,对小鼠进行的研究最为充分的延长寿命的操作是一类极不可能遵循这一规则的例子,更有可能的是,从一个物种到另一个物种,最大寿命仅呈现相似的绝对增加,而与该物种的对照寿命无关。那一类操作——减少饮食热量或生物体代谢或感知热量的能力——作为一种对野外短暂饥饿的进化适应,被广泛认为可以延长寿命,这种情况会改变生物体在维持和繁殖之间资源的最优分配。人们普遍忽视的是,维持对给定饥饿持续时间适应性的进化压力程度会随着该持续时间的频率而变化,而这——对于陆地动物来说肯定是这样,对其他动物则不太直接——主要由天气决定。这里提出,天气施加的饥饿模式往往会导致所有陆地动物,即使是那些在系统发育上相距甚远的动物,如线虫和小鼠,在食物短缺时比食物充足时能够多活一段相似的最大绝对(而非成比例)时间。这一概括与现有数据惊人地一致,得出了(鉴于在工业化世界进一步延长人类平均寿命而非最大寿命的可能性越来越小)一个在生物医学和商业上令人清醒的结论,即操纵热量摄入或其感知的干预措施最多不太可能使人类平均或最大寿命增加超过两三年。