Ernst Ulrich R, De Haes Wouter, Cardoen Dries, Schoofs Liliane
Research Group of Functional Genomics and Proteomics, Department of Biology, KU Leuven, Naamsestraat 59, 3000, Leuven, Belgium,
Age (Dordr). 2014 Apr;36(2):533-4. doi: 10.1007/s11357-013-9581-4. Epub 2013 Aug 17.
In a recent review article, Selman and colleagues (Trends Ecol Evol 27:570-577, 2012) discuss the status quo of the oxidative stress theory of aging (OSTA) and how it links to life history evolution. They suggest that the OSTA should be tested in wild populations which might show effects masked in laboratory settings. We disagree with their propositions for several reasons. We argue that there is increasing evidence that reactive oxygen species (ROS) are not causally linked with aging and that ROS do not play a straightforward role in shaping life history evolution. We propose that laboratory animals and semi-wild populations rather than wild animals are suited best to test any hypothesized effect of reactive oxygen species. This is because data from controlled manipulative experiments rather than observational correlations are preferred to solve this issue. In addition, nonconventional model organisms will be useful in answering the question how relevant the OSTA could be for life history evolution.
在最近的一篇综述文章中，塞尔曼及其同事（《生态与进化趋势》，2012年，第27卷，第570 - 577页）讨论了衰老的氧化应激理论（OSTA）的现状以及它与生活史进化的联系。他们认为，OSTA应该在野生种群中进行测试，因为在实验室环境中可能会掩盖其效应。我们出于几个原因不同意他们的观点。我们认为，越来越多的证据表明活性氧（ROS）与衰老没有因果关系，并且ROS在塑造生活史进化中并不起直接作用。我们提出，实验室动物和半野生种群比野生动物更适合测试活性氧的任何假设效应。这是因为解决这个问题更倾向于来自受控操纵实验的数据而非观察性相关性数据。此外，非传统模式生物将有助于回答OSTA与生活史进化的相关性问题。
