Online friends
Search Articles
Tag Cloud
- depression
- intro
- anxiety
- piracetam
- supplements
- nootropic
- aging
- longevity
- Hello
- noopept
- Dopamine
- modafinil
- brain
- c60
- cancer
- ADHD
- resveratrol
- 07-04-2015
- stack
- health
- choline
- 01-04-2015
- memory
- new
- Aniracetam
- nad+
- nmn
- sleep
- introduction
- diet
- brain fog
- mitochondria
- Exercise
- ----
- anhedonia
- life extension
- pramiracetam
- rapamycin
- oxiracetam
- phenibut
- serotonin
- Supplement
- GABA
- stem cells
- cryonics
- research
- brain health
- ssri
- alcar
- nootropics
Fight Aging News
-
In Search of the Causes of Intestinal Stem Cell Exhaustion
Stem cell populations become exhausted with advan...
Today, 11:20 AM Read Full Story -
A Subset of Cells in the Hypothalamus Regulates Longevity in Mice
Metabolism is regulated by regions of the brain,...
Today, 11:11 AM Read Full Story -
Fight Aging! Newsletter, November 11th 2024
Fight Aging! publishes news and commentary releva...
Yesterday, 11:59 AM Read Full Story -
AI in Longevity: The Reality Today
Back in 2006, a website called “The Death Clock”...
Nov 08 2024 10:00 PM Read Full Story -
Infectious Agents in the Gut Can Accelerate Neurodegeneration
A growing weight of evidence indicates that chang...
Nov 08 2024 07:16 PM Read Full Story -
The Longevity Summit Announces Fourth Annual Event
The Longevity Summit, a leading conference bringi...
Nov 08 2024 07:01 PM Read Full Story
Aging theories: Is there a unifying factor in aging?
When Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection was established, biologists were puzzled by the existence of senescence and aging among all organisms. Why did the evolutionary pressure not produce immortal species? They concluded that even the power of evolution has its limitations. It took almost hundred years to reach the idea that mortal individuals may be preferred by nature for following reasons — the genes resulting in advantage in early life might cause damage in late life, and the reproduction starts as soon as possible. Around the middle of twentieth century, there finally was a framework for the gerontological research conduced in the following decades — the first evolutionary theories of aging (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2002).
There are two major groups of theories aiming to explain the mechanism of aging, so-called programmed and error theories. The programmed ones are based on the senescence-causing nature of certain genes (these are also called evolutionary theories), hormones or the immune system. Error theories claim that we age because of general damage caused by cell weariness, metabolic rate, cross-linked proteins, free radicals or somatic DNA changes (Jin, 2010).
The beauty of various aging theories is that most of them are not mutually exclusive. We can see that newer theories do not necessarily oppose the old ones, but rather shed more light and offer more in-depth views on the process of senescence.
The pioneering idea from 1882 was Weismanns’s theory of programmed death (also called wear-and-tear theory) claiming something like apoptosis of the multicellular organism. Although disproved by experiments, his theoretical explanation of the mechanism predicted the discovery of Hayflick limit (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2002). According to Weismann’s first conception, nature priorities young individuals over elderly because of limited resources.
Pearl stated his ‘rate of living’ theory of aging in 1928, although the idea comes from Rubner who, in 1908, suggested that every organism has limited amount of metabolic energy and therefore its age depends on the rate of metabolism which correlates with organism’s size (Pearl, 1928). Most consider the rate of living theory to be flawed (Lints, 1989; de Magalhaes, Costa, & Church, 2007; Vaanholt, Daan, Schubert, & Visser, 2009).
A few decades later, the following evolutionary models have emerged:
Medawar’s hypothesis of mutation accumulation proposes that aging is a by-product of natural selection — genes causing senescence in later stadium of life cannot be eliminated because the genetic information was most likely already transferred to successors by individuals in their early adulthood (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2002). This theory from 1952 is considered the first modern theory of aging. Charlesworth confronted Medawar’s model with a discovery of late-life mortality plateaus and in 1994 presented so-called modified mutation accumulation theory (Charlesworth, 2001; Ljubuncic & Reznick, 2009).
In his antagonistic pleiotropy theory (also called ‘pay later’ theory), Williams in 1957 expressed the idea that even the same genes which cause trouble at advanced age may be advantageous in earlier stages of life, and therefore be not only tolerated, but even preferred by natural selection (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2002).
In 1979, Kirkwood extended this theory to the disposable soma theory — organisms may save energy by reducing accuracy in cells metabolism and invest it in faster development and reproduction (Kirkwood & Holliday, 1979). This is the last one of famous, genes-orientated evolutionary models.
The following can be classified as programmed theories:
The neuroendocrine theory proposed in 1954 by Dilman says that the main cause of aging is a loss of receptor sensitivity of the hypothalamus over time, and therefore its control of adequate production of hormones declines which leads to ineffectiveness and lower hormone levels in organism. It is an attempt to explain a high occurrence of degenerative diseases in late age (“Neuroendocrine Theory of Aging: Chapter 1,” 1999). Research on hormonal signaling pathways confirms that hormone levels have at least a partial role in determining longevity (van Heemst et al., 2005).
In 1964, Walford suggested his immunologic theory of aging — due to increasing diversity of cells, the immune system looses its efficiency with age which leads to insufficient responses against pathogens as well as to autoimmune reactions against self proteins (Walford, 1964).
All following attempts to explain the mechanism behind a process of aging are usually called error or damage theories.
Bjorksten’s "crosslinkage theory" says that proteins become linked together in presence of certain crosslinking agents, and after some time, accumulation of these molecular aggregates causes decline in tissue functions. This theory from 1942 is no longer popular (Bjorksten, 1968). Later research has showed that advanced glycation end products (AGEs) accumulate in collagen and lead to outcomes predicted by Bjorksten (Verzijl et al., 2002; Aronson, 2003).
These days very popular among researchers and public, the free radical theory was suggested by Harman in 1956. His idea was that the occurrence of free radicals, or reactive oxygen species naturally produced in living organisms, leads to macromolecular damage which accumulates and causes physiological changes known as senescence (Harman, 2009). Later he suggested the reactive oxygen species formation takes place mainly in mitochondria which causes a decline in important mitochondrial functions (Harman, 1972). Because of the theory’s popularity, various extensions of Harman’s model were created, usually considering different sites as a main target of free radicals.
Failla’s somatic mutation theory from 1958 posits that increasing number of mutations of genetic material causes a decrease in cellular, organ and body functions (Failla, 1958; Gensler & Bernstein, 1981; Kennedy, Loeb, & Herr, 2012). The theory received a lot of criticism in previous decades (Vijg, 2000). Kaya, Lobanov and Gladyshev (2015) investigated aging in yeast and failed to find evidence in support of Failla’s thesis.
Orgel proposed his error catastrophe theory in 1963. He saw the cause of aging in accumulation of malfunctioning proteins coming from errors during protein translation (Orgel, 1963). This theory never gained popularity and was soon disproved (Gershon & Gershon, 1976).
Alexander in 1967 extended Failla’s theory by hypothesizing that DNA damage instead of mutation is the cause of aging (Alexander, 1967). These days, this version called
"somatic DNA damage theory of aging" is more often used by scientists (Freitas & de Magalhaes, 2011; Soares et al., 2014). Evidence suggests that more damage happens in mitochondrial DNA than in nuclear DNA (Ames, 2009).
In 2002, Brunk and Terman published the mitochondrial-lysosomal axis theory. It states that defective macromolecules derived from mitochondria undergo further changes in lysosomes to become lipofuscin inclusions. These end products decrease cell’s autophagocytotic capacity which leads to more mitochondrial defects (Brunk & Terman, 2002).
Zs.-Nagy’s "membrane hypothesis" focuses on a decline of mitochondrial functions due to lessened membrane permeability caused by residual heat coming from nerve signals as well as by reactive oxygen species (Zs.-Nagy, 2014).
Recent versions of damage theories claim that free radicals are only one kind of senescence-causing by products of metabolism but the real initiator of all the inevitable damage is biological imperfectness. In other words, there are always types of damage which lack adequate repair mechanisms in organism and the most severe source of errors depends on actual conditions (Gladyshev, 2013; Gladyshev, 2014). This idea comes from the
"reliability theory", which focuses on systems failure in machines (Gavrilov & Gavrilova, 2001).
In spite of many research programs and lots of scientists involved, the unifying factor in aging is at the moment still unknown.
References
- Alexander, P. (1967). The role of DNA lesions in the processes leading to ageing in mice. Symp Soc Exp Biol, 21, 29-50.
- Ames, B. (1989). Endogenous Oxidative DNA Damage, Aging, and Cancer. Free Radical Research Communications, 7(3-6), 121-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10715768909087933
- Aronson, D. (2003). Cross-linking of glycated collagen in the pathogenesis of arterial and myocardial stiffening of aging and diabetes. Journal Of Hypertension, 21(1), 3-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.hjh.0000042892.24999.92
- Bjorksten, J. (1968). The Crosslinkage Theory of Aging. Journal Of The American Geriatrics Society, 16(4), 408-427. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1968.tb02821.x
- Brunk, U., & Terman, A. (2002). The mitochondrial-lysosomal axis theory of aging. European Journal Of Biochemistry, 269(8), 1996-2002. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1432-1033.2002.02869.x
- Charlesworth, B. (2001). Patterns of Age-specific Means and Genetic Variances of Mortality Rates Predicted by the Mutation-Accumulation Theory of Ageing. Journal Of Theoretical Biology, 210(1), 47-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2296
- De Grey, A. (1997). A proposed refinement of the mitochondrial free radical theory of aging. Bioessays, 19(2), 161-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bies.950190211
- Dean, W. (1999). Neuroendocrine Theory of Aging: Chapter 1. Warddeanmd.com. Retrieved 30 March 2017, from http://warddeanmd.com/articles/neuroendocrine-theory-of-aging-chapter-1/
- Failla, G. (1958). The Aging Process and Cancerogenesis. Annals Of The New York Academy Of Sciences, 71(6 Genetic Conce), 1124-1140. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1958.tb46828.x
- Freitas, A., & de Magalhães, J. (2011). A review and appraisal of the DNA damage theory of ageing. Mutation Research/Reviews In Mutation Research, 728(1-2), 12-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mrrev.2011.05.001
- Gavrilov, L., & Gavrilova, N. (2001). The Reliability Theory of Aging and Longevity. Journal Of Theoretical Biology, 213(4), 527-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jtbi.2001.2430
- Gavrilov, L., & Gavrilova, N. (2002). Evolutionary Theories of Aging and Longevity. The Scientific World JOURNAL, 2, 339-356. http://dx.doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2002.
- Gensler, H., & Bernstein, H. (1981). DNA Damage as the Primary Cause of Aging. The Quarterly Review Of Biology, 56(3), 279-303. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/412317
- Gershon, D., & Gershon, H. (1976). An Evaluation of the ‘Error Catastrophe’ Theory of Ageing in the Light of Recent Experimental Results. Gerontology, 22(3), 212-219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000212136
- Gladyshev, V. (2013). The origin of aging: imperfectness-driven non-random damage defines the aging process and control of lifespan. Trends In Genetics, 29(9), 506-512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tig.2013.05.004
- Gladyshev, V. (2014). The Free Radical Theory of Aging Is Dead. Long Live the Damage Theory!. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling, 20(4), 727-731. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/ars.2013.5228
- Harman, D. (1972). The Biologic Clock: The Mitochondria?. Journal Of The American Geriatrics Society, 20(4), 145-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-5415.1972.tb00787.x
- Harman, D. (2009). Origin and evolution of the free radical theory of aging: a brief personal history, 1954–2009. Biogerontology, 10(6), 773-781. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10522-009-9234-2
- Jin, K. (2010). Modern Biological Theories of Aging. Aging and Disease, 1(2), 72-74.
- Kaya, A., Lobanov, A., & Gladyshev, V. (2015). Evidence that mutation accumulation does not cause aging inSaccharomyces cerevisiae. Aging Cell, 14(3), 366-371. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/acel.12290
- Kennedy, S., Loeb, L., & Herr, A. (2012). Somatic mutations in aging, cancer and neurodegeneration. Mechanisms Of Ageing And Development, 133(4), 118-126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mad.2011.10.009
- Kirkwood, T., & Holliday, R. (1979). The Evolution of Ageing and Longevity. Proceedings Of The Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 531-546. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.1979.0083
- Lints, F. (1989). The Rate of Living Theory Revisited. Gerontology, 35(1), 36-57. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000212998
- Ljubuncic, P., & Reznick, A. (2009). The Evolutionary Theories of Aging Revisited – A Mini-Review. Gerontology, 55(2), 205-216. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000200772
- Magalhaes, J., Costa, J., & Church, G. (2007). An Analysis of the Relationship Between Metabolism, Developmental Schedules, and Longevity Using Phylogenetic Independent Contrasts. The Journals Of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences And Medical Sciences, 62(2), 149-160. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/gerona/62.2.149
- Muller, F., Lustgarten, M., Jang, Y., Richardson, A., & Van Remmen, H. (2007). Trends in oxidative aging theories. Free Radical Biology And Medicine, 43(4), 477-503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2007.03.034
- Orgel, L. (1963). The Maintenance of the Accuracy of Protein Synthesis and its Relevance to Ageing. Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences, 49(4), 517-521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.49.4.517
- Soares, J., Cortinhas, A., Bento, T., Leitão, J., Collins, A., Gaivã, I., & Mota, M. (2014). Aging and DNA damage in humans: a meta-analysis study. Aging, 6(6), 432-439. http://dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.100667
- Vaanholt, L., Daan, S., Schubert, K., & Visser, G. (2009). Metabolism and Aging: Effects of Cold Exposure on Metabolic Rate, Body Composition, and Longevity in Mice. Physiological And Biochemical Zoology, 82(4), 314-324. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/589727
- Van Heemst, D., Beekman, M., Mooijaart, S., Heijmans, B., Brandt, B., & Zwaan, B. et al. (2005). Reduced insulin/IGF-1 signalling and human longevity. Aging Cell, 4(2), 79-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1474-9728.2005.00148.x
- Verzijl, N., DeGroot, J., Zaken, C., Braun-Benjamin, O., Maroudas, A., & Bank, R. et al. (2002). Crosslinking by advanced glycation end products increases the stiffness of the collagen network in human articular cartilage: A possible mechanism through which age is a risk factor for osteoarthritis. Arthritis & Rheumatism, 46(1), 114-123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1529-0131(200201)46:1<114::aid-art10025>3.0.co;2-p
- Vijg, J. (2000). Somatic mutations and aging: a re-evaluation. Mutation Research/Fundamental And Molecular Mechanisms Of Mutagenesis, 447(1), 117-135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0027-5107(99)00202-x
- Walford, R. (1964). The Immunologic Theory of Aging. The Gerontologist, 4(4), 195-197. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/geront/4.4.195
- Zs.-Nagy, I. (2014). Aging of Cell Membranes: Facts and Theories. Aging, 62-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000358900
The above is a short perspective by Vit Zemanek. Continue the discussion and analysis on LongeCity's long-running AGING THEORIES forum.
1 Comments
Thanks Vit for this great short summary!
It seems to me that Aging Theories are so... 2005...
I've a few opinions about Aging Theories and the value of focusing on them given that it's now 2017. The value? Not much.
I'd prefer to make that Not-Much case in a Longecity Aging Theories forum thread created by someone else...