CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 4

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The landscape of longevity across phylogeny

Podolskiy, Dmitriy I., Avanesov, Andrei, Tyshkovskiy, Alexander, Porter, Emily, Petrascheck, Michael, Kaeberlein, Matt, Gladyshev, Vadim N.·2020
DOI 10.1101/2020.03.17.995993
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Lifespan of model organisms can be extended by genetic, dietary and pharmacological interventions, but these effects may be negated by other factors. To understand robustness of longevity interventions within and across species, we analyzed age-dependent mortality of yeast, fruit flies, nematodes and mice subjected to thousands of genetic, pharmacological or dietary interventions, and applied the principles learned to other organisms. Across phylogeny, the accessible space of lifespan distribution functions, the “landscape of longevity”, has a distinct structure of a fiber bundle, with individual fibers given by Strehler-Mildvan degeneracy manifolds. Within species, most interventions perturb parameters of survival curves along particular degeneracy manifolds. Transitions across manifolds are difficult to achieve, but they may lead to robust lifespan-modulating effects. Analyses of intraspecific degeneracy manifolds revealed soft bounds on achievable longevity. For humans, this bound is ∼138 years.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.03.17.995993

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1 CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 2
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Figure 3
Figure 3 CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF
Image 4
CC-BY-NC-ND · From the PDF

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 40

  1. 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00348.x · DOI
  2. 10.1038/35106646 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1038/384033a0 · DOI
  4. 10.1038/nature22784 · DOI
  5. 10.1007/s00360-007-0237-5 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.08.002 · DOI
  7. 10.1126/science.1411540 · DOI
  8. 10.1038/nature22792 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/nature19793 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1371/journal.pgen.1004844 · DOI
  11. 10.1038/nature22786 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/nature12789 · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.cell.2005.02.002 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Keyfitz N , Caswell H. 2005. Applied Mathematical Demography, 3rd ed., Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer Science & Business Media.
  15. 10.1214/aoms/1177729694 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1038/ncomms4592 · DOI
  17. 10.1080/03610926.2014.892323 · DOI
  18. 10.1126/sciadv.aao4666 · DOI
  19. 10.1126/science.1238723 · DOI
  20. 10.1371/journal.pbio.0030223 · DOI
  21. 10.1016/j.cmet.2015.09.008 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/gerona/glq178 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00311.x · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1016/J.EBIOM.2016.11.038 · DOI
  25. 10.1534/genetics.107.081968 · DOI
  26. 10.3390/biology7010006 · DOI
  27. 10.1534/genetics.118.300821 · DOI
  28. 10.1038/nature05991 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/ncomms12157 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1073/pnas.221303998 · DOI
  31. 10.1038/nature22788 · DOI
  32. 10.7554/eLife.31157 · DOI
  33. 10.1111/1365-2656.12482 · DOI
  34. 10.1126/science.132.3418.14 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1038/nature16550 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.01.017 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2017.01.017 · DOI
  38. 10.1126/science.280.5365.855 · DOI · Paper page
  39. 10.1016/S0047-6374(00)00118-4 · DOI
  40. 10.1111/acel.12163 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Podolskiy, D. I., Avanesov, A., Tyshkovskiy, A., Porter, E., Petrascheck, M., Kaeberlein, M., & Gladyshev, V. N.
ORCID
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-03-18
DOI
10.1101/2020.03.17.995993
Cited by
4
References
8
Type
Preprint
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (vor)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review