Letter | Published:

A test of evolutionary theories of senescence


Senescence is the post-maturation decline in survivorship and fecundity that accompanies advancing age. Two main evolutionary theories have been proposed to account for senescence. (1) The mutation-accumulation theory. Deleterious mutations exerting their effects only late in life would tend to accumulate, because of their minimal effects on fitness1,2. More precisely, exclusively late-acting deleterious mutations will attain higher equilibrium frequencies under mutation–selection balance than will mutations that act early, resulting in lower mean values for fitness components late in life (ref. 3, p. 218). Medawar1 emphasized the possibility that this effect would be enhanced by selection of modifiers that postpone the age of onset of genetic diseases. (2) The pleiotropy theory. Williams4 suggested that many of the genes with beneficial effects on early fitness components have pleiotropic deleterious effects on late fitness components, but are nevertheless favoured by natural selection. (These theories are based on the decline with age in the effect of age-specific fitness-component changes on total fitness3 (ref. 3, pp. 206–214 and refs 4, 5). Either or both of these theories could apply in any particular population.) Selection experiments in Drosophila6 and Tribolium7 support the pleiotropy theory, although one such experiment gave results that only bordered on significance8, but the mutation–accumulation theory has never been tested. The present results provide evidence for the pleiotropy theory, but do not support the mutation–accumulation theory.

Access optionsAccess options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.


  1. 1

    Medawar, P. B. An Unsolved Problem of Biology (Lewis, London, 1952); The Uniqueness of the Individual (Methuen, London, 1957).

  2. 2

    Edney, R. B. & Gill, R. W. Nature 220, 281 (1968).

  3. 3

    Charlesworth, B. Evolution in Age-Structured Populations (Cambridge University Press, 1980).

  4. 4

    Williams, G. C. Evolution 11, 398–411 (1957).

  5. 5

    Hamilton, W. D. J. theor. Biol. 12, 12–45 (1966).

  6. 6

    Wattiaux, J. M. Evolution 22, 406–421 (1968).

  7. 7

    Sokal, R. R. Science 167, 1733–1734 (1970).

  8. 8

    Mertz, D. B. Physiol. Zool. 48, 1–23 (1975).

  9. 9

    Ives, P. T. Genetics 30, 167–196 (1945); Evolution 24, 507–518 (1970).

  10. 10

    Falconer, D. S. Introduction to Quantitative Genetics (Oliver & Boyd, Edinburgh, 1960).

  11. 11

    Mukai, T., Cardellino, R. A., Watanabe, T. K. & Crow, J. F. Genetics 78, 1195–1208 (1972).

  12. 12

    Wright, S. in Quantitative Inheritance (eds Waddington, C. H. & Reeve, E. C. R.) 5–41 (HMSO, London, 1952); Evolution and the Genetics of Populations Vol. 1, 232 (University of Chicago Press, 1968).

  13. 13

    Kempthorne, O. An Introduction to Genetic Statistics (Wiley, New York, 1957).

  14. 14

    Mahumunulu, D. M. Ann. math. Statist. 34, 521–527 (1963).

  15. 15

    Lints, F. A. Genetics and Ageing (Karger, Basel, 1978).

  16. 16

    Lints, F. A. & Hoste, C. Evolution 31, 387–404 (1977).

  17. 17

    Comfort, A. Nature 172, 83 (1953).

  18. 18

    Rose, M. R. & Charlesworth, B. Genetics (in the press).

Download references

Author information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Further reading


By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.