Article

Measuring selection for genes that promote long life in a historical human population

  • Nature Ecology & Evolutionvolume 1pages17731781 (2017)
  • doi:10.1038/s41559-017-0329-x
  • Download Citation
Received:
Accepted:
Published online:

Abstract

The unusually long lifespans of humans and the persistence of post-reproductive lifespans in women represent evolutionary puzzles because natural selection cannot directly favour continued living in post-menopausal women or elderly men. Suggested sources of indirect selection require genetic correlations between fitness and survival or reproduction at younger ages, reproduction in the opposite sex, or late-life contributions to offspring or grandoffspring fitness. Here we apply quantitative genetic analyses to data from a historical human population to explicitly test these evolutionary genetic hypotheses. Total genetic selection increased the male post-50 lifespans by 0.138 years per generation; 94% of this arose from indirect selection acting to favour early-life fitness in both sexes. These results argue strongly against life-history models of ageing that depend on trade-offs between reproduction and late-life survival. No source of indirect selection for female post-50 lifespan was detected, deepening the mystery of why female post-reproductive survival persists. This result is probably due to recent changes in the genetic architecture of female lifespan, and it highlights the need for similar quantitative genetic analyses of human populations at other points along demographic transitions.

  • Subscribe to Nature Ecology & Evolution for full access:

    $99

    Subscribe

Additional access options:

Already a subscriber?  Log in  now or  Register  for online access.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  1. 1.

    Hamilton, W. D. Moulding of senescence by natural selection. J. Theor. Biol. 12, 12–45 (1966).

  2. 2.

    Tuljapurkar, S., Puleston, C. O. & Gurven, M. D. Why men matter: mating patterns drive evolution of human lifespan. PLoS ONE 2, e785 (2007).

  3. 3.

    Vinicius, L., Mace, R. & Migliano, A. Variation in male reproductive longevity across traditional societies. PLoS ONE 9, e112236 (2014).

  4. 4.

    Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F. & Jones, N. G. B. Hadza women’s time allocation, offspring provisioning, and the evolution of long postmenopausal life spans. Curr. Anthropol. 38, 551–577 (1997).

  5. 5.

    Hawkes, K., O’Connell, J. F., Jones, N. G. B., Alvarez, H. & Charnov, E. L. Grandmothering, menopause, and the evolution of human life histories. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 95, 1336–1339 (1998).

  6. 6.

    Lancaster, J. B. & King, B. J. in In Her Prime (eds. Kerns, V. & Brown, J. K.) 264 (Univ. Illinois Press, Urbana and Chicago, IL, 1992).

  7. 7.

    Medawar, P. B. An Unsolved Problem of Biology (H. K. Lewis & Co, London, 1952).

  8. 8.

    Williams, G. C. Pleiotropy, natural selection, and the evolution of senescence. Evolution 11, 398–411 (1957).

  9. 9.

    Croft, D. P., Brent, L. J. N., Franks, D. W. & Cant, M. A. The evolution of prolonged life after reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 30, 407–416 (2015).

  10. 10.

    Hawkes, K. & Coxworth, J. E. Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity: a review of findings and future directions. Evol. Anthr. 22, 294–302 (2013).

  11. 11.

    Levitis, D. A., Burger, O. & Lackey, L. B. The human post-fertile lifespan in comparative evolutionary context. Evol. Anthr. 22, 66–79 (2013).

  12. 12.

    Charlesworth, B. Patterns of age-specific means and genetic variances of mortality rates predicted by the mutation-accumulation theory of ageing. J. Theor. Biol. 210, 47–65 (2001).

  13. 13.

    Marlowe, F. W. The patriarch hypothesis—an alternative explanation of menopause. Hum. Nat. 11, 27–42 (2000).

  14. 14.

    Hawkes, K. Grandmothers and the evolution of human longevity. Am. J. Hum. Biol. 15, 380–400 (2003).

  15. 15.

    Lee, R. D. Rethinking the evolutionary theory of aging: transfers, not births, shape senescence in social species. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 100, 9637–9642 (2003).

  16. 16.

    Wolf, J. B., Brodie, E. D., Cheverud, J. M., Moore, A. J. & Wade, M. J. Evolutionary consequences of indirect genetic effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13, 64–69 (1998).

  17. 17.

    Lahdenpera, M., Lummaa, V., Helle, S., Tremblay, M. & Russell, A. F. Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan in women. Nature 428, 178–181 (2004).

  18. 18.

    Lynch, M. & Walsh, J. B. Genetics and Analysis of Quantitative Traits (Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA, 1998).

  19. 19.

    Milot, E. et al. Evidence for evolution in response to natural selection in a contemporary human population. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 17040–17045 (2011).

  20. 20.

    Pettay, J. E., Kruuk, L. E. B., Jokela, J. & Lummaa, V. Heritability and genetic constraints of life-history trait evolution in preindustrial humans. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 2838–2843 (2005).

  21. 21.

    Lande, R. Quantitative genetic-analysis of multivariate evolution, applied to brain–body size allometry. Evolution 33, 402–416 (1979).

  22. 22.

    Gosden, R. G. Biology of Menopause: the Causes and Consequences of Ovarian Ageing (Academic Press, London, 1985).

  23. 23.

    Bean, L. L., Mineau, G. & Anderton, D. Fertility Change on the American Frontier (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1990).

  24. 24.

    Moorad, J. A. A demographic transition altered the strength of selection for fitness and age-specific survival and fertility in a 19th century American population. Evolution 67, 1622–1634 (2013).

  25. 25.

    Merila, J. & Sheldon, B. C. Lifetime reproductive success and heritability in nature. Am. Nat. 155, 301–310 (2000).

  26. 26.

    Foerster, K. et al. Sexually antagonistic genetic variation for fitness in red deer. Nature 447, 1107–1110 (2007).

  27. 27.

    Morrissey, M. B. et al. The prediction of adaptive evolution: empirical application of the secondary theorem of selection and comparison to the Breeder’s Equation. Evolution 66, 2399–2410 (2012).

  28. 28.

    McCleery, R. H. et al. Components of variance underlying fitness in a natural population of the great tit Parus major. Am. Nat. 164, E62–E72 (2004).

  29. 29.

    Herskind, A. M. et al. The heritability of human longevity: a population-based study of 2872 Danish twin pairs born 1870–1900. Hum. Genet. 97, 319–323 (1996).

  30. 30.

    McGue, M., Vaupel, J. W., Holm, N. & Harvald, B. Longevity is moderately heritable in a sample of Danish twins born 1870–1880. J. Gerontol. 48, B237–B244 (1993).

  31. 31.

    Hamilton, W. D. Genetical evolution of social behaviour I. J. Theor. Biol. 7, 1–16 (1964).

  32. 32.

    Lande, R. & Arnold, S. J. The measurement of selection on correlated characters. Evolution 37, 1210–1226 (1983).

  33. 33.

    Hill, K. & Hurtado, A. M. Aché Life History: the Ecology and Demography of a Foraging People (Aldine de Gruyter, New York, 1996).

  34. 34.

    Hill, K., Hurtado, A. M. & Walker, R. S. High adult mortality among Hiwi hunter–gatherers: implications for human evolution. J. Hum. Evol. 52, 443–454 (2007).

  35. 35.

    Marlowe, F. W. Hadza: Hunter–Gatherers of Tanzania (Univ. California Press, Berkeley, CA, 2010).

  36. 36.

    Bean, L. L., Smith, K. R., Mineau, G. P. & Fraser, A. Infant deaths in Utah, 1850–1939. Utah Hist. Q. 70, 158–173 (2002).

  37. 37.

    Sgro, C. M. & Hoffmann, A. A. Genetic correlations, tradeoffs and environmental variation. Heredity 93, 241–248 (2004).

  38. 38.

    Reznick, D., Nunney, L. & Tessier, A. Big houses, big cars, superfleas and the costs of reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 15, 421–425 (2000).

  39. 39.

    Moorad, J. Review of Sociality, Hierarchy, Health: Comparative Biodemography: A Collection of Papers, edited by M. Weinstein and M. A. Lane. Evol. Med. Public Health 2016, 67–68 (2016).

  40. 40.

    Bronikowski, A. M. et al. Aging in the natural world: comparative data reveal similar mortality patterns across primates. Science 331, 1325–1328 (2011).

  41. 41.

    Charnov, E. L. & Berrigan, D. Why do primates have such long life spans and so few babies? Evol. Anthropol. 1, 191–194 (1993).

  42. 42.

    Jones, O. R. et al. Diversity of ageing across the tree of life. Nature 505, 169–173 (2014).

  43. 43.

    Kirkwood, T. B. Evolution of ageing. Nature 270, 301–304 (1977).

  44. 44.

    Kirkwood, T. B. L. Evolution of ageing. Mech. Ageing Dev. 123, 737–745 (2002).

  45. 45.

    Rose, M. R. & Charlesworth, B. Genetics of life-history in Drosophila melanogaster. I. Sib analysis of adult females. Genetics 97, 172–186 (1981).

  46. 46.

    Charlesworth, B. Evolution in Age-structured Populations. (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1994).

  47. 47.

    Vaupel, J. W. et al. Biodemographic trajectories of longevity. Science 280, 855–860 (1998).

  48. 48.

    Chen, H. Y. & Maklakov, A. A. Longer life span evolves under high rates of condition-dependent mortality. Curr. Biol. 22, 2140–2143 (2012).

  49. 49.

    Kimber, C. M. & Chippindale, A. K. Mutation, condition, and the maintenance of extended lifespan in Drosophila. Curr. Biol. 23, 2283–2287 (2013).

  50. 50.

    Reynolds, R. M. et al. Age specificity of inbreeding load in Drosophila melanogaster and implications for the evolution of late-life mortality plateaus. Genetics 177, 587–595 (2007).

  51. 51.

    Moorad, J. A., Promislow, D. E. L., Smith, K. R. & Wade, M. J. Mating system change reduces the strength of sexual selection in an American frontier population of the 19th century. Evol. Hum. Behav. 32, 147–155 (2011).

  52. 52.

    Smith, K. R., Garibotti, G., Fraser, A. & Mineau, G. P. Adult mortality and geographical proximity of parents in Utah in the 19th and 20th centuries. In Symp. Kinship Demographic Behavior (International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Paris, France, 2005). 

  53. 53.

    Mineau, G. P. & Anderton, D. L. Household formation systems and the role of proximate kin. In 52nd Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America (Population Association of America, Chicago, IL, 1987).

  54. 54.

    Moorad, J. A. Individual fitness and phenotypic selection in age-structured populations with constant growth rates. Ecology 95, 1087–1095 (2014).

  55. 55.

    Moorad, J. A. & Wade, M. J. Selection gradients, the opportunity for selection, and the coefficient of determination. Am. Nat. 181, 291–300 (2013).

  56. 56.

    Moorad, J. A. Multi-level sexual selection: individual and family-level selection for mating success in a historical human population. Evolution 67, 1635–1648 (2013).

  57. 57.

    Sorensen, T. I. A., Nielsen, G. G., Andersen, P. K. & Teasdale, T. W. Genetic and environmental-influences on premature death in adult adoptees. N. Engl. J. Med. 318, 727–732 (1988).

  58. 58.

    Kerber, R. A., O’Brien, E., Smith, K. R. & Cawthon, R. M. Familial excess longevity in Utah genealogies. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56, B130–B139 (2001).

  59. 59.

    Perls, T. T., Bubrick, E., Wager, C. G., Vijg, J. & Kruglyak, L. Siblings of centenarians live longer. Lancet 351, 1560 (1998).

  60. 60.

    Schoenmaker, M. et al. Evidence of genetic enrichment for exceptional survival using a family approach: the Leiden Longevity Study. Eur. J. Hum. Genet. 14, 79–84 (2006).

  61. 61.

    Kruuk, L. E. B. Estimating genetic parameters in natural populations using the ‘animal model’. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 359, 873–890 (2004).

  62. 62.

    Gogel, B. J., Gilmour, A. R., Welham, S. J., Cullis, B. R. & Thompson, R. ASReml (VSN International, Hemel Hempstead, 2015).

  63. 63.

    Lerner, I. M. The Genetic Basis of Selection (Wiley, New York, 1958).

  64. 64.

    Lush, J. L. Animal Breeding Plans (Iowa State Press, Ames, IA, 1937).

  65. 65.

    Price, G. R. Selection and covariance. Nature 227, 520–521 (1970).

  66. 66.

    Robertson, A. A mathematical model of culling process in dairy cattle. Animal Production 8, 95–108 (1966).

  67. 67.

    Rausher, M. D. The measurement of selection on quantitative traits—biases due to environmental covariances between traits and fitness. Evolution 46, 616–626 (1992).

  68. 68.

    Morrissey, M. B., Kruuk, L. E. B. & Wilson, A. J. The danger of applying the breeder’s equation in observational studies of natural populations. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2277–2288 (2010).

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Pedigree and Population Resource of the Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah (funded in part by the Huntsman Cancer Foundation) for its role in the ongoing compilation, maintenance and support of the Utah Population Database. We also thank K. Smith for providing the data used in this study. C.A.W. was funded by a Natural Environment Research Council postdoctoral fellowship (NE/I020245/1) and a University of Edinburgh Chancellor’s fellowship. We thank A. Gilmour, J. Hadfield and A. Wilson for helpful technical advice. Comments from J. Pemberton, L. Kruuk, D. Nussey, P. Smiseth and B. Whittaker greatly improved the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Institute of Evolutionary Biology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, EH9 3FL, UK

    • Jacob A. Moorad
    •  & Craig A. Walling

Authors

  1. Search for Jacob A. Moorad in:

  2. Search for Craig A. Walling in:

Contributions

J.A.M. conceived the study. J.A.M. and C.A.W. contributed to its design, analysis and wrote the paper.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jacob A. Moorad.

Electronic supplementary material

  1. Supplementary Information

    Supplementary figures and tables