Selection for Increased Longevity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster:</i> A Response to Baret and Lints

Abstract

Baret and Lints [Gerontology 1993;39:252–259] have questioned the interpretation of artificial selection experiments for increased longevity in Drosophila. They suggest that such experiments cannot demonstrate the genetic determination of longevity, because line differences in mean longevity are confounded with erratic temporal variations in life span. Using 15,000 flies from selected and control lines developed by Luckinbill and Clare [Heredity 1985;55:9–19], we show here that when lines are tested simultaneously in a carefully controlled environment, they exhibit markedly different average life spans: selected males live 20 days longer than controls, and selected females live 10 days longer. These and other observations leave no doubt about the existence of heritable variation influencing longevity in Drosophila.

Selection for Increased Longevity in <i>Drosophila melanogaster</i>: Reflections on New Data

“…Fukui et al [3] simultaneously compared the early-and late-reproduced lines studied by Luckinbill and Clare [1] and observed a longer mean life span -about 20 days -in the late-reproduced line. However, the imaginal sex ratios (number of females/number of males) differed in the two lines, varying be tween 0.69 and 0.95 in the cages of the earlyreproduced lines, and 1.29 and 2.17 in the cages of the late-reproduced lines.…”

“…and F.A.L. proposed a reinterpretation of the late-age reproduction experiments of Luckinbill and Clare [1], The difference they reported between early-repro duced and late-reproduced lines disappeared when the mean life span was plotted as a func tion of the number of days elapsed since the initiation of the experiment rather than as a function of the number of generations [2], In two recent papers [3,4], new data were pre sented as contradictory with that reinterpretation. However, both series of authors agreed with us about the importance of a comparison as a function of the number of days elapsed since the initiation of the experiment.…”

Senescence in Animals: Why Evolutionary Theories Matter

“…The flies of the the second group senesce more slowly and live up to 50% longer than the first group flies (Baret & Lints, 1993;Fukui et al, 1995;Luckinbill & Clare, 1985;Rose & Charlesworth, 1980;1981).…”

A mini-review of the evolutionary theories of aging.

“…In other words, when YOUNG and OLD flies living at the same moment are compared, there is no longevity difference between them. This article provoked considerable attention (see the debate in Gerontology: Fukui, Pletcher and Curtsinger 1995;Arking and Buck 1995;Baret, Le Bourg and Lints 1996). Arking and Buck (1995) published new results using the lines of Luckinbill et al (1984) showing clear differences between OLD and control lines reproduced at random age.…”