Advertisement

A birth–death model of ageing: from individual-based dynamics to evolutive differential inclusions

  • Sylvie Méléard
  • Michael Rera
  • Tristan RogetEmail author
Article

Abstract

Ageing’s sensitivity to natural selection has long been discussed because of its apparent negative effect on an individual’s fitness. Thanks to the recently described (Smurf) 2-phase model of ageing (Tricoire and Rera in PLoS ONE 10(11):e0141920, 2015) we propose a fresh angle for modeling the evolution of ageing. Indeed, by coupling a dramatic loss of fertility with a high-risk of impending death—amongst other multiple so-called hallmarks of ageing—the Smurf phenotype allowed us to consider ageing as a couple of sharp transitions. The birth–death model (later called bd-model) we describe here is a simple life-history trait model where each asexual and haploid individual is described by its fertility period \(x_b\) and survival period \(x_d\). We show that, thanks to the Lansing effect, the effect through which the “progeny of old parents do not live as long as those of young parents”, \(x_b\) and \(x_d\) converge during evolution to configurations \(x_b-x_d\approx 0\) in finite time. To do so, we built an individual-based stochastic model which describes the age and trait distribution dynamics of such a finite population. Then we rigorously derive the adaptive dynamics models, which describe the trait dynamics at the evolutionary time-scale. We extend the Trait Substitution Sequence with age structure to take into account the Lansing effect. Finally, we study the limiting behaviour of this jump process when mutations are small. We show that the limiting behaviour is described by a differential inclusion whose solutions \(x(t)=(x_b(t),x_d(t))\) reach the diagonal \(\lbrace x_b=x_d\rbrace \) in finite time and then remain on it. This differential inclusion is a natural way to extend the canonical equation of adaptive dynamics in order to take into account the lack of regularity of the invasion fitness function on the diagonal \(\lbrace x_b=x_d\rbrace \).

Keywords

Individual-based dynamics Age-structure Ageing Adaptive dynamics Differential inclusions Life-history evolution 

Mathematics Subject Classification

60J25 60J80 92D15 92D25 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge partial support by the Chaire Modélisation Mathématique et Biodiversité of Veolia Environment—École Polytechnique—Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle—FX. We acknowledge partial support by CNRS and the ATIP/Avenir-Aviesan kick-starting group leaders program. This work was also supported by a public Grant as part of the investissement d’avenir project, reference ANR-11-LABX-0056-LMH, LabEx LMH. Finally, we acknowledge the reviewers for their interesting and constructive suggestions.

References

  1. Ackleh A, Hu S (2007) Comparison between stochastic and deterministic selection–mutation models. Math Biosci Eng 4(2):133MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Arslan RC, Willführ KP, Frans EM, Verweij KJ, Bürkner PC, Myrskylä M, Voland E, Almqvist C, Zietsch BP, Penke L (2017) Older fathers’ children have lower evolutionary fitness across four centuries and in four populations. Proc R Soc B 284(1862):20171–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Caswell H (2010) Reproductive value, the stable stage distribution, and the sensitivity of the population growth rate to changes in vital rates. Demogr Res 23:531–548CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Champagnat N (2006) A microscopic interpretation for adaptive dynamics trait substitution sequence models. Stoch Process Appl 116(8):1127–1160MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. Champagnat N, Méléard S (2011) Polymorphic evolution sequence and evolutionary branching. Probab Theory Relat Fields 151(1–2):45–94MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Champagnat N, Ferrière R, Ben Arous G (2002) The canonical equation of adaptive dynamics: a mathematical view. Selection 2(1–2):73–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Champagnat N, Ferrière R, Méléard S (2006) Unifying evolutionary dynamics: from individual stochastic processes to macroscopic models. Theor Popul Biol 69(3):297–321CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. Clément F, Robin F, Yvinec R (2017) Analysis and calibration of a linear model for structured cell populations with unidirectional motion: application to the morphogenesis of ovarian follicles. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.05372
  9. Dambroise E, Monnier L, Ruisheng L, Aguilaniu H, Joly JS, Tricoire H, Rera M (2016) Two phases of aging separated by the smurf transition as a public path to death. Sci Rep 6(23):523Google Scholar
  10. Darwin C (1871) The origin of species by means of natural selection, or, the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life. John Murray, LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Dieckmann U, Law R (1996) The dynamical theory of coevolution: a derivation from stochastic ecological processes. J Math Biol 34(5–6):579–612MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Ethier SN, Kurtz TG (2009) Markov processes: characterization and convergence, vol 282. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Fabian D, Flatt T (2011) The evolution of ageing. Nat Educ Knowl 3(3):1–10Google Scholar
  14. Gast N, Gaujal B (2012) Markov chains with discontinuous drifts have differential inclusion limits. Perform Eval 69(12):623–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gurtin ME, MacCamy RC (1974) Non-linear age-dependent population dynamics. Arch Ration Mech Anal 54(3):281–300MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Haldane JBS (1942) New paths in genetics. George allen & Unwin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamilton WD (1966) The moulding of senescence by natural selection. J Theor Biol 12(1):12–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jones OR, Scheuerlein A, Salguero-Gómez R, Camarda CG, Schaible R, Casper BB, Dahlgren JP, Ehrlén J, García MB, Menges ES et al (2014) Diversity of ageing across the tree of life. Nature 505(7482):169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kirkwood TB, Austad SN (2000) Why do we age? Nature 408(6809):233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kirkwood TB, Cremer T (1982) Cytogerontology since 1881: a reappraisal of august weismann and a review of modern progress. Hum Genet 60(2):101–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Klironomos FD, Berg J, Collins S (2013) How epigenetic mutations can affect genetic evolution: model and mechanism. Bioessays 35(6):571–578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lansing AI (1947) A transmissible, cumulative, and reversible factor in aging. J Gerontol 2(3):228–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lansing AI (1954) A nongenic factor in the longevity of rotifers. Ann N Y Acad Sci 57(1):455–464CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markus L (1956) Asymptotically autonomous differential systems. In: Contributions to the theory of nonlinear oscillations. Annals of mathematics studies, vol 3, no 36. Princeton University Press, Princeton, pp 17–29Google Scholar
  25. Medawar PB (1952) An unsolved problem of biology: an inaugural lecture delivered at University College London. H. K. Lewis, LondonGoogle Scholar
  26. Méléard S, Tran VC (2009) Trait substitution sequence process and canonical equation for age-structured populations. J Math Biol 58(6):881–921MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. Metz JA, Nisbet RM, Geritz SA (1992) How should we define ‘fitness’ for general ecological scenarios? Trends Ecol Evol 7(6):198–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Metz J, Geritz S, Meszéna G, Jacobs F, van Heerwaarden J (1996) Adaptive dynamics: a geometrical study of the consequences of nearly faithful reproduction. In: Stochastic and spatial structures of dynamical systems. Elsevier Science, Burlington, pp 183–231Google Scholar
  29. Noguera JC, Metcalfe NB, Monaghan P (2018) Experimental demonstration that offspring fathered by old males have shorter telomeres and reduced lifespans. Proc R Soc B 285(1874):20180268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Perthame B (2006) Transport equations in biology. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. Priest NK, Mackowiak B, Promislow DE (2002) The role of parental age effects on the evolution of aging. Evolution 56(5):927–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Prüß J (1981) Equilibrium solutions of age-specific population dynamics of several species. J Math Biol 11(1):65–84MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Rera M, Bahadorani S, Cho J, Koehler CL, Ulgherait M, Hur JH, Ansari WS, Lo T Jr, Jones DL, Walker DW (2011) Modulation of longevity and tissue homeostasis by the drosophila PGC-1 homolog. Cell Metab 14(5):623–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rera M, Clark RI, Walker DW (2012) Intestinal barrier dysfunction links metabolic and inflammatory markers of aging to death in drosophila. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109(52):21,528–21,533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rera M, Vallot C, Lefrançois C (2018) The smurf transition: new insights on ageing from end-of-life studies in animal models. Curr Opin Oncol 30(1):38–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schmitz RJ, Schultz MD, Lewsey MG, O’Malley RC, Urich MA, Libiger O, Schork NJ, Ecker JR (2011) Transgenerational epigenetic instability is a source of novel methylation variants. Science 334(6054):369–373CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Thieme HR (1994) Asymptotically autonomous differential equations in the plane. Rocky Mt J Math 24:351–380MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. Tran VC (2006) Modèles particulaires stochastiques pour des problèmes d’évolution adaptative et pour l’approximation de solutions statistiques. PhD thesis, Université de Nanterre-Paris XGoogle Scholar
  39. Tran VC (2008) Large population limit and time behaviour of a stochastic particle model describing an age-structured population. ESAIM Probab Stat 12:345–386MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  40. Tricoire H, Rera M (2015) A new, discontinuous 2 phases of aging model: lessons from drosophila melanogaster. PLoS ONE 10(11):e0141920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tully T, Lambert A (2011) The evolution of postreproductive life span as an insurance against indeterminacy. Evolution 65(10):3013–3020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Webb GF (1985) Theory of nonlinear age-dependent population dynamics. CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. Weismann A (1881) The origin of the markings of caterpillars. Studies in the theory of descent (trans and ed: R Meldola). Sampson Low Marston Searle Rivington, London, pp 161–389Google Scholar
  44. Weismann A, Poulton E, Bagnall S, Schönland S, Shipley AE, Arthur Everett S (1891) Essays upon heredity and kindred biological problems, vol 1. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.École PolytechniquePalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.Sorbonne UniversitéParisFrance
  3. 3.Université de MontpellierMontpellierFrance

Personalised recommendations