Reflections on an unsolved problem of biology: the evolution of senescence and death.

The evolutionary theory of senescence is based largely on principles first outlined by Williams in 1957, and consists of two relatively independent parts. The first part builds on ideas first put forward by Medawar, Haldane and others, to explain how something as negative as senescence could have been positively selected in evolution, particularly since most animals in the wild do not reach an age where senescence is expressed. Williams proposed that the genes responsible for the negative effects of senecence (senescence effector genes) were fixed in evolution by a process he called antagonistic pleiotropy, wherein a subset of genes selected because they confer a reproductive advantage early in life may have harmful effects in the post-reproductive period; negative selection against these harmful effects fails because, as pointed out by Medawar, the force of natural selection declines with age. The evolutionary history of senescence-causing genes is seen as a nondirected accumulation of genes selected on a basis independent of senescence per se. In the second portion of his paper, Williams made a series of predictions about how the age of organisms at reproductive maturity, fecundity, lifespan and the timing of the onset of senescence would all interact in the life history of a species. These latter predictions, which do not depend at all on details of the mechanisms of selection of senescence effector genes, have been validated by numerous experiments over the past several decades. On the other hand, it has become increasingly evident that the senescence effector genes did not, as would be predicted by antagonistic pleiotropy, accumulate in a random, non-directed fashion in various species over evolutionary time. Rather, everything we know about these genes suggests they were present in eukaryotic founder cells shortly after, or even congruent with, the emergence of eukaryotes from their prokaryotic ancestors, and have been stringently conserved ever since. Complicated explanations of how so-called "death genes" may have evolved in eukaryotes are thus not required. It is suggested that the evolutionary theory of senescence should be focused on those evolutionary principles that have been validated experimentally, and that the notion of antagonistic pleiotropy--which cannot be experimentally validated--be dropped from our thinking about the evolution of senescence.