| Literature DB >> 27356285 |
Jacob J E Koopman1, Jeroen Pijpe2,3, Stefan Böhringer4, David van Bodegom1,5, Ulrika K Eriksson1, Hernando Sanchez-Faddeev2, Juventus B Ziem6, Bas Zwaan7, P Eline Slagboom8, Peter de Knijff2, Rudi G J Westendorp1,9.
Abstract
Human survival probability and fertility decline strongly with age. These life history traits have been shaped by evolution. However, research has failed to uncover a consistent genetic determination of variation in survival and fertility. As an explanation, such genetic determinants have been selected in adverse environments, in which humans have lived during most of their history, but are almost exclusively studied in populations in modern affluent environments. Here, we present a large-scale candidate gene association study in a rural African population living in an adverse environment. In 4387 individuals, we studied 4052 SNPs in 148 genes that have previously been identified as possible determinants of survival or fertility in animals or humans. We studied their associations with survival comparing newborns, middle-age adults, and old individuals. In women, we assessed their associations with reported and observed numbers of children. We found no statistically significant associations of these SNPs with survival between the three age groups nor with women's reported and observed fertility. Population stratification was unlikely to explain these results. Apart from a lack of power, we hypothesise that genetic heterogeneity of complex phenotypes and gene-environment interactions prevent the identification of genetic variants explaining variation in survival and fertility in humans.Entities:
Keywords: Africa; SNP; aging; evolution; fertility; gene; human; life history; survival
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27356285 PMCID: PMC4993336 DOI: 10.18632/aging.100986
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Aging (Albany NY) ISSN: 1945-4589 Impact factor: 5.682
General characteristics of the Ghanaian study population
| Men and women | Women | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 years | 20-44 years | ≥ 60 years | 20-44 years | ≥ 45 years | |
| Individuals, | 1482 | 1589 | 1144 | 732 | 708 |
| Females, | 695 (46.9) | 1394 (87.7) | 608 (53.1) | 732 (100.0) | 708 (100.0) |
| Age, years | 0 (0–0) | 33 (26–40) | 70 (65–77) | 33 (27–37) | 63 (56–71) |
| Tribe, | |||||
| Bimoba | 1017 (68.6) | 1124 (70.7) | 696 (60.8) | 549 (75.0) | 446 (63.0) |
| Kusasi | 367 (24.8) | 365 (23.0) | 357 (31.2) | 142 (19.4) | 205 (29.0) |
| Other | 98 (6.6) | 100 (6.3) | 91 (8.0) | 41 (5.6) | 57 (8.1) |
| Observed fertility | NA | NA | NA | 1 (1–2) | NA |
| Reported fertility | NA | NA | NA | NA | 8 (6–9) |
Data are given as numbers with percentages or as medians with interquartile ranges. Observed fertility is expressed as the number of children that a woman gave birth to during the period of follow-up. Reported fertility is expressed as the number of children that a woman had given birth to during life. NA: not applicable.
Figure 1Summary of the exclusions and inclusions of individuals and SNPs
Figure 2Manhattan plots assessing the associations of SNPs with survival
(A) Manhattan plot assessing the associations of SNPs with survival between newborns and old individuals aged 60 years or over. (B) Manhattan plot assessing the associations of SNPs with survival between newborns and middle-aged adults of fertile ages from 20 through 44 years. (C) Manhattan plot assessing the associations of SNPs with survival between middle-aged adults of fertile ages from 20 through 44 years and old individuals aged 60 years or over. The analyses were adjusted for sex. The level of significance is 1.23 × 10−5, indicated by the red lines.
Figure 3Manhattan plots assessing the associations of SNPs with fertility in women
(A) Manhattan plot assessing the associations of SNPs with observed fertility in middle-aged women of fertile ages from 20 through 44 years. The level of significance is 1.61 × 10−5, indicated by the red line. (B) Manhattan plot assessing the associations of SNPs with reported fertility in postmenopausal women aged 45 years and older. The level of significance is 1.23 × 10−5, indicated by the red line.