| Literature DB >> 27383645 |
James R Carey1,2, Pablo Liedo3, Cong Xu4, Jane-Ling Wang5, Hans-Georg Müller5, Yu-Ru Su6, James W Vaupel7.
Abstract
Despite the importance of trauma in healthspan and lifespan in humans as well as in non-human species, with one important exception the literature in both gerontology and ecology contains virtually no experimental demographic studies concerned with trauma in any species. We used dietary manipulation [full diet (F) versus sugar-only (S)] to produce four levels of frailty in 55-day old tephritid fruit flies (Anastrepha ludens) that were then subject to the trauma of cage transfer stress (n = 900/sex in each of the 4 treatments). The key results included the following: (1) there is a trauma effect caused by the transfer that depends on previous diet before transfer, new diet after transfer and gender of the fly; (2) males are more vulnerable than females; (3) if initial diet was F, flies are relatively immune against the trauma, and the subsequent diet (F or S) does not matter; (4) however if initial diet was S, then the effect of the trauma depends largely on the diet after the transfer; (5) flies transferred from S to F diets do very well in terms of remaining longevity (i.e. greatest remaining longevity), while flies transferred from S to S diet do poorly (i.e. shortest remaining longevity). We discuss both the strengths and weaknesses of this study and implications of the results.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27383645 PMCID: PMC4934917 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158468
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Fruit fly gender-specific post-transfer remaining survival function estimates for each of four dietary switch treatments, separately for male and female flies.
Insets depict additional remaining survival function estimates for remaining survival 6 days after transfer to assess the longer term survival prospects for those flies which survive the first 6 days of post-transfer stress.
Fig 2Post-transfer age-specific hazard rates for each of four treatments, separately for males and females.
The hazard rate (or force of mortality) quantifies the instantaneous risk of death at a specific time, given that a subject is still alive and is at risk. Depicted are hazard rates for females (top) and for males (bottom) for four different diet groups, characterized by four pre- and post-transfer diet combinations.
Fitted probabilities and odds of death by sex and diet pattern within six days post-transfer, obtained from fitting the model in Eq (1).
The “Odds Ratio” column reported in the table refers to the odds ratios of each specific diet pattern described in the first column vs. the full-full diet within each gender strata. The odds listed in the table provide a measure of the severity of the immediate trauma, but not of long-term mortality (CIs are 95% confidence intervals).
| Combination | Prob. of death within 1–6 days | Odds of death within 1–6 days | Odds Ratio | 95% CI for Odds Ratio |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Full-Full | 0.382 | 0.619 | -- | (0.550, 0.696) |
| Full-Sugar | 0.388 | 0.634 | 1.025 | (0.866, 1.212) |
| Sugar-Full | 0.652 | 1.876 | 3.033 | (2.637, 3.489) |
| Sugar-Sugar | 0.702 | 2.357 | 3.810 | (3.207, 4.527) |
| Full-Full | 0.536 | 1.153 | -- | (1.027, 1.295) |
| Full-Sugar | 0.600 | 1.499 | 1.300 | (1.101, 1.535) |
| Sugar-Full | 0.778 | 3.499 | 3.033 | (2.637, 3.489) |
| Sugar-Sugar | 0.848 | 5.575 | 4.833 | (4.017, 5.816) |
Parameters and their estimates for the odds that death occurs within the first 6 days after trauma, rather than later, as obtained from a logistic regression model, quantifying the impact of trauma on the initial post-traumatic mortality.
Here α0 is the intercept, α1 the parameter for sex (0 = female, 1 = male), α2 the parameter for pre-transfer diet (0 = full, 1 = sugar only), α3 the parameter for post-transfer diet, α4 the parameter for the interaction of sex and post-transfer diet, and α5 the parameter for the interaction of pre- and post-transfer diet (where post-transfer diet is coded in the same way as pre-transfer diet). The model is given in Eq (1).
| Parameter | Estimate | Standard Error | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|
| -0.480 | 0.060 | 1.48 × 10−15 *** | |
| 0.623 | 0.071 | < 2 × 10−16 *** | |
| 1.110 | 0.071 | < 2 × 10−16 *** | |
| 0.024 | 0.086 | 0.777 | |
| 0.238 | 0.103 | 0.021 * | |
| 0.204 | 0.104 | 0.050 * |
* and *** indicate that p-value is smaller or equal to 0.05 and 0.001, respectively.
Parameters and their estimates for model (2), regressing log(T) on various predictors, where T is the remaining lifetime of a fly after transfer.
The predictors are indicators coding gender, pre-transfer and post-transfer diet, where the coding of these indicators is as in the legend of Table 2, and σ0 is the standard deviation of the error.
| Parameter | Estimate | Standard Error | t-value | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.146 | 0.026 | 81.18 | < 2 × 10−16 | |
| -0.461 | 0.026 | -17.43 | < 2 × 10−16 | |
| -0.661 | 0.026 | -25.01 | < 2 × 10−16 | |
| -0.177 | 0.026 | -6.70 | 2.25 × 10−11 | |
| 1.122 | NA | NA | NA |
Expected remaining lifetimes for the various cohorts (FPP = females with protein before and after transfer) after transfer, obtained from the fitted model (2) with parameter estimated given in Table 3; the expected remaining lifetimes are all significantly different as evidenced by the p-values in Table 3.
| Combination | Expected Total Lifetime | Estimated Value | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Females | FF | 16.04 | |
| FS | 13.44 | ||
| SF | 8.28 | ||
| SS | 6.94 | ||
| Males | FF | 10.12 | |
| FS | 8.48 | ||
| SF | 5.22 | ||
| SS | 4.38 |