| Literature DB >> 29335371 |
Rachael V Wilbourn1, Joshua P Moatt1, Hannah Froy1, Craig A Walling1, Daniel H Nussey2, Jelle J Boonekamp3.
Abstract
Telomere length (TL) has become a biomarker of increasing interest within ecology and evolutionary biology, and has been found to predict subsequent survival in some recent avian studies but not others. Here, we undertake the first formal meta-analysis to test whether there is an overall association between TL and subsequent mortality risk in vertebrates other than humans and model laboratory rodents. We identified 27 suitable studies and obtained standardized estimates of the hazard ratio associated with TL from each. We performed a meta-analysis on these estimates and found an overall significant negative association implying that short telomeres are associated with increased mortality risk, which was robust to evident publication bias. While we found that heterogeneity in the hazard ratios was not explained by sex, follow-up period, maximum lifespan or the age group of the study animals, the TL-mortality risk association was stronger in studies using qPCR compared to terminal restriction fragment methodologies. Our results provide support for a consistent association between short telomeres and increased mortality risk in birds, but also highlight the need for more research into non-avian vertebrates and the reasons why different telomere measurement methods may yield different results.This article is part of the theme issue 'Understanding diversity in telomere dynamics'.Entities:
Keywords: longevity; publication bias; survival; systematic review; wild
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29335371 PMCID: PMC5784067 DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2016.0447
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci ISSN: 0962-8436 Impact factor: 6.237
Figure 1.Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram for identification and inclusion of studies in the meta-analysis. We present the number of papers identified through key word database searching in addition to records identified through other sources. Papers were excluded during initial screening phases and reasons for exclusion provided for those papers that reached the final full-text eligibility screening. (Online version in colour.)
List of studies included in the meta-analysis with samples sizes (N), effect sizes, expressed as the natural logarithm of the hazard ratio of TL and associated standard error (s.e.) alongside information on moderator variables tested (see §2 for details).
| study | ref. | class | order | species | ln hazard ratio | s.e. | follow-up | TL method | age group | log lifespan | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Angelier (2013) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 36 | −1.100 | 0.460 | 1 | qPCR | adult | 2.312535 | |
| Asghar (2015) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 100 | −0.293 | 0.113 | 23 | qPCR | juvenile | 2.312535 | |
| Barrett (2013)a | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 203 | 0.064 | 0.071 | 15 | qPCR | adult | 2.833213 | |
| Barrett (2013)a | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 203 | −0.414 | 0.192 | 1 | qPCR | adult | 2.833213 | |
| Bauch (2014) | [ | Aves | Charadriiformes | 181 | −0.140 | 0.113 | 4 | TRF | adult | 3.496508 | |
| Beaulieu (2011) | [ | Aves | Sphenisciformes | 72 | 0.036 | 0.313 | 3 | qPCR | adult | 2.772589 | |
| Belmaker (2016) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 107 | −0.054 | 0.124 | 1 | TRF | adult | 2.493205 | |
| Bize (2009) | [ | Aves | Apodiformes | 96 | −0.348 | 0.126 | 6 | qPCR | adult | 3.258097 | |
| Boonekamp (2014) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 241 | −0.023 | 0.149 | 8 | TRF | juvenile | 3.010621 | |
| Caprioli (2013) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 60 | −0.014 | 0.136 | 11 | TRF | juvenile | 2.772589 | |
| Fairlie (2016)a | [ | Mammalia | Artiodactyla | 87 | −0.262 | 0.315 | 12 | qPCR | adult | 3.126761 | |
| Fairlie (2016)a | [ | Mammalia | Artiodactyla | 116 | −0.405 | 0.206 | 1 | qPCR | juvenile | 3.126761 | |
| Foote (2009) | [ | Aves | Procellariiformes | 36 | −0.060 | 0.249 | 8 | TRF | adult | 3.688879 | |
| Foote (2011) | [ | Aves | Procellariiformes | 47 | −0.327 | 0.195 | 8 | TRF | adult | 3.688879 | |
| Reichert (2017) | [ | Aves | Procellariiformes | 56 | −0.227 | 0.224 | 12 | qPCR | adult | 3.912023 | |
| Geiger (2012) | [ | Aves | Sphenisciformes | 36 | −2.198 | 0.524 | 1 | qPCR | juvenile | 3.258097 | |
| Haussmann (2005) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 22 | −0.741 | 0.308 | 4 | TRF | juvenile | 2.493205 | |
| Heidinger (2012) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 99 | −0.420 | 0.108 | 8.7 | qPCR | juvenile | 2.484907 | |
| Olsson (2011) | [ | Reptilia | Squamata | 126 | −0.071 | 0.084 | 25 | TRF | adult | 2.079442 | |
| Ouyang (2016) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 74 | −0.034 | 0.127 | 3 | TRF | adult | 2.493205 | |
| Reichert (2014) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 50 | −0.161 | 0.227 | 1 | qPCR | adult | 2.484907 | |
| Reichert (2015) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 65 | −0.624 | 0.296 | 1 | qPCR | juvenile | 2.484907 | |
| Salomons (2009) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 48 | −0.076 | 0.219 | 4 | TRF | adult | 3.010621 | |
| Stier (2014) | [ | Aves | Sphenisciformes | 82 | −0.352 | 0.190 | 1 | qPCR | juvenile | 3.258097 | |
| Sudyka (2014) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 56 | −0.036 | 0.145 | 2 | qPCR | adult | 2.681022 | |
| Taff (2017) | [ | Aves | Passeriformes | 89 | −0.296 | 0.167 | 4 | qPCR | adult | 2.442347 | |
| Ujvari (2009)a | [ | Reptilia | Squamata | 50 | 0.477 | 0.182 | 10 | TRF | juvenile | 3.288402 | |
| Ujvari (2009)a | [ | Reptilia | Squamata | 20 | 0.117 | 0.278 | 3 | TRF | adult | 3.288402 | |
| Ujvari (2016) | [ | Reptilia | Squamata | 72 | −0.496 | 0.254 | 2 | qPCR | adult | 2.292535 | |
| Watson (2015) | [ | Aves | Procellariiformes | 59 | −1.260 | 0.430 | 0.2 | qPCR | juvenile | 3.520461 |
aMultiple estimates associated with different age groups or follow-up times in our analysis.
Figure 2.Forest plot of effect sizes (natural logarithm of the hazard ratio for standardized telomere length) and associated 95% confidence intervals. The overall effect size is shown in red, with estimates grouped by measurement method and with vertebrate class indicated by symbol shape (circle: birds, square: mammals, triangle: reptiles). (Online version in colour.)
Figure 3.Funnel plot relating the study standard error to effect size. Open circles denote qPCR-based studies, filled circles denote TRF-based studies.
Figure 4.Natural logarithm of hazard ratio of moderator variables. Grouping differences are expressed as follows: Sex: male–female; TL method: TRF–qPCR; age group: adult–juvenile. Follow-up and the log of lifespan were tested as continuous variable in years. Bars indicate the 95% confidence intervals.