You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Horizons in the evolution of aging
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Biology, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12915-018-0562-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Flatt, Linda Partridge |
| Abstract |
Between the 1930s and 50s, evolutionary biologists developed a successful theory of why organisms age, firmly rooted in population genetic principles. By the 1980s the evolution of aging had a secure experimental basis. Since the force of selection declines with age, aging evolves due to mutation accumulation or a benefit to fitness early in life. Here we review major insights and challenges that have emerged over the last 35 years: selection does not always necessarily decline with age; higher extrinsic (i.e., environmentally caused) mortality does not always accelerate aging; conserved pathways control aging rate; senescence patterns are more diverse than previously thought; aging is not universal; trade-offs involving lifespan can be 'broken'; aging might be 'druggable'; and human life expectancy continues to rise but compressing late-life morbidity remains a pressing challenge. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 39 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Spain | 5 | 13% |
| United States | 4 | 10% |
| United Kingdom | 3 | 8% |
| Denmark | 2 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 5% |
| Comoros | 1 | 3% |
| Portugal | 1 | 3% |
| Hungary | 1 | 3% |
| Norway | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 16 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 51% |
| Scientists | 15 | 38% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 5% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 3% |
| Unknown | 1 | 3% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 369 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 369 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 58 | 16% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 48 | 13% |
| Student > Master | 39 | 11% |
| Researcher | 35 | 9% |
| Professor | 17 | 5% |
| Other | 56 | 15% |
| Unknown | 116 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 87 | 24% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 69 | 19% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 7% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 11 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 11 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 8% |
| Unknown | 134 | 36% |