The interplay between immunity and aging in Drosophila

Here, we provide a brief review of the mechanistic connections between immunity and aging—a fundamental biological relationship that remains poorly understood—by considering two intertwined questions: how does aging affect immunity, and how does immunity affect aging? On the one hand, aging contributes to the deterioration of immune function and predisposes the organism to infections (“immuno-senescence”). On the other hand, excessive activation of the immune system can accelerate degenerative processes, cause inflammation and immunopathology, and thus promote aging (“inflammaging”). Interestingly, several recent lines of evidence support the hypothesis that restrained or curbed immune activity at old age (that is, optimized age-dependent immune homeostasis) might actually improve realized immune function and thereby promote longevity. We focus mainly on insights from Drosophila, a powerful genetic model system in which both immunity and aging have been extensively studied, and conclude by outlining several unresolved questions in the field

On the fixation or nonfixation of inversions under epistatic selection

Several recent publications have stated that epistatic fitness interactions cause the fixation of inversions that suppress recombination among the loci involved. Under this type of selection, however, the suppression of recombination in an inversion heterozygote can create a form of heterozygote advantage, which prevents the inversion from becoming fixed by selection. This process has been explicitly modelled by previous workers

Plasticity of lifespan: a reaction norm perspective

It is a well-appreciated fact that in many organisms the process of ageing reacts highly plastically, so that lifespan increases or decreases when the environment changes. The perhaps best-known example of such lifespan plasticity is dietary restriction (DR), a phenomenon whereby reduced food intake without malnutrition extends lifespan (typically at the expense of reduced fecundity) and which has been documented in numerous species, from invertebrates to mammals. For the evolutionary biologist, DR and other cases of lifespan plasticity are examples of a more general phenomenon called phenotypic plasticity, the ability of a single genotype to produce different phenotypes (e.g. lifespan) in response to changes in the environment (e.g. changes in diet). To analyse phenotypic plasticity, evolutionary biologists (and epidemiologists) often use a conceptual and statistical framework based on reaction norms (genotype-specific response curves) and genotype×environment interactions (G×E; differences in the plastic response among genotypes), concepts that biologists who are working on molecular aspects of ageing are usually not familiar with. Here I briefly discuss what has been learned about lifespan plasticity or, more generally, about plasticity of somatic maintenance and survival ability. In particular, I argue that adopting the conceptual framework of reaction norms and G×E interactions, as used by evolutionary biologists, is crucially important for our understanding of the mechanisms underlying DR and other forms of lifespan or survival plasticit

Genomics of clinal variation in Drosophila: disentangling the interactions of selection and demography

Clines in phenotypes and genotype frequencies across environmental gradients are commonly taken as evidence for spatially varying selection. Classical examples include the latitudinal clines in various species of Drosophila, which often occur in parallel fashion on multiple continents. Today, genomewide analysis of such clinal systems provides a fantastic opportunity for unravelling the genetics of adaptation, yet major challenges remain. A well‐known but often neglected problem is that demographic processes can also generate clinality, independent of or coincident with selection. A closely related issue is how to identify true genic targets of clinal selection. In this issue of Molecular Ecology, three studies illustrate these challenges and how they might be met. Bergland et al. report evidence suggesting that the well‐ known parallel latitudinal clines in North American and Australian D. melanogaster are confounded by admixture from Africa and Europe, highlighting the importance of distinguishing demographic from adaptive clines. In a companion study, Machado et al. provide the first genomic comparison of latitudinal differentiation in D. melanogaster and its sister species D. simulans. While D. simulans is less clinal than D. melanogaster, a significant fraction of clinal genes is shared between both species, suggesting the existence of convergent adaptation to clinaly varying selection pressures. Finally, by drawing on several independent sources of evidence, Božičević et al. identify a functional network of eight clinal genes that are likely involved in cold adaptation. Together, these studies remind us that clinality does not necessarily imply selection and that separating adaptive signal from demographic noise requires great effort and care

Diet and longevity in the balance

Dietary restriction promotes longevity but impairs fecundity in many organisms. When the amino acids in a diet are fine-tuned, however, lifespan can be increased without loss of fecundity — at least in fruitflies

The evolutionary genetics of canalization

Evolutionary genetics has recently made enormous progress in understanding how genetic variation maps into phenotypic variation. However, why some traits are phenotypically invariant despite apparent genetic and environmental changes has remained a major puzzle. In the 1940s, Conrad Hal Waddington coined the concept and term “canalization” to describe the robustness of phenotypes to perturbation; a similar concept was proposed by Waddington’s contemporary Ivan Ivanovich Schmalhausen. This paper reviews what has been learned about canalization since Waddington. Canalization implies that a genotype’s phenotype remains relatively invariant when individuals of a particular genotype are exposed to different environments (environmental canalization) or when individuals of the same single‐ or multilocus genotype differ in their genetic background (genetic canalization). Consequently, genetic canalization can be viewed as a particular kind of epistasis, and environmental canalization and phenotypic plasticity are two aspects of the same phenomenon. Canalization results in the accumulation of phenotypically cryptic genetic variation, which can be released after a “decanalizing” event. Thus, canalized genotypes maintain a cryptic potential for expressing particular phenotypes, which are only uncovered under particular decanalizing environmental or genetic conditions. Selection may then act on this newly released genetic variation. The accumulation of cryptic genetic variation by canalization may therefore increase evolvability at the population level by leading to phenotypic diversification under decanalizing conditions. On the other hand, under canalizing conditions, a major part of the segregating genetic variation may remain phenotypically cryptic; canalization may therefore, at least temporarily, constrain phenotypic evolution. Mechanistically, canalization can be understood in terms of transmission patterns, such as epistasis, pleiotropy, and genotype by environment interactions, and in terms of genetic redundancy, modularity, and emergent properties of gene networks and biochemical pathways. While different forms of selection can favor canalization, the requirements for its evolution are typically rather restrictive. Although there are several methods to detect canalization, there are still serious problems with unambiguously demonstrating canalization, particularly its adaptive value