Back

Lifespan costs of reproduction increase during the Great Finnish Famine

Young, E. A.; Postma, E.; Lummaa, V.; Dugdale, H. L.

2024-12-25 evolutionary biology
10.1101/2024.12.24.630228 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Evolutionary theory of aging predicts that women with increased reproductive effort live shorter lives, but evidence is inconsistent. These inconsistencies could be because environmental conditions influence how much a mothers life span is reduced when having more children, i.e. their life-span cost of reproduction. Using a structural equation measurement model, we compare how reproductive effort affects the life span of 4,684 women exposed across different life-stages, or not at all, to the Great Finnish Famine. We find that life span costs of reproduction became higher in mothers exposed to the famine during reproduction, and for these mothers amounted to lower life expectancy of [~]0.5 years per child. Conversely, reproduction did not shape the life spans of mothers not exposed to the famine, or exposed post-reproduction or during development. This natural experiment reveals how environmental adversity can influence reproductive costs, providing a biological explanation for previous inconsistent findings, while showing how reproductive behavior has shaped the evolution of aging in humans. TEASERMothers with more children had shorter lives during a famine, suggesting that harsh conditions increase costs of reproduction.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Nature Communications
○ 5641 papers in training set
Top 14%
13.0%
Similar papers in this journal
2
Scientific Reports
○ 3612 papers in training set
Top 3%
11.9%
Similar papers in this journal
3
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 393 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
9.7%
Similar papers in this journal
4
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
● 2444 papers in training set
Top 4%
7.9%
Similar papers in this journal
5
eLife
● 5828 papers in training set
Top 13%
7.9%
Similar papers in this journal
50% of probability mass above
6
Science Advances
● 1243 papers in training set
Top 4%
5.5%
7
npj Aging
○ 22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.5%
8
iScience
○ 1154 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.4%
9
Aging Cell
○ 165 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.4%
10
Nature Ecology & Evolution
131 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
2.4%
11
Communications Biology
○ 993 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.4%
12
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
● 72 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
13
Royal Society Open Science
● 214 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.5%
14
PLOS ONE
● 5266 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.5%
15
Current Biology
○ 665 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
16
Evolution Letters
◐ 85 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
17
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
◐ 29 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
18
Nature Human Behaviour
○ 95 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.1%
19
Ecology Letters
○ 135 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.0%
20
PLOS Genetics
● 862 papers in training set
Top 12%
0.8%
21
Aging
○ 75 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
22
GeroScience
○ 109 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
23
PLOS Computational Biology
● 1863 papers in training set
Top 20%
0.8%
24
PLOS Global Public Health
● 344 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
25
BMC Ecology and Evolution
○ 51 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Nature Medicine
○ 125 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.6%

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.