↓ Skip to main content

Adaptive aging in the context of evolutionary theory

Overview of attention for article published in Biochemistry, July 2012
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
67 Mendeley
Title
Adaptive aging in the context of evolutionary theory
Published in
Biochemistry, July 2012
DOI 10.1134/s0006297912070036
Pubmed ID
Authors

J. J. Mitteldorf

Abstract

Compelling evidence for an adaptive origin of aging has clashed with traditional evolutionary theory based on exclusively individual selection. The consensus view has been to try to understand aging in the context of a narrow, restrictive evolutionary paradigm, called the Modern Synthesis, or neo-Darwinism. But neo-Darwinism has shown itself to be inadequate in other ways, failing to account for stable ecosystems, for the evolution of sex and the maintenance of diversity and the architecture of the genome, which appears to be optimized for evolvability. Thus aging is not the only reason to consider overhauling the standard theoretical framework. Selection for stable ecosystems is rapid and efficient, and so it is the easiest modification of the neo-Darwinian paradigm to understand and to model. Aging may be understood in this context. More profound and more mysterious are the ways in which the process of evolution itself has been transformed in a bootstrapping process of selection for evolvability. Evolving organisms have learned to channel their variation in ways that are likely to enhance their long-term prospects. This is an expanded notion of fitness. Only in this context can the full spectrum of sophisticated adaptations be understood, including aging, sex, diversity, ecological interdependence, and the structure of the genome.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 67 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 21 31%
Student > Master 13 19%
Researcher 10 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Other 3 4%
Other 1 1%
Unknown 12 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 14 21%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 6 9%
Physics and Astronomy 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 09 March 2015.
All research outputs
#1,735,435
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Biochemistry
#160
of 22,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#10,073
of 178,369 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Biochemistry
#3
of 85 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 22,289 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 178,369 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 85 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.