↓ Skip to main content

The effect of dietary restriction on reproduction: a meta-analytic perspective

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2016
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 (85th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
21 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
58 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
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.
Title
The effect of dietary restriction on reproduction: a meta-analytic perspective
Published in
BMC Ecology and Evolution, October 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12862-016-0768-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joshua P. Moatt, Shinichi Nakagawa, Malgorzata Lagisz, Craig A. Walling

Abstract

Dietary restriction (DR), a reduction in the amount of food or particular nutrients eaten, is the most consistent environmental manipulation to extend lifespan and protect against age related diseases. Current evolutionary theory explains this effect as a shift in the resolution of the trade-off between lifespan and reproduction. However, recent studies have questioned the role of reproduction in mediating the effect of DR on longevity and no study has quantitatively investigated the effect of DR on reproduction across species. Here we report a comprehensive comparative meta-analysis of the effect of DR on reproduction. In general, DR reduced reproduction across taxa, but several factors moderated this effect. The effect of DR on reproduction was greater in well-studied model species (yeast, nematode worms, fruit flies and rodents) than non-model species. This mirrors recent results for longevity and, for reproduction, seems to result from a faster rate of decline with decreasing resources in model species. Our results also suggested that not all reproductive traits are affected equally by DR. High and moderate cost reproductive traits suffered a significant reduction with DR, but low cost traits, such as ejaculate production, did not. Although the effect of DR on reproduction was stronger in females than males, this sex difference reduced to near zero when accounting for other co-factors such as the costliness of the reproductive trait. Thus, sex differences in the effect of DR on longevity may be due to a failure to expose males to as complete a range of the costs of reproduction as females. We suggest that to better understand the generality of the effect of DR, future studies should attempt to address the cause of the apparent model species bias and ensure that individuals are exposed to as many of the costs of reproduction as possible. Furthermore, our meta-analytic approach reveals a general shortage of DR studies that record reproduction, particularly in males, as well as a lack of direct side-by-side comparisons of the effect of DR on males and females.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 21 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 1%
Romania 1 1%
Switzerland 1 1%
Unknown 84 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 22 25%
Student > Bachelor 14 16%
Researcher 13 15%
Student > Master 8 9%
Lecturer 4 5%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 21 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 26%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 21 24%
Environmental Science 4 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 3%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 24 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 18 April 2023.
All research outputs
#2,790,895
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#739
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,335
of 327,744 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Ecology and Evolution
#23
of 93 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% 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 327,744 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 93 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.