9
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Meta‐analysis indicates that oxidative stress is both a constraint on and a cost of growth

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Oxidative stress ( OS) as a proximate mechanism for life‐history trade‐offs is widespread in the literature. One such resource allocation trade‐off involves growth rate, and theory suggests that OS might act as both a constraint on and a cost of growth, yet studies investigating this have produced conflicting results. Here, we use meta‐analysis to investigate whether increased OS levels impact on growth ( OS as a constraint on growth) and whether greater growth rates can increase OS ( OS as a cost of growth). The role of OS as a constraint on growth was supported by the meta‐analysis. Greater OS, in terms of either increased damage or reduced levels of antioxidants, was associated with reduced growth although the effect depended on the experimental manipulation used. Our results also support an oxidative cost of growth, at least in terms of increased oxidative damage, although faster growth was not associated with a change in antioxidant levels. These findings that OS can act as a constraint on growth support theoretical links between OS and animal life histories and provide evidence for a growth–self‐maintenance trade‐off. Furthermore, the apparent oxidative costs of growth imply individuals cannot alter this trade‐off when faced with enhanced growth. We offer a starting platform for future research and recommend the use of oxidative damage biomarkers in nonlethal tissue to investigate the growth– OS relationship further.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for biologists.

          Null hypothesis significance testing (NHST) is the dominant statistical approach in biology, although it has many, frequently unappreciated, problems. Most importantly, NHST does not provide us with two crucial pieces of information: (1) the magnitude of an effect of interest, and (2) the precision of the estimate of the magnitude of that effect. All biologists should be ultimately interested in biological importance, which may be assessed using the magnitude of an effect, but not its statistical significance. Therefore, we advocate presentation of measures of the magnitude of effects (i.e. effect size statistics) and their confidence intervals (CIs) in all biological journals. Combined use of an effect size and its CIs enables one to assess the relationships within data more effectively than the use of p values, regardless of statistical significance. In addition, routine presentation of effect sizes will encourage researchers to view their results in the context of previous research and facilitate the incorporation of results into future meta-analysis, which has been increasingly used as the standard method of quantitative review in biology. In this article, we extensively discuss two dimensionless (and thus standardised) classes of effect size statistics: d statistics (standardised mean difference) and r statistics (correlation coefficient), because these can be calculated from almost all study designs and also because their calculations are essential for meta-analysis. However, our focus on these standardised effect size statistics does not mean unstandardised effect size statistics (e.g. mean difference and regression coefficient) are less important. We provide potential solutions for four main technical problems researchers may encounter when calculating effect size and CIs: (1) when covariates exist, (2) when bias in estimating effect size is possible, (3) when data have non-normal error structure and/or variances, and (4) when data are non-independent. Although interpretations of effect sizes are often difficult, we provide some pointers to help researchers. This paper serves both as a beginner's instruction manual and a stimulus for changing statistical practice for the better in the biological sciences.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Oxidative stress as a mediator of life history trade-offs: mechanisms, measurements and interpretation.

            The concept of trade-offs is central to our understanding of life-history evolution. The underlying mechanisms, however, have been little studied. Oxidative stress results from a mismatch between the production of damaging reactive oxygen species (ROS) and the organism's capacity to mitigate their damaging effects. Managing oxidative stress is likely to be a major determinant of life histories, as virtually all activities generate ROS. There is a recent burgeoning of interest in how oxidative stress is related to different components of animal performance. The emphasis to date has been on immediate or short-term effects, but there is an increasing realization that oxidative stress will influence life histories over longer time scales. The concept of oxidative stress is currently used somewhat loosely by many ecologists, and the erroneous assumption often made that dietary antioxidants are necessarily the major line of defence against ROS-induced damage. We summarize current knowledge on how oxidative stress occurs and the different methods for measuring it, and highlight where ecologists can be too simplistic in their approach. We critically review the potential role of oxidative stress in mediating life-history trade-offs, and present a framework for formulating appropriate hypotheses and guiding experimental design. We indicate throughout potentially fruitful areas for further research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The evolution of body size: what keeps organisms small?

              It is widely agreed that fecundity selection and sexual selection are the major evolutionary forces that select for larger body size in most organisms. The general, equilibrium view is that selection for large body size is eventually counterbalanced by opposing selective forces. While the evidence for selection favoring larger body size is overwhelming, counterbalancing selection favoring small body size is often masked by the good condition of the larger organism and is therefore less obvious. The suggested costs of large size are: (1) viability costs in juveniles due to long development and/or fast growth; (2) viability costs in adults and juveniles due to predation, parasitism, or starvation because of reduced agility, increased detectability, higher energy requirements, heat stress, and/or intrinsic costs of reproduction; (3) decreased mating success of large males due to reduced agility and/or high energy requirements; and (4) decreased reproductive success of large females and males due to late reproduction. A review of the literature indicates a substantial lack of empirical evidence for these various mechanisms and highlights the need for experimental studies that specifically address the fitness costs of being large at the ecological, physiological, and genetic levels. Specifically, theoretical investigations and comprehensive case studies of particular model species are needed to elucidate whether sporadic selection in time and space is sufficient to counterbalance perpetual and strong selection for large body size.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ecol Evol
                Ecol Evol
                10.1002/(ISSN)2045-7758
                ECE3
                Ecology and Evolution
                John Wiley and Sons Inc. (Hoboken )
                2045-7758
                21 March 2016
                May 2016
                : 6
                : 9 ( doiID: 10.1002/ece3.2016.6.issue-9 )
                : 2833-2842
                Affiliations
                [ 1 ] Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative MedicineUniversity of Glasgow Graham Kerr Building Glasgow G12 8QQUK
                [ 2 ] Department of BiologyUniversity of Antwerp Antwerp 2610Belgium
                Author notes
                [*] [* ] Correspondence

                Shona M. Smith, Institute of Biodiversity, Animal Health & Comparative Medicine, University of Glasgow, Graham Kerr Building, Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK.

                Tel: 0141 330 4769;

                E‐mail: s.smith.7@ 123456research.gla.ac.uk

                Article
                ECE32080
                10.1002/ece3.2080
                4863009
                27217942
                fe4a4d4b-e7e9-47fd-9ecc-1e8d8abc6506
                © 2016 The Authors. Ecology and Evolution published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

                This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 14 September 2015
                : 11 February 2016
                : 22 February 2016
                Page count
                Pages: 10
                Funding
                Funded by: Research Foundation of Flanders
                Award ID: 12A7714N
                Funded by: Natural Environment Research Council
                Award ID: NE/G013888/1
                Award ID: NE/J500252/1
                Categories
                Original Research
                Original Research
                Custom metadata
                2.0
                ece32080
                May 2016
                Converter:WILEY_ML3GV2_TO_NLMPMC version:4.8.9 mode:remove_FC converted:10.05.2016

                Evolutionary Biology
                antioxidants,enzymes,growth rate,life‐history theory,oxidative damage,reactive oxygen species,trade‐offs

                Comments

                Comment on this article