4.7 Article

Early-breeding females experience greater telomere loss

Journal

MOLECULAR ECOLOGY
Volume 28, Issue 1, Pages 114-126

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/mec.14952

Keywords

biological ageing; life history evolution; reproductive timing; telomeres

Funding

  1. Division of Integrative Organismal Systems [IOS-1257474, IOS-1257527]
  2. Office of Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research
  3. Wilson Ornithological Society
  4. North Dakota State University
  5. Sigma Xi: The Scientific Research Society
  6. American Ornithologists Union Hesse Research Award
  7. North Dakota EPSCoR Doctoral Dissertation Assistantship
  8. Division Of Integrative Organismal Systems [1257474] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Annual reproductive success is often highest in individuals that initiate breeding early, yet relatively few individuals start breeding during this apparently optimal time. This suggests that individuals, particularly females who ultimately dictate when offspring are born, incur costs by initiating reproduction early in the season. We hypothesized that increases in the ageing rate of somatic cells may be one such cost. Telomeres, the repetitive DNA sequences on the ends of chromosomes, may be good proxies of biological wear and tear as they shorten with age and in response to stress. Using historical data from a long-term study population of dark-eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), we found that telomere loss between years was greater in earlier breeding females, regardless of chronological age. There was no relationship between telomere loss and the annual number of eggs laid or chicks that reached independence. However, telomere loss was greater when temperatures were cooler, and cooler temperatures generally occur early in the season. This suggests that environmental conditions could be the primary cause of accelerated telomere loss in early breeders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available