Impact Summary
Despite much progress in our understanding of the genetic basis of aging, mainly from studying large‐effect mutants, little is known about natural variants that contribute to the evolution of lifespan and related fitness traits. To identify the mechanisms by which longevity evolves, we sequenced a set of D. melanogaster populations that have been undergoing selection for late‐life reproduction and postponed senescence, relative to unselected controls, for over 35 years. Instead of an enrichment of evolutionary changes in previously identified “canonical” longevity genes, we found an enrichment of genetically diverged immunity genes, suggesting that variation in immune function contributes to the evolution of lifespan and late‐life fertility. To test this hypothesis, we employed immunity assays: long‐lived flies survived infections better and showed altered age‐dependent immune gene expression as compared to control flies. Using in vivo RNAi we confirmed that reduced expression of immune genes extends lifespan while immune overactivation is strongly detrimental.
Despite major progress in our understanding of the genetic basis of aging and life history, especially in model organisms such as yeast, C. elegans, Drosophila, and mice (Guarente and Kenyon ; Partridge and Gems ; Tatar
Several major evolutionarily conserved pathways that regulate lifespan and correlated fitness traits, including insulin/insulin‐like growth factor 1 signaling (IIS), have been identified using analyses of large‐effect mutants and transgenes in the laboratory (Partridge and Gems ; Tatar
Here, we take advantage of a >35‐year‐long laboratory selection experiment for late‐life fertility and increased lifespan in Drosophila melanogaster, first published by Luckinbill and colleagues in 1984 (Luckinbill
The central finding from our genomic analysis of this selection experiment is that evolutionary changes in innate immunity contribute to the evolution of late‐life performance in fruit flies, probably by improving age‐dependent immune homeostasis. Although still little is understood about the mechanistic interplay between immunity and aging (Garschall and Flatt ), our analyses suggest that immune function is a major longevity assurance mechanism that can be targeted by selection on standing genetic variation.
Results and Discussion
POOL‐SEQ IDENTIFIES A GENOME‐WIDE SIGNATURE OF LONGEVITY
To characterize the genomic signature of longevity we used next‐generation pool‐sequencing (Pool‐seq) (Schlötterer
Genomic response to longevity selection. (A) Identification of longevity candidates. To identify candidate SNPs that have likely been shaped by selection for longevity we performed all eight pairwise FST comparisons between the two unselected control lines (C1, C2) and the four long‐lived selection lines (S1, S2, S3, S4). SNPs were defined to represent candidates if FST(selection vs. control) > 0.9 in all eight pairwise comparisons and if they showed significant allele frequency differentiation between the selection and control regime (Fisher's Exact test, Bonferroni P < 10−9). See Supplementary methods for details. Using this stringent FST outlier approach we identified 8205 candidate SNPs belonging to 868 genes. (B) Genomic “selection signal” relative to “noise.” To quantify the strength of genetic differentiation among the selection and control lines (“selection signal”) relative to differentiation within control or selection lines (“noise”) we calculated a “selection signal”‐to‐noise ratio. This ratio provides a measure of average FST differentiation among the selection versus control regime relative to FST differentiation within regimes (see Supplementary methods). Positive values of this log2 FST ratio indicate larger differentiation among regimes relative to within regimes, thus representing a “signal” of selection. The genome‐wide distribution of this ratio has a mode ≈ 0, indicating equal differentiation among and within regimes. Only a very small fraction of SNPs has a ratio ≈ 1 that would indicate complete allelic fixation (FST = 1) among regimes, without any differentiation within regimes. We focused our genomic analysis on candidate SNPs that represent extreme FST outliers with a ratio of ≈ 0.9. (C) Genomic locations of candidate SNPs. log2 FST ratio as function of genomic position on chromosomal arms X, 2L, 2R, 3L, and 3R. Candidate SNPs are shown in red and noncandidates (i.e., nonsignificant genomic background) in gray. Note the vast excess of highly differentiated SNPs in the selection versus control regime comparisons (values > 0), in marked contrast to the much weaker differentiation within the control and selection regimes (values < 0). (D) Number of candidate SNPs in different combinations of eight pairwise comparisons. To define candidate SNPs we performed all possible eight pairwise comparisons between two control and four selection lines and used a stringent FST outlier approach (see Supplementary methods). This yielded 8205 candidate SNPs (red bar) belonging to 868 candidate genes. To verify that this number of candidate SNPs is not due to chance we applied our candidate criteria to all 6435 possible sets of eight pairwise comparisons; out of these combinations only one set is biologically informative in terms of inferring selection, that is the set of all eight pairwise control versus selection comparisons (see Supplementary methods). No combination of eight pairwise comparisons yielded as many candidate SNPs as this “true” set of comparisons (red bar), with a probability that the “true” number of candidate SNPs is due to chance of P ≈ 1.6 × 10−4.
LONGEVITY CANDIDATE GENES EXHIBIT GENETIC PARALLELISM
While some mechanisms of longevity are evolutionarily conserved (“shared”) among species and thus “public,” for example insulin/insulin‐like growth factor 1 signaling (IIS), most others are likely to be lineage‐specific and thus ‘private’ (Martin
To examine how frequently the same genes are used by different populations during the evolution of late‐life fertility and longevity, we compared our list of candidate genes to those from two other “Evolve and Resequence” studies of Drosophila longevity and correlated life‐history traits (Remolina
We discovered statistically significant sharing of candidate loci across all possible overlaps among the three datasets (Fig. , Table S2), indicating genetic parallelism underlying the evolution of late‐life performance. Our dataset contained 147 (11.7%) of the candidate genes of Carnes
Sharing of candidate genes across three independent genomic analyses of longevity selection in Drosophila. The Venn diagram shows statistically significant overlaps between the candidate genes identified in our study and those of Carnes et al. () and Remolina et al. (), calculated with the R package SuperExactTest (see Supplementary methods). The results indicate that – across different populations of D. melanogaster–there exists genetic parallelism (“gene reusage”) underlying the evolution of longevity. See Table S2 for functional annotations of the shared longevity candidate genes; see Table S5 for statistical details.
Notably, although each study identified several loci that belong to “canonical” longevity pathways (Guarente and Kenyon ; Partridge and Gems ; Tatar
Even though “canonical” longevity loci seem to be underrepresented, many of the overlapping candidate genes that we have identified have strong empirical support from functional genetics, GWAS, QTL, or gene expression studies, with known roles in lifespan determination, somatic maintenance (e.g., resistance against starvation or oxidative stress, immunity, metabolism), and age‐specific fecundity (see functional annotations in Table S2). The fact that several candidate loci are known to affect age‐specific fecundity is consistent with the age‐at‐reproduction selection regime used by all three studies and possibly also with genetic trade‐offs between early fecundity and lifespan (and/or late‐life fecundity) seen in these selection experiments.
LONGEVITY CANDIDATE GENES ARE ENRICHED FOR IMMUNE FUNCTION
We next sought to characterize the functions of our candidate loci with gene ontology (GO) analysis (Kofler and Schlötterer ) (Table S3; considering the ontologies “Biological Function,” “Molecular Function,” and ”Cellular Component”). Interestingly, we found an enrichment of candidate genes associated with “antifungal peptides” with a false discovery rate of ∼9% (FDR = 0.085), whereas the term “determination of adult lifespan” had no support (FDR = 1) (Table S3). Immunity against fungi (and gram‐positive bacteria) is regulated by Toll signaling (Belvin and Anderson ; Lemaitre
Genes of the Toll and Imd pathways represent longevity candidates. Overview of the Toll and Imd pathways, the two major pathways regulating the humoral innate immune response against fungi and gram‐positive bacteria (Toll) and gram‐negative bacteria (Imd). Among our longevity candidates we found an enrichment of immunity‐related genes (enrichment of GO terms associated with “antifungal peptides”). Longevity candidate genes identified in the Toll and Imd pathways are shown in red. For additional immunity‐related candidate genes see Table S4.
The enrichment of immunity genes prompted us to hypothesize that genetic changes in immune function might contribute to the evolution of longevity and correlated fitness traits (DeVeale
Despite this compelling commonality across independent experiments, still little is known about how immunity proximately affects longevity and correlated fitness traits; similarly, whether genetic changes in immunity might contribute to the evolution of longer life remains unknown (Garsin
LONG‐LIVED FLIES SHOW REDUCED IMMUNE INDUCTION WITH AGE
We first examined whether the selection and control lines differ in the expression of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), the major effectors of the innate immune response. We used three AMPs as readouts of Toll and Imd signaling activity, Drosomycin (Drs), Attacin A (AttA), and Diptericin (Dpt). Drs and AttA are regulated by both Toll and Imd signaling, whereas Dpt is mainly regulated by the Imd pathway (De Gregorio
Without pricking, control flies upregulated AMP baseline expression with age (Fig. A) – a pattern that is commonly observed in wild‐type flies and attributed to persistent chronic infection and a prolonged immune response at old age (Seroude
Age‐dependent differential expression of immunity genes. (A) Baseline mRNA expression levels of three antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), Drosomycin (Drs), Attacin A (AttA), and Diptericin (Dpt) in uninfected (nonpricked) young (5–6‐day‐old) and aged (25–26‐day‐old) female flies. The panel shows relative expression levels (based on efficiency‐corrected ∆Ct‐values), normalized to the geometric mean of two control transcripts, Rp49 (RpL32) and Gapdh2. Unselected control flies upregulate AMP expression with age, but selected flies do not (ANOVA; significant Age x Regime interactions for Drs: P = 0.003 and for AttA: P = 0.005; while for Dpt the interaction was not significant, a post‐hoc test revealed that at old age Dpt levels were significantly lower in selected than in control flies: P = 0.038). Error bars shows standard errors of the mean. See Table S5 for full details of statistical analysis. (B) Induction of Drs, AttA, and Dpt upon prick infection of young (5–6‐day‐old) and aged (25–26‐day‐old) female flies with Erwinia carotovora carotovora 15 (Ecc15) relative to aseptic prick (mock) controls, 4–6 hours after jabbing. The panel shows the ratio of the expression values for infected relative to uninfected (mock prick control) flies, based on efficiency‐corrected ∆Ct‐values normalized to the geometric mean of two control transcripts, Rp49 (RpL32) and Gapdh2. Relative to mock infected flies, AMP induction upon infection in long‐lived flies tends to be slightly higher at young age, but lower at old age (ANOVA on expression ratios (infected/mock infected); significant Age x Regime interactions for Drs: P = 0.026 and for AttA: P = 0.03; the same trend, albeit not significant, is seen for Dpt). Error bars shows standard errors of the mean. Full statistical details are given in Table S5.
AMP expression also differed substantially between control and selected flies upon infection: at young age, the AMP response was slightly stronger in long‐lived flies than in control flies, whereas at old age long‐lived flies tended to downregulate AMP induction (Fig. b). Thus, unlike aged wild‐type flies which upregulate AMPs but suffer from immunosenescence and show signs consistent with chronic inflammation (i.e., reduced infection survival, increased bacterial load, more persistent AMP induction upon infection; see Zerofsky
Our results therefore suggest that long‐lived flies might have evolved improved age‐dependent immune homeostasis and alleviated immunosenescence (DeVeale
LONG‐LIVED FLIES HAVE IMPROVED SURVIVAL UPON INFECTION
To investigate whether selected and control flies differ in realized immune function we measured their survival after infection with four different pathogens (Fig. ). Long‐lived flies survived infections with a fungus (Beauveria bassiana, Bb), with the Gram‐negative bacterium Ecc15 and with the Gram‐positive bacterium Enterococcus faecalis (Ef) overall markedly better than control flies (Fig. A,B,C,E). Improved survival of long‐lived flies was observed for both young and aged flies after infection with Bb and Ecc15, whereas for Ef infection only aged long‐lived flies showed increased survival relative to controls (Fig. A,B,C,E). Because one of our candidate genes, the JAK/STAT activating cytokine unpaired3 (upd3; Table S4), is involved in antiviral immunity (Zhu
Long‐lived flies survive infections better than control flies. (A–D) Survival of selected and control flies upon infection with the fungus Beauveria bassiana (Bb) (A), the gram‐negative bacterium Erwinia carotovora carotovora 15 (Ecc15) (B), the gram‐positive bacterium Enterococcus faecalis (Ef) (C), and with Drosophila C virus (DCV) (D). Except for DCV infection, assays were performed with both young (1–4‐days‐old) and aged (22–25‐days‐old) female flies. All survival assays were terminated after 7 days and the remaining flies censored for analysis. Red curves show average survival of selection lines and black curves survival of control lines; dashed lines represent young flies and solid lines aged flies. For statistics see Fig. E and Table S5. (E) Summary of infection‐induced mortality in selection and control lines. Shown are estimates of the hazard ratios of selection relative to control lines; negative values indicate superior survival of selection lines relative to control lines. P‐values for the effect of regime are from Cox (proportional hazards) regression with χ2 tests; *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001. Error bars show the lower and upper 95th percentiles; see Table S5 for statistical details. (F) Clearance ability of selection and control lines over a 6‐day postinfection period. Percentage of successful (100%) clearance of young (5–6‐days old) and aged (23–25‐days old) female flies after infection with Ecc15. Error bars show binomial standard errors. Binomial GLM revealed a significant Age x Regime interaction (P = 0.018): clearance stays constant with age in selected flies but starts out higher and then declines with age in control flies; this might be consistent with the hypothesis that selected flies are more tolerant. Details of statistical analysis are given in Table S5.
Next, we examined the ability of selection and control flies to successfully clear bacterial (Ecc15) infections over a 6‐day period postinfection. The ability of control flies to clear an infection was higher than that of long‐lived flies at young age but declined at old age; in contrast, clearance was overall lower in long‐lived flies yet did not change with age (Fig. F). The lower clearance ability of long‐lived selected flies, independent of their age, together with their improved survival upon infection, possibly indicates that they have evolved to be more tolerant to infections than unselected control flies (Best et al. ; Ayres and Schneider , ; Felix
REDUCED TOLL SIGNALING EXTENDS LIFESPAN BUT OVERACTIVATION IS DETRIMENTAL
Our results above support the idea that improved age‐dependent regulation of immunity contributes to longevity and late‐life fertility, but how immune genes affect lifespan is not well studied, especially in Drosophila (DeVeale
To examine whether Toll signaling affects lifespan, we used transgenic RNAi to silence four longevity candidate genes of the Toll pathway: the ligand spz, the receptor Tl, the inhibitor cact, and the NFκB transcription factor Dif. To prevent deleterious side effects of knocking down these developmentally critical genes (Nüsslein‐Volhard and Wieschaus ; Belvin and Anderson ) we used a mifepristone‐inducible daughterless (da)‐GeneSwitch(GS)‐GAL4 driver (Tricoire
Downregulation of the Tl receptor–but not of its ligand spz–mildly but significantly extended lifespan (Fig. A,B,C,D), while silencing the antagonist cact–leading to Toll pathway hyperactivation (Lemaitre
Decreased Toll signaling promotes longevity while hyperactivation shortens lifespan. (A–H) Adult survival upon ubiquitous, adult‐specific transgenic RNAi directed against four canonical components of the Toll signaling pathway: the Toll ligand spätzle (spz) (A, B), the receptor Toll (Tl) (C, D), the Toll inhibitor cactus (cact) (E, F), and the NFκB transcription factor Dorsal‐related immunity factor (Dif) (G, H). (A, C, E, G) show data for female flies and (B, D, F, H) represent data for male flies. Silencing the Tl receptor (C, D) – but not the spz ligand (A, B)–extends lifespan, while silencing the antagonist cact dramatically shortens lifespan (E, F); silencing Dif has opposite effects on female and male lifespan (G, H). For details of statistical analysis using mixed‐effects Cox (proportional hazards) regression see Table S5.Expression of the different UAS‐RNAi responder constructs was driven with a mifepristone‐inducible daughterless(da)‐GeneSwitch(GS)‐GAL4 driver. Solid red curves: 200 μg/mL (466 μM) mifepristone (RNAi); dashed curves: 0 μg/mL mifepristone (control). For experimental details see Supplementary methods.
Our findings for the Toll pathway are also consistent with recent studies of IMD signaling showing that lifespan is extended under conditions of reduced lifetime IMD activity (Loch
Conclusion
Explaining the genetic basis of variation in longevity is a longstanding problem in evolutionary genetics and the biology of aging (Finch ; Rose ; Zwaan ; Partridge and Gems ; Flatt and Schmidt ; Flatt and Partridge ). Here we have performed a whole‐genome sequencing analysis of an over 35‐year‐long selection experiment for postponed aging and late‐life fertility in Drosophila (Luckinbill
Notably, among the longevity candidate genes identified in our genomic screen, we found an enrichment of immune genes, especially in the Toll pathway. By comparing our data to those from two previous genomic studies of longevity selection in Drosophila (Remolina
While aged wild‐type flies upregulate immune gene expression (Pletcher
Since optimal immunity depends on the balance between efficient clearance of pathogens and limiting immunity‐induced damage (Cassedevall and Pirofski ; Read
Together, our work reveals the existence of a causal–but mechanistically still poorly understood–link between improved age‐dependent immunity and the evolution of longevity and late‐life fertility (Garschall and Flatt ). This relationship clearly warrants further mechanistic and evolutionary study.
Methods
All methods are given in the Supplementary methods file (see Supporting Information section below), including details of selection and control lines, next‐generation sequencing, bioinformatic, and statistical analyses, gene expression analyses, immunity assays, transgenic RNAi, and lifespan assays.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
T.F. conceived the study; R.A. contributed selection and control lines; D.F., K.G., P.K., G.S.‐M., E.S., M.K., B.L., C.S., R.A., and T.F. conceived and designed the experiments; D.F., K.G., P.K., G.S.‐M., and M.K. performed the experiments and analyzed the data; D.F., K.G., and T.F. wrote the manuscript, with input from the other coauthors.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank two anonymous reviewers, the associate editor, Ivo Chelo, Bart Deplancke, Marc Robinson‐Rechavi, and Marjo Saastamoinen for helpful comments on previous versions of our manuscript; Andrea Betancourt, Olivier Binggeli, José Entenza, Susanne Franssen, Claudia Höchsmann, Julien Martinez, Daria Martynow, Claudine Neyen, Viola Nolte, Nick Priest, Neal Silverman, and Zhai Zongzhao for discussion and/or support in the laboratory; the Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center (BDSC) and the Vienna Drosophila RNAi Center (VDRC) for fly stocks; Véronique Monnier for the da‐GS‐GAL4 strain; and Luis Teixeira for the DCV strain. Our work was supported by grants from the Austrian Science Foundation (FWF P21498‐B11 and W1225) and the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF PP00P3_133641 and PP00P3_165836) to T.F. G. S.‐M. was supported by a NOS Alive ‐ IGC fellowship.
DATA AVAILABILITY
Sequencing data used for genomic analyses are available from the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA) under accession PRJEB28048 / ERP110212. Raw data for experimental assays are available from Dryad under accession
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Associate Editor: Rhonda Snook
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
© 2018. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Abstract
Much has been learned about the genetics of aging from studies in model organisms, but still little is known about naturally occurring alleles that contribute to variation in longevity. For example, analysis of mutants and transgenes has identified insulin signaling as a major regulator of longevity, yet whether standing variation in this pathway underlies microevolutionary changes in lifespan and correlated fitness traits remains largely unclear. Here, we have analyzed the genomes of a set of Drosophila melanogaster lines that have been maintained under direct selection for postponed reproduction and indirect selection for longevity, relative to unselected control lines, for over 35 years. We identified many candidate loci shaped by selection for longevity and late‐life fertility, but – contrary to expectation – we did not find overrepresentation of canonical longevity genes. Instead, we found an enrichment of immunity genes, particularly in the Toll pathway, suggesting that evolutionary changes in immune function might underpin – in part – the evolution of late‐life fertility and longevity. To test whether this genomic signature is causative, we performed functional experiments. In contrast to control flies, long‐lived flies tended to downregulate the expression of antimicrobial peptides upon infection with age yet survived fungal, bacterial, and viral infections significantly better, consistent with alleviated immunosenescence. To examine whether genes of the Toll pathway directly affect longevity, we employed conditional knockdown using in vivo RNAi. In adults, RNAi against the Toll receptor extended lifespan, whereas silencing the pathway antagonist cactus‐–causing immune hyperactivation – dramatically shortened lifespan. Together, our results suggest that genetic changes in the age‐dependent regulation of immune homeostasis might contribute to the evolution of longer life.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details

1 Centre for Pathogen Evolution, Department of Zoology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom; Institut für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Vienna Graduate School of Population Genetics, Vienna, Austria
2 Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
3 Institut für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Institute of Zoology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, 845 06 Bratislava, Slovakia
4 Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal
5 Instituto Gulbenkian de Ciência, Oeiras, Portugal; Departamento de Biologia Animal, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa, Lisboa, Portugal
6 Global Health Institute, School of Life Sciences, EPFL, Lausanne, Switzerland
7 Institut für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria
8 Department of Biological Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan
9 Institut für Populationsgenetik, Vetmeduni Vienna, Vienna, Austria; Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland; Department of Biology, University of Fribourg, Fribourg, Switzerland