Within‐diet variation in rates of macronutrient consumption and reproduction does not accompany changes in lifespan in <i><scp>D</scp>rosophila melanogaster</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Interventions such as caloric or dietary restriction extend lifespan in organisms spanning from yeast to primates. Despite its positive influence on longevity, dietary restriction has been found to negatively affect reproduction. Many studies have reported negative correlations between lifespan and reproductive characteristics (such as mating rate, fecundity, reproductive period, and others). Such correlation gives the appearance of a resource‐based trade‐off between these two life‐history traits. Here, we have used nutritional geometry to confirm previous findings in flies that dietary macronutrient balance (protein‐to‐carbohydrate ratio, P:C) impacts both lifespan and reproduction, such that across a series of diets differing in P:C, maximum lifespan was observed at a lower P:C (1:8) than that which supported highest fecundity (1:1.5). We have then addressed the question whether variation among D rosophila melanogaster M eigen ( D iptera: D rosophilidae) fruit flies in food intake and egg production within a single dietary treatment is negatively associated with within‐diet variation in lifespan, as might be expected under a resource‐based trade‐off. There was no such association between intake rate, egg production, and longevity. We noted that the smaller sample sizes and smaller inter‐individual variance apparent within — as compared to across — diet treatments may have weakened any signature of a trade‐off between lifespan and reproduction. Thus, we conclude that, whereas dietary macronutrient ratio is a primary determinant of both reproduction and longevity, neither eating less nor laying fewer eggs per se predicted lifespan. This supports the view that there is not a simple quantitative resource‐based trade‐off between lifespan and reproduction, but rather these represent life‐history traits with qualitatively different nutritional optima.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".