Home Page - - - Synopsis - - - Medical Research Services - - - Subscribing

 

The "Force of Mortality" - reflections on the survival curve and the "ageing" process with some implications for new directions in research.

Chadd Everone

{http://www.fis.org/public/obiterdicta/forceofmortality.html}

When Benjamin Gompertz published, in 1825, his seminal work on the laws which seem to govern human mortality (1), he used the idea of the "force of mortality" to convey the observation that something other than ordinary life-contingencies was causing mortality after the age of 30. This observation became the key-stone in the actuarial mathematics of the insurance industry as well as in modern gerontology and life-extension science. The "force of mortality" continues to be an apropos metaphor; and here, I will draft some new perspectives on what might be the nature of that "force".

 

The Survival Curve of an Experimental Animal Model

The C57BL/6j Mouse is an in-bred strain that is probably the most widely used mouse in experimental biology. Because it is long-lived and has a variety of chronic pathologies that are similar to humans, it is believed to age and, therefore, is a good model for studies in gerontology and life-extension. See: An Epistemology for Life-Extension Science - The Experimental Animal Model - A Consensus Survey {http://www.fis.org/epistemology}. The lineage of this mouse dates as follows. From Chinese through Japanese and English "fanciers", who raised mice as an aesthetic hobby, this and almost all inbred strains of mice used in experimental science today were developed between 1903-1915 at Abbie Lathrop's mouse farm in Granby, Maryland. One was labeled "C57". Through Clarence Little, a "Black" sub-line was developed between 1921 and 1937. And from that, another sub-line, called "6", was developed at Jackson Laboratory in 1947 - thus, becoming named as C57BL/6j.

Since 1947, this strain has been bred (sister and brother) for countless generations by the central breeding laboratory (Jackson) and by other breeding colonies and investigators all over the world.

The strain is extremely stable and, given reasonably adequate husbandry, the survival curve has been virtually identical in hundreds of life-span studies over some 6 decades by hundreds of investigators in many different locations and under varying conditions of nutrition, sanitation, and other environmental conditions. Below, the first survival curve is from the breeding laboratory, Jackson Laboratory, done in 1979. The second survival curve is from the colony of this author from an experiment almost 10 years later in 1987 and done under quite different conditions. As can be seen, the survival curves and mortality distributions are virtually identical.

Having been inbred for so many generations, the C57BL/6 stain is so homogeneous that all individuals are, genomically, virtually identical - they are essentially clones. An experimental group of 100 or 1,000 animals is like having 100 or 1,000 identical individuals. Thus, one might expect that all individuals would have the same diseases and closely identical lengths of survival; but, in fact, they do not. From the graphs, above, it can be seen that 25% live out to 125 - 164 weeks, while 50% live 116 weeks, and 25% do not live more than 97 weeks. These percentages are practically invariable between different, experimental colonies.

Several observations pertain. Given that these mice are genetically identical, it is remarkable that there is such a spread of individual survivability. Also, it is remarkable that this spread in survivability is so uniform and consistent over decades of time and under so many environmental conditions. It is as if the variation in survivability and the distribution of its array is genetically programmed - but not at the level of the genome itself.

When I discussed this phenomenon with a geneticist at UC Berkeley, who is now conducting a large-scale gene knock-out study on this strain of mouse, without any hesitation, he said: "Its obvious, it is all determined during early development!" In March 2002, Craig Venter, the founder of Celera and one of the key scientist in the Human Genome Project, delivered the Hitchcock Lectures at UCB; and before one of the presentations, I presented this for his consideration. He said: "That just shows that it is not all genomic." But when it was pointed out that the survival differential was so constant, he thought for a moment and then said: "To tell you the truth, I do not have the slightest idea." (His candor and objectivity was appreciated and commendable.) Again, in March 2002, Wolf Reik gave a presentation at Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory about his work on "Dynamic Reprogramming of DNA Methylation in the Early Mouse Embryo", and this issue was brought to his attention. He had never considered it before but suggested that an experiment might be designed to analyze DNA methylation of a cohort to determine the differences in the reprogramming of different individual genomes and then carry-out the experiment to the full-term life-span and see if there might be any correlation.

The Survival Curve of Human Populations

Unlike the experimental animal model above, human populations are very heterogeneous; and our environmental variables are radically different and disparate. Regardless, our survival curve and distribution of mortality are similar. The exponential rate of mortality after age 30 is held to be caused by "ageing" - i.e., Gompertz' "force of mortality".

Curiously, if you take all of the people who die from one particular chronic disease and create a survival curve for only that group, you obtain similar survival curves.

Finally, if you compare the composite survival curve for all chronic diseases with the survival curve of the total population, the two are virtually identical. If you have a population in which 100% die from one chronic disease such as cancer, why is the survival curve of that cohort the same as the survival curve of the general population which is said to be subject to ageing? Is ageing the cause of the disease?

In summary, we have a situation in which genomically identical, experimental animals consistently have a spread of differential individual survival potentials; and similarly, we have a very genomically diverse population of humans which also consistently have a spread of differential individual survival potentials - different genomic situations but similar cohort trajectories. It obviously is a program, but if the program is not intrinsically genomic, then where, when, and how is the program set? And why is it stochastically uniform?

 

(1) Gompertz B, 1825; On The Nature Of The Functions Expressive Of The Law Of Human Mortality And On A New Mode Of Determining Life Contingencies; Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, 1825 (A115) 513.

 Name

 E-mail

 Comments