Skip to main content
eLife logoLink to eLife
. 2015 Dec 1;4:e08833. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08833

Suppression of transcriptional drift extends C. elegans lifespan by postponing the onset of mortality

Sunitha Rangaraju 1,2,3,4, Gregory M Solis 1,2,3,4, Ryan C Thompson 2, Rafael L Gomez-Amaro 1,2,3,4, Leo Kurian 5, Sandra E Encalada 2,3,4, Alexander B Niculescu III 6, Daniel R Salomon 2, Michael Petrascheck 1,2,3,4,*
Editor: K VijayRaghavan7
PMCID: PMC4720515  PMID: 26623667

Abstract

Longevity mechanisms increase lifespan by counteracting the effects of aging. However, whether longevity mechanisms counteract the effects of aging continually throughout life, or whether they act during specific periods of life, preventing changes that precede mortality is unclear. Here, we uncover transcriptional drift, a phenomenon that describes how aging causes genes within functional groups to change expression in opposing directions. These changes cause a transcriptome-wide loss in mRNA stoichiometry and loss of co-expression patterns in aging animals, as compared to young adults. Using Caenorhabditis elegans as a model, we show that extending lifespan by inhibiting serotonergic signals by the antidepressant mianserin attenuates transcriptional drift, allowing the preservation of a younger transcriptome into an older age. Our data are consistent with a model in which inhibition of serotonergic signals slows age-dependent physiological decline and the associated rise in mortality levels exclusively in young adults, thereby postponing the onset of major mortality.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.001

Research Organism: C. elegans, Human, Mouse

eLife digest

All organisms age, leading to gradual declines in the body’s systems and eventually death. How certain genetic mutations and drugs delay the effects of aging and promote survival to an older age is a question many researchers are exploring. One way this problem is investigated is by looking at how the activity – or expression – of different genes changes during aging.

Scientists interested in understanding aging and longevity often study a simple worm called Caenorhabditis elegans. This worm normally lives for about three weeks, and young C. elegans are able to produce offspring within days of hatching. This accelerated life cycle allows scientists to observe the entire lifespan of the worms. Over time, experiments have shown that DNA damage, changes in behavior and changes to gene expression are all markers of aging in the worms.

Now, Rangaraju et al. describe how changes in gene expression patterns that begin early in the lives of C. elegans shorten their lifespan. Specifically, in groups of genes that work together, some genes increase expression, while others decrease expression with age. This phenomenon is called “transcriptional drift” and leads to an age-associated loss of coordination among groups of genes that help orchestrate specific tasks.

Rangaraju et al. show that an antidepressant called mianserin prevents transcriptional drift in many of C. elegans’ genes: young worms treated with the drug resist the effects of aging on the transcriptome and maintain coordinated patterns of gene expression for longer. Maintaining coordinated patterns of gene expression postpones the onset of age-related bodily declines and extends the life of treated worms by extending the duration of young adulthood and postponing the onset of age-associated death. The drug also appears to protect against stress-induced changes in gene expression. This suggests that some of the age-related shifts in gene expression occur when cells fail to recover normal gene expression patterns after a stressful event.

Questions that remain to be investigated in future studies are whether other longevity mechanisms also extend lifespan by preserving coordinated gene expression patterns, and whether other longevity mechanisms act by extending specific periods of life.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.002

Introduction

The most widely used standard to measure aging of an organism is the quantification of lifespan (Partridge and Gems, 2007). Lifespan relates to aging, as the latter causes the degeneration of tissues and organs, thereby increasing mortality due to systemic functional tissue failure (Balch et al., 2008Bishop et al., 2010David et al., 2010Haigis and Sweet-Cordero, 2011Taylor and Dillin, 2011Gladyshev, 2013Burkewitz et al., 2015; Currais, 2015). Several genetic and pharmacological strategies have been shown to prolong the lifespan of various organisms, including C. elegans (Kenyon et al., 1993; Kaeberlein et al., 1999; Curran and Ruvkun, 2007; Evason et al., 2008; Onken and Driscoll, 2010; Alavez et al., 2011; Chin et al., 2014; Ye et al., 2014; Tatum et al., 2015). Mutations in age-1 or daf-2, for example, slow degenerative processes occurring throughout life, thereby constantly lowering mortality rates (Johnson, 1990; Kenyon et al., 1993; Taylor et al., 2014). Age-associated degenerative processes such as a decline in proteostatic capacity are not necessarily restricted to older organisms but can also be observed in young adults (Labbadia and Morimoto, 2015a; 2015b). This raises the possibility of degenerative processes that occur only in young adults and thus specifically contribute to the rise of mortality during young adulthood. Any longevity mechanisms preventing such a degenerative process would specifically slow mortality rates during the period of young adulthood, effectively prolonging its duration to postpone the onset of major age-associated mortality around midlife (Bartke, 2015). However, to identify such mechanisms would require mortality-independent metrics of age-associated change, as age-associated mortality rates during young adulthood are difficult to determine by demographic analysis against the back drop of non-aging-related death events (Partridge and Gems, 2007; Beltran-Sancheza et al., 2012).

In C. elegans, mortality-independent metrics of aging include age-associated decline of various behaviors or physiological parameters such as movement or stress resistance (Huang et al., 2004Bansal et al., 2015). Molecular markers of aging include sets of genes whose expression change with age, such as micro-RNAs, electron transport chain (ETC) components, or genes involved in posttranslational modifications such as methylation (Budovskaya et al., 2008de Magalhaes et al., 2009Pincus et al., 2011Horvath et al., 2015). However, aging also increases DNA damage, affects nuclear architecture, chromatin complexes, chromatin modifications, and the transcriptional machinery (Mostoslavsky et al., 2006; Scaffidi and Misteli, 2006; Feser et al., 2010; Greer et al., 2011; Maures et al., 2011; Fushan et al., 2015). Therefore, an emerging alternative approach to measure specific gene expression changes with age is to quantify the progressive imbalance in gene expression patterns as a function of age. Two such approaches, one measuring transcriptional noise, the cell-to-cell variation in gene expression, and the other measuring decreasing correlation in the expression of genetic modules, showed a loss of co-expression patterns with age (Bahar et al., 2006; Southworth et al., 2009). These studies suggest that age-associated changes can be measured independently from mortality by tracking the loss of gene expression patterns that are observed in young animals.

In the present study, we set out to investigate the mechanisms by which the atypical antidepressant mianserin extends lifespan by recording the transcriptional dynamics of mianserin-treated and untreated C. elegans across different ages. These studies revealed that aging causes transcriptional drift, an evolutionarily conserved phenomenon in which the expression of genes change in opposing directions within functional groups. These changes cause a transcriptome-wide loss in mRNA stoichiometry and loss of co-expression patterns in aging animals, as compared to young adults. Mianserin treatment reduced age-associated transcriptional drift across ~80% of the transcriptome, preserving many characteristics of transcriptomes of younger animals. We used transcriptional drift along with mortality analysis as metrics to monitor aging and find that mianserin treatment extended lifespan by exclusively slowing age-associated changes in young adults, thereby postponing the onset of mortality.

Results

Aging causes a loss of co-expression patterns observed in young adults

To better understand how aging changes gene expression patterns in a eukaryotic organism, and how these changes are affected by longevity, we measured gene expression changes in mianserin-treated or untreated C. elegans by RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq; Figure 1a). Cohort #1 was a time series to study how gene expression patterns change over time in control (water) animals or in animals treated with mianserin on day 1 of adulthood (24 hr after L4 stage). Cohort #2 was designed to study dosage effects of increasing concentrations of mianserin with aging, and cohort #3 was designed to study the effects of delayed mianserin-treatment of worms treated at day 3 or 5 of adulthood (Figure 1a). Lifespan of a sub-population of each cohort was simultaneously assessed to ensure the effect of mianserin.

Figure 1. Transcriptional drift-variance increases with age.

(a) Schematic of RNA-seq experiment. In cohort #1, water or mianserin was added on day 1 of adulthood and RNA samples were harvested on day 1 (water only), day 3 (d3), day 5 (d5) and day 10 (d10). In cohort #2, animals were treated with water or increasing concentrations of mianserin (2, 10 or 50 µM) on day 1 (d1) and RNA was harvested on day 5 (d5) for RNA-seq. In cohort #3, water or 50 µM mianserin was added on day 1, day 3, and day 5, and RNA was harvested on day 10 (d10) for RNA-seq. (b) Venn diagrams of the number of GOs enriched for genes that decrease expression with mianserin (down, dark blue circle) increase expression with mianserin (up, light blue circle) or are enriched for both (intersection). (c) Venn diagrams of the number of GOs enriched for genes that decrease expression with age (down, gray circle) increase expression with age (up, white circle) or are enriched for both (intersection). (d) Heat map depicting log2 changes in gene expression for oxidative stress genes elicited by increasing concentrations of mianserin (yellow, increased expression; blue, decreased expression) (e) Mianserin decreases expression of redox genes that increase with age and increases expression of genes that decrease with age. (f) Mianserin reverts age-associated changes on the level of GOs. Venn diagrams of the number of GOs enriched for genes that decrease expression with mianserin (down, dark blue circle) and increase with age (up, white circle) or vice versa (down with age, gray circle; up with mianserin, light blue circle). (g) Mianserin reverts age-associated changes on the level of individual genes. Volcano plot shows the negative log10 of P-values as a function of log2 fold changes of 3,367 genes that significantly change expression from day 1 to day 3 in samples of water-treated control animals (black) or samples from age-matched mianserin-treated animals (50 µM, blue). As animals age, gene expression levels change (“drift”) away from levels observed in young adults (yellow line). Mianserin treatment attenuates age-associated gene expression changes preserving expression levels as seen in young adults. (h) Drift-plot shows log fold change (old/young) as a function of age for each gene involved in oxidative phosphorylation (gray lines. KEGG: cel 04142). Superimposed are Tukey-style box-plots to graph the increases in drift-variance across the entire pathway. Gene expression changes are classified into type I, which describes activation or repression of the entire pathway and into type II, which describes changes among genes relative to each other (drift-variances), see red arrows. (i) Drift-plot for lysosomal genes (KEGG: cel 00190). See Figure 1—source data 15, Figure 1—figure supplement 1 and Table 1 for additional information on data-sets. Also see Methods section for transcriptional drift calculation in each figure panel.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.003

Figure 1—source data 1. RNA-seq gene expression data.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.004
Figure 1—source data 2. Gene ontologies changing in response to mianserin treatment.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.005
Figure 1—source data 3. Gene ontologies changing in response to age.
elife-08833-fig1-data3.xlsx (190.1KB, xlsx)
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.006
Figure 1—source data 4. Differentially expressed genes in response to age.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.007
Figure 1—source data 5. Differentially expressed genes in response to mianserin treatment.
DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.008

Figure 1.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1. This figure relates to Figure 1 in main text.

Figure 1—figure supplement 1.

Expression patterns of GO annotations are disrupted with age. Representative pie charts show a cross-section of 50 out of 249 GO annotations enriched for genes that change in opposing direction as animals age (day 3, 5, and 10). The fraction of genes whose expression increase with age (yellow), the fraction of genes whose expression decrease with age (black), and the fraction of genes that maintain the expression seen in young day 1 adults (white) are shown. GOs are sorted and represented in the figure, starting with GOs that show the least disruption in the upper left, and the GO’s with the most extreme changes in the lower right. As animals’ age progresses from day 3, 5 to 10, more and more genes change expression in opposing directions disrupting the transcriptional stoichiometry observed in young day 1 animals. None of these 50 pie charts, as is, allows any statements on how the functional states of the physiological processes they represent change with age. The GO names and number of genes (n) belonging to each GO are shown.

Comparison of gene expression profiles of age-matched mianserin-treated and untreated controls, showed that approximately 3,000–6,000 genes changed with age in response to mianserin treatment (FDR<0.1, Figure 1—source data 1) (Robinson and Oshlack, 2010; Kim et al., 2013; Lawrence et al., 2013). We separated genes into sets that showed increased or decreased expression in response to mianserin, to conduct gene-set enrichment analysis. This revealed hundreds of gene ontologies (GO) that changed in response to mianserin (Figure 1—source data 2) (Ashburner et al., 2000; Mi et al., 2005). We observed that many GOs were enriched for both, genes that increased as well as decreased as a consequence of aging. This observation complicated any interpretation on whether pathways were activated or inhibited in response to mianserin, and how the associated function (GO) relates to mianserin-induced lifespan extension (Figure 1b).

We observed a similar scenario by conducting gene-set enrichment analysis for gene expression changes in response to age in untreated animals. As seen with mianserin, many GO annotations were enriched for both up- as well as downregulated genes at any given age (Figure 1c; Figure 1—source data 3, 4), making it difficult to interpret whether those pathways are being activated or inhibited with age. We generated 50 representative pie charts out of the 249 GO annotations that contained genes that increased or decreased in expression by day 10 due to aging. These charts suggested that as animals age and become older, genes change expression in opposing directions, disrupting relative mRNA ratios within the GO, when compared to young adults (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Thus, aging changed the stoichiometric relationship between mRNAs belonging to the same functional group (GO). In many cases, the fractions of genes that increased, decreased or did not change in expression showed no consistent pattern, nor provided any insight into the pathway activity (Figure 1—figure supplement 1).

Because the expression patterns observed in many GOs were difficult to interpret in terms of functional change, we turned to investigate expression changes in the superoxide detoxification pathway, a well-defined cellular function that declines with age (Ashburner et al., 2000Mi et al., 2005Kumsta et al., 2011Bansal et al., 2015Rangaraju et al., 2015a). As expected from our previous studies (Rangaraju et al., 2015a), the expression levels of some superoxide detoxification genes were higher in mianserin-treated animals compared to age-matched controls (Figure 1d). Exceptions were the expression levels of sod-4 and sod-5, which were lowered upon mianserin treatment (Figure 1d). However, plotting expression changes of superoxide detoxification genes as a function of age (Figure 1e, left panel) revealed again a scenario in which genes changed in opposing directions as seen in the pie charts for many GOs before (Figure 1—figure supplement 1). Some mRNAs including those of sod-4, -5 increased with age, while some decreased (sod-1, -2, prdx-2, 3, 6) and some did not change (ctl-1, 2, 3), leading to an overall 5-10-fold change in stoichiometric balance among superoxide detoxification-associated mRNAs by day 5 (Figure 1e, left panel). More interestingly, if the expression of an sod increased with age, mianserin treatment prevented the increase and if the expression of an sod decreased with age, mianserin prevented the decrease (Figure 1e, right panel). Thus, when we took the mRNA expression levels of young animals into account, the emerging picture suggested that mianserin treatment attenuated age-associated gene expression changes.

We therefore asked whether the complex gene-set enrichment patterns observed comparing mianserin-treated and untreated samples (Figure 1b,c) could be explained by mianserin preventing expression changes due to age. Indeed, many GO annotations that increased expression with age were decreased by mianserin treatment and vice versa (Figure 1f). This attenuation of age-associated changes by mianserin treatment was even more pronounced for individual genes (Figure 1g). Analyzing cohort #1 showed a significant change in expression levels of 3,367 genes, as the animals aged from day 1 to day 3, and a change in 5,947 genes from day 1 to day 10 (FDR < 0.1) (Figure 1g, significant genes only). Mianserin treatment reduced these age-associated expression changes in over 90% of cases. Including all age-associated expression changes for the 19,196 different transcripts present in our data-set, we found that mianserin treatment attenuated age-associated changes in transcription in 15,095 out of 19,169 genes (80%, binomial P < 10–100). Thus, most of the changes observed between mianserin-treated and untreated animals are due to mianserin preventing transcriptional changes with age.

When we excluded all genes that changed due to age and were attenuated by mianserin, we obtained a much smaller gene-set consisting of mianserin-induced changes that was enriched for GOs related to stress, xenobiotic and immune-responses, as well as genes associated with aging and the determination of lifespan (Table 1, Figure 1—source data 5). These GOs have been previously shown to be regulated by serotonin in C. elegans with the exception of the xenobiotic response (Zhang et al., 2005Petrascheck et al., 2007Rangaraju et al., 2015a). Thus, accounting for age-associated transcriptional changes dramatically simplified a seemingly very complex gene-expression pattern (Figure 1b,c). It revealed that mianserin affected expression of a small set of physiological functions that are known to be regulated by serotonin and have been shown to be required for mianserin-induced lifespan extension or for aging in general (Garsin et al., 2003Rangaraju, et al., 2015Petrascheck, et al., 2007) (Table 1; Figure 1f; Figure 1—source data 5).

Table 1.

GO annotations enriched for genes upregulated by mianserin during all ages, assessed by RNA-seq (day 3, 5 and 10).

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.010

GO Enriched P-value
response to stimulus 4.47E-08
response to stress 5.83E-05
response to xenobiotic stimulus 3.25E-07
defense response 4.66E-05
innate immune response 1.56E-02
immune response 1.62E-02
immune system process 1.62E-02
aging 6.63E-05
multicellular organismal aging 6.63E-05
determination of adult lifespan 6.63E-05

Note: No process was specifically downregulated for all three ages.

Based on these observations, we classified gene expression changes for groups of genes into two types. Type I changes describe whether the overall expression across an entire functional group/pathway increases or decreases i.e. whether the pathway is up or down regulated with age. Type II changes describe the relative changes in gene expression among genes within functional groups with respect to each other. We named the type II change transcriptional drift. As animals age, genes within functional groups change expression levels in opposing directions resulting in the disruption of the co-expression patterns seen in young adults.

To analyze the effects of aging on transcriptional drift (type II), we designed graphs that plot the log-fold changes (log [old/young reference day1]) in gene expression as a function of age. Such a plot can be constructed for whole transcriptomes as well as for any functional subset of genes, for example, genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation or lysosome biology (Figure 1h,i). In young adults, the log-fold change is 0 and values close to 0 therefore suggest gene expression as seen in young adults (Figure 1h,i). To quantify transcriptional drift changes with age (type II), we calculated the variance of the log-fold change for genes involved in each pathway. For the purpose of this study, we will refer to this variance as drift-variance (see Materials and methods). If gene expression ratios within a pathway stay constant with age, drift-variance will stay small. If a majority of genes within a pathway change expression in opposing directions or if the rates by which they change differ dramatically, drift-variance will increase. Note that “transcriptional drift” is different from “transcriptional noise” in that the former analyzes variance among genes within the same biological replicates, whereas the latter analyzes variance of the same genes among biological replicates. Hence, how far the aging transcriptome deviates away from the transcriptome seen in young adults can be graphed in a Tukey-style box plot, which plots the drift-variance as a function of age (Figure 1h,i). We will refer to these plots as drift-plots (Figure 1h; Figure 2—figure supplement 1a–d).

Longevity mechanisms attenuate transcriptional drift-variance

We constructed drift-plots for all 19,196 genes in the data of cohort #1, which revealed a dramatic increase in drift-variance with age, showing a progressive loss of mRNA stoichiometries and co-expression patterns observed in young-adults (Figure 2a, shaded region encompassing the whiskers of Tukey-plot). This effect was also seen in other publicly available data-sets of aging C. elegans transcriptomes and drift-variance continued to increase with age at least until day 20 (Figure 2—figure supplement 1e). Mianserin treatment attenuated the effect of aging across the whole transcriptome and preserved the co-expression patterns observed in young-adults into later age. To test whether transcriptional drift is driven by a small subset of mRNAs or a transcriptome-wide phenomenon, we randomly divided the transcriptome into subsamples of ~1,000 genes. Each subsample showed identical increases in drift-variance with age, confirming a transcriptome-wide effect (Figure 2—figure supplement 1f).

Figure 2. Transcriptional drift-variance is attenuated by two longevity paradigms.

(a) Drift-plots show that mianserin attenuates increasing drift-variance with age. Note that drift-variance in 10-day-old mianserin-treated animals is the same as in untreated 3-day-old control animals (dotted red line). (b) Drift-plots show that increasing concentrations of mianserin cause drift-variance to decrease. Drift-variance was measured on day 5 by RNA-seq. (c) Corresponding to b, lifespan curves show that increasing concentrations of mianserin leads to a dose-dependent increase in survival. (d) Drift-plots show that initiating mianserin treatment at later ages reduces (d3) or abolishes (d5) its effect on transcriptional drift. Drift-variance was measured on day 10 by RNA-seq. (e) Corresponding to d, lifespan curves show initiating mianserin treatment at later ages reduces (d3) or abolishes (d5) its effect on lifespan. (f) Log-fold change of xenobiotic gene expression on day 10 when mianserin was added on day 1 or day 5, compared to control animals treated with water on day 1. Adding mianserin on day 1 or day 5 leads to comparable changes. (g) Drift-plots show daf-2 RNAi attenuates increasing drift-variance with age in a manner dependent on daf-16. Left: vector control, middle: daf-2 RNAi, right: daf-16/daf-2 RNAi. P-values for transcriptional drift plots are calculated by robust Levene’s test, which compare variances and not mean values. ***P<0.001. All error bars show drift-variance. See Figure 2—figure supplement 1–2 for additional information on calculating drift-variance and Table 2. Also, see Methods section for transcriptional drift calculation in each figure panel.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.011

Figure 2.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1. This figure relates to Figure 1c, d and Figure 5a,b in main text.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1.

(a) Relationship of (a) fold-changes in gene expression as measured by qRT-PCR to b) RNA-seq counts to (c) transcriptional drift and (d) drift-variance plots. Fold-changes in gene expression in older (day 5) animals by mianserin are mostly caused by mianserin preserving the expression levels seen in young animals, thus leading to small drift-variances for groups of genes. (e) Additional transcriptional drift plots for aging C. elegans based on GEO data-sets GSE21784 and GSE46051. Transcriptional drift increases continuously up until at least day 20 towards the end of the lifespan. (f) Transcriptional drift is observed across the entire transcriptome. Random sub-sampling generating ten sets of ~1,000 genes and plotting their drift-variance shows that transcriptional drift is a phenomenon present across the entire transcriptome and is not driven by small subsets of genes.
Figure 2—figure supplement 2. Egg RNA does not affect drift-variance.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2.

(a) DIC photomicrograph of eggs obtained from FUDR (120 µM final) treated animals. Eggs are terminally arrested around the ventral closure (“bean stage”, 400–500 nuclei) and show a shrunken cell mass. Birefringent gut granules are observed in the middle of the eggs. Images were taken ~48 hr after FUDR treatment. (Scale bar = 20 µm). (b) Number of adult worms that produce eggs 24 hr after FUDR treatment. Of the 298 worms evaluated, all of the animals developed germline with eggs inside. (c) Treatment with FUDR dramatically reduces the RNA content in eggs. Total RNA was extracted from FUDR-treated whole wt (N2) worms, from eggs isolated from FUDR-treated N2 worms after ~28 hr of FUDR treatment and from eggs from non-FUDR-treated N2 worms (the same time point as the RNA-seq young reference),. ***P<0.001, comparison between whole worms and eggs treated with FUDR, unpaired t-test, n=3, Error bars S.E.M; ##P<0.01, comparison between eggs treated with FUDR and no FUDR, unpaired t-test, n=3, Error bars S.E.M. (d) Electrophoresis of RNA extracted from whole worms or eggs isolated from FUDR treated animals. Same number of animals used for each sample. Comparison of equal volumes (10 µl) of total RNA loaded from FUDR-treated whole worms and eggs isolated from FUDR-treated animals, resolved in an agarose gel. (e) Original drift plot from Figure 2a is shown again for comparison. Note that box in the middle of the drift plot, which is a Tukey-plot, represents the interquartile mean, or 50% of the transcriptome that changes less with age. As drift is also observed in the interquartile mean, drift is not driven by extreme outliers, but by the majority of the genes across the entire transcriptome. (f) Drift plot generated from our data-set only including genes that were also detected in the CF512 sterile strain data-set from (Murphy et al., 2003). (g) Drift plot generated after removing 7,292 genes involved in egg-related functions detected from an eggs-only RNA-seq data-set (Osborne Nishimura et al., 2015). (h) DIC photomicrograph of eggs obtained from untreated and FUDR-treated animals carrying the Pgcy-8::GFP reporter for AFD neurons. (i) Fluorescence microscopy images show AFD neurons in eggs derived from untreated adults (left panel, white arrows) but not in eggs obtained from FUDR-treated adults (middle panel), confirming that FUDR treated eggs do not progress past the “bean stage”. FUDR does not inhibit Pgcy-8::GFP expression in adults (right panel). (j) Overlay of h and i. (k) Drift plots using our data-set including only the genes that are highly enriched in AFD, ASE or NSM neurons (Etchberger et al., 2007Spencer et al., 2014). As FUDR arrests embryonic development before the birth of these neurons, the drift-plots cannot be influenced by RNA derived from eggs. Explanations for Figure 2—figure supplement 2 In the experiments presented in the main manuscript, we used FUDR to sterilize the animals from which we subsequently extracted RNA for RNA-seq. Thus, our samples contained fractions of egg RNA. The following control experiments and analysis show that the fraction of RNA in our samples coming from eggs is small and does not influence the phenomenon of transcriptional drift and its attenuation by mianserin. We first isolated eggs from FUDR-treated and untreated animals. FUDR treatment causes the cell mass inside the eggs to shrink and to terminally arrest at around bean stage (400–500 nuclei) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2a). FUDR-treated animals all contained similar numbers of eggs 24 hr after FUDR treatement (n=298) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2b) Note that many of the reported FUDR side-effects such as a lack of germline are not observed in 96-well liquid culture (Gomez-Amaro et al., 2015). Extracting RNA from whole worms or eggs isolated from whole worms showed that FUDR-treated eggs contained 5 times less RNA compared to untreated eggs. The fraction of RNA originating from the eggs in FUDR-treated worms was roughly ~5% (Figure 2—figure supplement 2c,d). We next asked whether this fraction could in anyway influence the phenomenon of transcriptional drift. The original plots (Figure 2a, or Figure 2—figure supplement 2e) of the entire transcriptome show that drift-variance increases in the interquartile mean (boxes) showing that it is not driven by a set of outlier genes, making it unlikely that the 5% fraction would influence drift-variance (Krzywinski and Altman, 2014). Nevertheless, to test possible interference, we calculated drift plots for various subsets of our data excluding transcrips expressed in eggs. The Murphy data were derived from CF512 (sterile) animals and thus any genes detected do not originate from eggs. We therefore excluded all genes not detected by Murphy et al from our data-set and recalculated drift. The resulting drift plot still shows a dramatic increase in drift-variance and attenuation by mianserin (Figure 2—figure supplement 2f). A potential problem with the approach used in Figure 2—figure supplement 2f is that it only removed eggs/germline genes that are specific for eggs but that it did not remove genes that are present in both eggs and soma. We therefore removed all genes that were identified in C. elegans eggs by RNA-seq from our data-set to plot Figure 2—figure supplement 2g (Osborne Nishimura et al., 2015). Of the 7,700 transcripts identified in eggs, 7,200 were present in our data-set. Note that this approach removes all ubiquitously expressed genes like ribosomal, mitochondrial and similar housekeeping genes that are present in both embryos and soma. Even though this operation removes only 7,200 out of 19,196 individual genes present in the data-set, these 7,200 genes account for 73% of total mRNA counts. Despite this dramatic reduction in overall mRNA transcripts, the drift plot combining the remaining 11, 904 genes (mostly low expressing genes) confirms an increase in drift-variance with age that is suppressed by mianserin (Figure 2—figure supplement 2g). To identify gene-sets that cannot possibly originate from the FUDR-treated eggs we exploited the specific arrest in embryonic development caused by FUDR. The DIC images suggested that FUDR arrests embryonic development before the birth of AFD, ASE and NSM neurons. If so, genes in our data-set that are specifically expressed in these neurons have to originate from the adult somatic tissue. To test that FUDR treatment prevents the birth of these neurons, we imaged eggs of C. elegans carrying a Pgcy-8::GFP transgene (AFD marker) (Figure 2—figure supplement 2h, i, j). Eggs from untreated animals showed a clear expression of the marker while FUDR-treated eggs did not (Figure 2—figure supplement 2i, j (n>100)). FUDR did not repress the expression of the Pgcy-8::GFP transgene in adults, showing that the lack of a Pgcy-8::GFP signal in FUDR-treated eggs is due to an arrest before the neurons are born and not due to inhibition of the reporter expression by FUDR. As AFD neurons are born before ASE and NSM neurons, these results suggested that none of these three neurons are present in FUDR-treated eggs (Sulston et al., 1983). After having established the absence of AFD, ASE and NSM neurons in eggs derived from FUDR treated animals, we then used the published gene-sets that are highly enriched in these three neuron types (AFD, ASE, NSM) to construct drift-plots (Etchberger et al., 2007Spencer et al., 2014). Even for these highly restricted sets of genes, drift-variance dramatically increased with age and was repressed by mianserin. Taken together, these results show that the RNA contamination from FUDR-treated eggs is minimal and that this residual amount does not influence our results.

We previously showed, that the effect of mianserin to extend lifespan is dose-dependent (Petrascheck et al., 2007). To explore a possible quantitative relationship between longevity and drift-variance, we generated drift-plots for transcriptomes of animals treated with increasing doses of mianserin (Figure 1a, cohort #2). Increasing doses of mianserin progressively increased longevity and decreased drift-variance as measured in 5-day-old animals (Figure 2b,c; Table 2). Thus, remarkably, by varying the dose of a single molecule, it was possible to control the degree to which aging drives the loss of transcriptional co-expression away from patterns observed in young adults. These results suggested a quantitative relationship between mianserin-induced longevity and its effect on drift-variance.

Table 2.

Survival data for lifespan of RNA-seq experimental cohorts.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.014

Strain Treatment Treatment
added on [day]
Conc. [µM] Change in lifespan [%]
Expt.1/ Expt.2/ Expt.3
P-value
Expt.1/ Expt.2/ Expt.3
Mean Lifespan [days]
Expt.1/ Expt.2/ Expt.3
Number of animals
Expt.1/ Expt.2/ Expt.3
N2 Water d1 0 19.33/ 17.2/ 20.45 132/ 149/ 130
N2 Mia d1 2 +7/ +12/ -4 0.20/ 0.04/ 0.25 20.64/ 19.23/ 19.67 125/ 133/ 151
N2 Mia d1 10 +30/ +16/ +6 2.5E-07/ 3.7E-03/ 0.55 25.09/ 19.92/ 21.74 94/ 138/ 136
N2 Mia d1 50 +46/ +39/ +25 1.1E-19/ 1.9E-15/ 2.8E-08 28.25/ 23.92/ 25.63 95/ 131/ 125
N2 Mia d3 50 +15/ +14/ +1 2.0E-03/ 9.3E-04/ 0.29 22.23/ 19.69/ 20.75 121/ 134/ 152
N2 Mia d5 50 -8/ +8/ -2 0.18/ 0.06/ 0.84 17.79/ 18.52/ 20.13 123/ 151/ 139

Summary of all lifespan experiments performed in parallel for cohorts 1 and 2 of the RNA-seq studies in Figure 2c,e. The treatments, water or mianserin, at the indicated concentrations (conc.) were added on indicated day (D) of adulthood and lifespan (days) was scored until 95% of animals were dead in all tested conditions. All values (Change in lifespan [%], P-values) were calculated for the pairwise comparison between mianserin-treated and water-treated animals of the same condition, in 3 independent experiments (expts.). Statistical analysis was performed using the Mantel–Haenszel version of the log-rank test. Mean lifespan [days] and number of animals in each experiment are indicated.

Our previous studies had also shown that mianserin does not extend lifespan when added to 5-day-old post-reproductive adult animals (Petrascheck et al., 2007). Thus, we next tested whether mianserin attenuates transcriptional drift-variance independently of longevity by treating older animals. Mianserin did not attenuate transcriptional drift-variance when added on day 5 (Figure 2d). Adding mianserin on day 3 of adulthood caused a small extension of lifespan and a corresponding small attenuation of drift-variance, further supporting a quantitative relationship between suppression of drift-variance and extension of lifespan (Figure 1a, cohort #3, Figure 2d,e; Table 2). However, mianserin fully induced the xenobiotic response by up to 1,000-fold irrespective of whether added on day 1 or day 5 (Figure 2f). Therefore, the lack of an effect of mianserin when added to day 5 adults cannot be attributed to reduced drug uptake. Taken together, these results show that mianserin does not attenuate drift-variance when it does not extend lifespan.

We next asked whether the attenuation of drift-variance is unique to mianserin or whether it is observed in other lifespan-extension paradigms (Figure 2g). We asked whether reduced insulin signaling also attenuates drift-variance by analyzing the previously published gene expression data-sets of long-lived C. elegans daf-2 RNAi-treated and vector control animals (Murphy et al., 2003). Analyses of drift-variance for these data-sets showed that treatment with daf-2 RNAi attenuated drift-variance (Figure 2g). Moreover, mianserin and daf-2 RNAi attenuated age-associated drift of overlapping sets of genes. Of the 6,958 genes for which expression levels were detected at all ages in both data-sets, 58% (4,078 genes, binomial P= 6.3e-47) were attenuated by both longevity-extending mechanisms. This overlap is consistent with experiments showing that these two longevity mechanisms partially overlap, potentially explaining why mianserin only causes a +11% lifespan extension in daf-2(e1370) mutant animals instead of 31% seen in the parallel wild-type experiments (Petrascheck et al., 2007). Thus, lifespan extension by mianserin or daf-2 RNAi attenuates transcriptional drift in overlapping sets of genes.

Conversely, suppressing longevity by daf-16(RNAi) prevented the attenuation of drift-variance by daf-2(RNAi) and increased it beyond what was seen in control animals (Figure 2g). Thus, the activation of DAF-16 target genes leads to the attenuation of transcriptional drift in thousands of genes across the transcriptome. Taken together, these results show that drift-variances increase with age in C. elegans and are attenuated in two different longevity paradigms (Figure 2a,g).

From a technical perspective, the comparison between the mianserin data and the Murphy data (Murphy et al., 2003) also shows that the phenomenon of transcriptional drift is robust enough not to be influenced by the presence of eggs in the animals or the method of sterilization, as our study used FUDR and the Murphy et al. (2003) study used sterile mutants (Figure 2a,g; Figure 2—figure supplement 2).

Attenuating drift-variances in redox-pathways preserves homeostatic capacity

The results above suggested that preserving low drift-variance in transcriptomes preserves longevity. We therefore asked whether attenuating drift-variance in specific pathways preserves homeostatic capacity, the ability of pathways to appropriately respond to a stimulus or stress. Throughout life, organisms respond to stimuli by activating or repressing transcriptional programs, an ability that is lost with age. We hypothesized that one way by which regulatory ability may be lost could be due to a failure to return to their precise steady-state transcriptional levels after stimulation. This would give rise to increases in drift-variance (Figure 3a), as seen in the drift plots for oxidative phosphorylation or lysosome biology (Figure 1h,i). In this model, slight initial deviations in gene expression levels would be compounded over time resulting in imbalanced stoichiometries between pathway components resulting in functional decline with age (Figure 3a).

Figure 3. Preserving low drift-variances in redox pathways preserves redox capacity into old age.

Figure 3.

(a) Model for the occurrence of transcriptional drift with age. Genes belonging to the same pathway appropriately respond to a stimulus but subsequently fail to return to steady-state levels. Repeated stimuli compound this effect leading to increases in transcriptional drift. If multiple genes within a pathway have propensity to drift in one or the other direction drift-variance increases with age. (b) Drift-plots show increases in drift-variance in multiple KEGG or GO annotations associated with redox processes. P-values compare variance, not mean, n: No. of genes in each category. *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, Levene’s test. Error bars; drift-variance (c) Fold increase in survival of N2 wild-type (wt) mianserin treated vs. untreated animals when challenged with paraquat at different ages. The protective effect of mianserin increases with age. *P<0.05, t-test, Error bars: S.E.M. (d) Fold increase in survival of wt (N2) treated vs. untreated animals when challenged with paraquat on day 10. Delaying mianserin treatment into later life reduces its protective effect. *P<0.05, t-test, Error bars: S.E.M. (e) Linear regression of log fold-changes in gene expression with age for genes previously shown to change upon oxidative stress. Genes upregulated in response to oxidative stress (n=252) increase with age, and genes downregulated in response to oxidative stress decrease (n=88) with age. Mianserin attenuates age-associated expression changes in oxidative stress genes in the direction indicated by blue arrows. Shading: 95% confidence interval. ***P<0.001, Wilcoxon rank-sum test. See Tables 35 for detailed statistics and Methods section for transcriptional drift calculation in each figure panel.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.015

Our previous studies showed that mianserin protected C. elegans from oxidative stress by a neuronal mechanism that modulated peripheral stress response genes (NEUROX) (Rangaraju et al., 2015a). We therefore constructed drift plots for redox-associated pathways that showed that mianserin indeed increased the overall expression of oxidative stress response genes (type I) relative to age-matched controls but also attenuated transcriptional drift (type II) (Figure 3b; Table 3).

Table 3.

Gene ontology (GO) pathways of relevance to this study that are differentially regulated by mianserin.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.023

KEGG / GO ID KEGG / GO Term Number of Genes observed Levene’s test for variance
(Difference in transcriptional drift- variance)
Water D1 vs. water Dx
Levene’s test for variance
(Difference in transcriptional drift- variance)
water Dy vs. mianserin Dy
Transcriptome 19,196 D3 : P < 1.0E-100
D5 : P < 1.0E-100
D10: P < 1.0E-100
D3 : P < 1.0E-100 D5 : P < 1.0E-100 D10: P < 1.0E-100
KEGG:Cel00030 Pentose phosphate pathway 17 D3 : P = 0.0096
D10: P <1.0E-5
D3 : P <1.0E-4
D10: P = 0.01
GO: 0006979 Response to oxidative stress 67 D3 : P <1.0E-10
D10: P <1.0E-16
D3 : P <1.0E-4
D10: P = 0.001
GO: 0045454 Cell redox homeostasis 52 D3 : P <1.0E-6
D10: P <1.0E-10
D3 : P <1.0E-4
D10: P = 0.029
GO: 006749 Glutathione metabolism 13 D3 : P <1.0E-4
D10: P <1.0E-7
D3 : P =0.041
D10: P <1.0E-4
GO: 0007186 G-protein coupled receptor signaling 335 D3 : P <1.0E-24
D10: P < 1.0E-100
D3 : P <1.0E-4
D10: P <1.0E-4
GO: 0016209 Antioxidant activity 34 D3 : P <1.0E-8
D10: P <1.0E-10
D3 : P = 0.002
D10: P = 0.06

Summary of gene changes with RNA-seq transcriptome analysis in Figure 3b.

GO ID is the Gene Ontology identification number.

GO Term is the Gene Ontology term for the biological process.

Dx = age in days for the animals indicated, compared with D1 water-treated animals.

Dy = age in days for water- and mianserin-treated animals, compared on the same day of age indicated.

We therefore asked whether mianserin treatment increased resistance to oxidative stress by either directly activating the oxidative stress response or whether attenuating transcriptional drift would preserve homeostatic capacity into older age (Rahman et al., 2013). Animals were treated with water or mianserin on day 1 of adulthood, followed by treatment with the reactive oxygen species (ROS) generator paraquat on day 3, 5, or 10 (Figure 3c). On day 3 of adulthood, no difference in stress resistance between mianserin-treated and untreated animals was observed. As animals grew older (day 5 and day 10), mianserin treatment greatly improved stress resistance (Figure 3c; Table 4). Again, as with lifespan, delaying the start of mianserin treatment to day 3 and day 5 progressively reduced its protective effect on stress resistance, this time measured in animals subjected to paraquat on day 10 of adulthood (Figure 3d; Table 5). Thus, mianserin treatment specifically improves stress resistance in older (day 5 and day 10) but not in younger (day 3) animals consistent with a model in which it preserves the homeostatic capacity of redox function.

Table 4.

Survival data for paraquat stress resistance assays.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.024

Strain Treatment Conc.[µM] Treatment added [day] PQ 100 mM, added [day] Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 1)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 2)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 3)
Mean,
Survival after PQ [%]
S.D.,
Survival after PQ [%]
P-value No. of wells Total no. of animals
N2 Water 0 d1 d3 70.0 43.1 62.2 58.4 13.9 48 450
N2 Mia 50 d1 d3 87.3 47.9 53.9 63.0 21.3 7.72E-01 48 390
N2 Water 0 d1 d5 55.8 56.2 66.1 59.3 5.8 48 436
N2 Mia 50 d1 d5 95.5 96.1 92.0 94.5 2.2 4.24E-03 48 435
N2 Water 0 d1 d10 63.3 37.4 41.7 47.5 13.9 48 400
N2 Mia 50 d1 d10 91.9 82.1 85.4 86.4 5.0 2.85E-02 48 390

Summary of all stress resistance assays performed in Figure 3c. The treatments, water or mianserin (Mia), at the indicated concentrations (conc.) were added on day 1 of adulthood. Paraquat (PQ) was added to a final conc. of 100 mM on day 3 (d3), day 5 (d5) or day 10 (d10) and survival after PQ [%] was calculated 24 hr after the respective PQ addition. Mean and standard deviation (S.D.) of survival after PQ [%] were calculated from 3 independent experiments (expts.). P-values were calculated between water and mianserin-treatments on the same day of PQ addition, using unpaired t-test. The total number of wells and animals from which data were collected are indicated.

Table 5.

Survival data for paraquat stress resistance assays, mianserin added on different days.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.025

Strain Treatment Conc. [µM] Treatment
added day
PQ 100 mM,
added day
Survival [%]
(expt. 1)
Survival [%]
(expt. 2)
Survival [%]
(expt. 3)
Mean, Survival [%] S.D.,
Survival [%]
P-value No. of wells Total no. of animals
N2 Water 0 d1 d10 63.30 37.44 41.72 47.48 13.86 48 400
N2 Mia 50 d1 d10 91.85 82.05 85.38 86.43 4.97 2.85E-02 48 390
N2 Water 0 d3 d10 63.97 41.25 38.35 47.85 14.02 48 403
N2 Mia 50 d3 d10 78.52 66.22 73.62 72.79 6.19 0.074 48 378
N2 Water 0 d5 d10 57.31 43.83 42.57 47.90 8.16 48 387
N2 Mia 50 d5 d10 68.63 50.58 58.62 59.28 9.04 0.18 48 398

Summary of all stress resistance assays performed in Figure 3d. The treatments, water or mianserin (Mia), at the indicated concentrations (conc.) were added on day 1 (D1), day 3 (D3) or day 5 (D5) of adulthood. 100mM Paraquat (PQ) was added on day 10 (D10) and survival [%] was calculated after 24 hr. Mean and standard deviation (S.D) of survival [%] were calculated from 3 independent experiments (expts.). P-value calculated between water and mianserin-treatments using t-test. The total number of wells and animals from which data were collected are indicated.

To further distinguish between a model in which mianserin directly activates an oxidative stress response from one that preserves the homeostatic capacity by attenuating drift-variance, we asked whether mianserin enhanced (direct activation) or attenuated (preserving capacity) genes that change in response to oxidative stress (Figure 3e). Oliveira et al. identified 252 genes that were upregulated and 88 genes that were downregulated in young C. elegans in response to oxidative stress, and can therefore be considered an experimentally determined oxidative stress signature (Oliveira et al., 2009). We hypothesized that a direct activation of the oxidative stress response by mianserin would mimic the increase in expression of the 252 genes and the decrease in the expression of the 88 genes as seen in response to oxidative stress. However, we observed an attenuation rather than an activation of the oxidative stress signatures, consistent with preserving homeostatic capacity rather than a direct activation. Genes that increased in response to oxidative stress (252) showed a lower expression while genes that decreased (88) in response to oxidative stress showed a higher expression in age-matched mianserin-treated animals (Figure 3e). Consistent with the functional data, differences in the oxidative stress signature were only observed in older animals (day 5, 10), but not in younger day 3 animals. These results are consistent with a model in which mianserin treatment preserves the redox system from age-associated decline, thus improving redox capacity in older age.

Mianserin requires the serotonin receptor SER-5 to preserve low drift-variances

In mammals, mianserin antagonizes serotonergic signals sent by 5-HT2A/C receptors (Gillman, 2006). We next asked whether preservation of redox capacity and reducing drift-variance in redox pathways by mianserin depends on serotonergic signaling. To identify the serotonergic receptor, we treated multiple mutants, each deficient in signaling by a single G-protein coupled receptor (GPCR) with mianserin on day 1, followed by increasing concentrations of paraquat on day 5 to induce oxidative stress (Figure 4a,b; Table 6). Mianserin was unable to protect multiple ser-5 mutant alleles (ok3087, tm2647, tm2654) from oxidative stress (Figure 4a,b; Figure 4—figure supplement 1a; Table 6). In addition, seven structurally distinct serotonergic antagonists/inverse agonists also protect from oxidative stress in a ser-5 dependent manner (Figure 4—figure supplement 1b; Table 7). Furthermore, mianserin did not protect animals unable to synthesize serotonin (tph-1(mg280)) (Figure 4a; Table 6) (Sze et al., 2000).

Figure 4. Preserving redox capacity into old age requires the serotonin receptor SER-5.

(a) Survival of wt (dotted lines) or serotonin receptor mutants and serotonin synthesis mutant (bold lines) treated with water (black) or mianserin (blue) on day 1, followed by increasing concentrations of paraquat on day 5. (b) Bar graph shows fold protection as a ratio of survival of mianserin-treated vs. water-treated GPCR mutant animals ((Mia/water)-1). *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001, n.s., not significant, t-test; Error bars: S.E.M. See Figure 4—figure supplement 1, and Tables 6 and 7 for detailed statistics.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.016

Figure 4.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1. This figure relates to Figure 4a in main text.

Figure 4—figure supplement 1.

(a) Survival of wt and two independent alleles of ser-5 mutants, ser-5(tm2647) or ser-5(tm2654), treated with water or mianserin on day 1, followed by increasing concentrations of paraquat on day 5 of adulthood. (b) Hierarchical clustering of fold change [serotonin antagonist/DMSO] in protection of wt (N2) and ser-5 mutant animals, when treated with DMSO or serotonin antagonists on day 1 followed by paraquat on day 5, shows the degree of similarity in protection between 8 structurally different serotonin antagonists (left) and the requirement of ser-5 for these antagonists to protect from oxidative stress. (c) Bar graphs quantifying transcriptional drift by qRT-PCR (log fold-changes in gene expression) in 5-day-old N2 and ser-3(ad1774) animals (left panel), and N2 and ser-4(ok512) animals (right panel) treated with mianserin, relative to water-treated N2, determined by qRT-PCR. Mianserin treatment of ser-3(ad1774) and ser-4(ok512) strains result in a drift pattern, similar to those seen in N2. Thus, these receptors are neither required for drift-attenuation in redox genes, nor for the age-associated increase in oxidative stress resistance (Figure 4). Error bars: S.E.M. For detailed statistics, see Tables 6 and 7.

Table 6.

Survival data for paraquat stress resistance assays.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.026

Strain Treatment Conc. [µM] PQ conc. [mM] Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 1)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 2)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 3)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 4)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 5)
Survival after PQ [%]
(expt. 6)
Mean,
Survival after PQ [%]
S.D.,
Survival after PQ [%]
P-value No. of wells Total no. of animals
N2 Water 0 0 89.9 98.9 95.8 98.2 93.9 93.2 95.0 3.4 48 548
Water 0 15 76.4 88 82 95.3 95.5 91.7 88.2 7.7 48 578
Water 0 25 74.2 91.3 80 92.9 85.1 80.4 84.0 7.2 48 531
Water 0 50 66.2 67.8 63.8 81.9 61.6 67.8 68.2 7.1 48 530
Water 0 75 50.1 61.1 44.1 64.6 42.4 51.8 52.4 8.9 48 545
Water 0 100 36.2 34.4 35.5 53.5 23 54.7 39.6 12.3 48 503
Mia 50 0 100 100 99.5 100 100 99.2 99.8 0.3 1.71E-02 48 556
Mia 50 15 100 98.2 87.6 100 98.8 100 97.4 4.9 3.52E-02 48 523
Mia 50 25 96.2 98.8 95 98.4 100 98.2 97.8 1.8 4.54E-03 48 529
Mia 50 50 95 95.9 94.5 95.3 99 98.2 96.3 1.8 1.19E-04 48 536
Mia 50 75 98.9 89.3 89.4 92.6 97.5 98.1 94.3 4.4 1.29E-05 48 516
Mia 50 100 97.6 90.8 90.7 69.8 93.9 95.6 89.7 10.1 1.95E-05 48 539
ser-1
(ok345)
Water 0 0 92 71.3 89.2 84.2 11.2 24 228
Water 0 15 73.3 57.9 81.8 71.0 12.1 24 187
Water 0 25 71.3 55.9 67.8 65.0 8.1 24 209
Water 0 50 54.8 46.4 42.6 47.9 6.2 24 213
Water 0 75 39.4 56.3 50.7 48.8 8.6 24 213
Water 0 100 24.2 27.3 46.6 32.7 12.1 24 224
Mia 50 0 100 100 100 100 0.0 0.13 24 215
Mia 50 15 98.8 97.7 97.6 98.0 0.7 0.06 24 211
Mia 50 25 97.9 94.2 98.4 96.8 2.3 1.51E-02 24 194
Mia 50 50 94.8 95.4 97 95.7 1.1 4.52E-03 24 224
Mia 50 75 93.9 89.9 92.4 92.1 2.0 9.87E-03 24 232
Mia 50 100 87.4 89.6 89.5 88.8 1.2 1.45E-02 24 234
ser-2
(pk1357)
Water 0 0 100 100 95.5 100 98.9 2.3 32 278
Water 0 15 88 97.5 73.7 92.2 87.9 10.2 32 239
Water 0 25 90.3 100 83 83.2 89.1 8.0 32 206
Water 0 50 76.7 87.2 73.7 62.7 75.1 10.1 32 254
Water 0 75 73.9 73.2 65.2 53 66.3 9.7 32 220
Water 0 100 72 59.6 54.4 47.7 58.4 10.3 32 220
Mia 50 0 98.9 100 100 100 99.7 0.6 0.51 32 231
Mia 50 15 100 100 100 100 100 0.0 0.10 32 255
Mia 50 25 98.9 100 98.9 96.9 98.7 1.3 0.10 32 228
Mia 50 50 100 100 95.5 96.9 98.1 2.3 1.71E-02 32 243
Mia 50 75 98.9 95 96.8 91.8 95.6 3.0 6.35E-03 32 245
Mia 50 100 97 88.7 92.3 95.4 93.4 3.7 3.80E-03 32 210
ser-3
(ad1774)
Water 0 0 100 100 92.6 97.5 4.3 24 176
Water 0 15 89 88.5 86.8 88.1 1.2 24 174
Water 0 25 90.5 85.4 85.2 87.0 3.0 24 216
Water 0 50 81.3 74 72.1 75.8 4.9 24 176
Water 0 75 70.8 48.6 58.9 59.4 11.1 24 169
Water 0 100 43.7 46.5 30.1 40.1 8.8 24 140
Mia 50 0 98.2 100 95.8 98.0 2.1 0.88 24 176
Mia 50 15 98.9 100 98.4 99.1 0.8 3.25E-04 24 228
Mia 50 25 93.8 100 90.2 94.7 5.0 0.10 24 173
Mia 50 50 98.1 100 93.8 97.3 3.2 4.97E-03 24 174
Mia 50 75 92.4 95 91.8 93.1 1.7 3.20E-02 24 197
Mia 50 100 93.4 65.6 82.8 80.6 14.0 1.92E-02 24 180
ser-4
(ok512)water
0 0 100 87.6 100 98.6 96.6 6.0 32 249
Water 0 15 100 72.6 91.3 84.4 87.1 11.6 32 262
Water 0 25 98.2 67.9 72.5 85.5 81.0 13.7 32 224
Water 0 50 88 67.1 83.3 63.5 75.5 12.0 32 229
Water 0 75 69 47.2 75.8 61.4 63.4 12.3 32 225
Water 0 100 56.3 48.3 60 43.2 52.0 7.6 32 204
Mia 50 0 100 95.9 100 100 99.0 2.1 0.49 32 212
Mia 50 15 96.9 97.2 97.5 97.7 97.3 0.4 0.21 32 228
Mia 50 25 97.5 100 91.7 95.5 96.2 3.5 0.11 32 230
Mia 50 50 93.8 96.8 96.4 95.3 95.6 1.3 4.31E-02 32 261
Mia 50 75 100 91.5 88.1 96.5 94.0 5.3 9.66E-03 32 227
Mia 50 100 96.9 86.5 90.3 89 90.7 4.4 3.75E-04 32 252
ser-5
(ok3087)
Water 0 0 98.8 92.2 99 96.7 3.9 24 206
Water 0 15 91.1 83.6 85.5 86.7 3.9 24 230
Water 0 25 86.2 71.6 88.2 82.0 9.1 24 222
Water 0 50 83.2 67.5 75.9 75.5 7.9 24 222
Water 0 75 68.4 64 77 69.8 6.6 24 216
Water 0 100 65.1 58.2 62.9 62.1 3.5 24 232
Mia 50 0 98.6 93.9 99.2 97.2 2.9 0.85 24 248
Mia 50 15 96.2 92.9 97.4 95.5 2.3 3.90E-02 24 221
Mia 50 25 95 78.4 90.9 88.1 8.6 0.45 24 184
Mia 50 50 89.5 77.4 82.9 83.3 6.1 0.25 24 219
Mia 50 75 73.2 55.7 72.5 67.1 9.9 0.72 24 213
Mia 50 100 64 54.6 79.4 66.0 12.5 0.65 24 200
ser-5
(tm2647)
Water 0 0 97.2 97.3 96.9 97.1 0.2 24 248
Water 0 15 88.8 91.2 87.3 89.1 2.0 24 230
Water 0 25 94.4 89.9 85.8 90.0 4.3 24 227
Water 0 50 79.5 84.6 81.7 81.9 2.6 24 228
Water 0 75 79.9 73.5 60.2 71.2 10.0 24 248
Water 0 100 51.6 59 44.1 51.6 7.5 24 224
Mia 50 0 96.7 99.2 94.3 96.7 2.5 0.80 24 233
Mia 50 15 96.7 88.4 95 93.4 4.4 0.23 24 246
Mia 50 25 97.2 88.5 92.4 92.7 4.4 0.49 24 187
Mia 50 50 83.7 87.8 85.4 85.6 2.1 0.13 24 234
Mia 50 75 69.7 77.3 73.5 73.5 3.8 0.74 24 203
Mia 50 100 46.4 75.1 70.3 63.9 15.4 0.30 24 196
ser-5
(tm2654)
Water 0 0 81.5 96.3 83.4 87.1 8.1 24 232
Water 0 15 68.8 86.6 75.9 77.1 9.0 24 223
Water 0 25 77.1 89.1 69.1 78.4 10.1 24 226
Water 0 50 55.2 79.8 78.4 71.1 13.8 24 254
Water 0 75 47.5 42.5 55.3 48.4 6.5 24 209
Water 0 100 41.2 36 45.8 41.0 4.9 24 215
Mia 50 0 83.7 96.3 90.4 90.1 6.3 0.63 24 232
Mia 50 15 73.7 70.3 82.6 75.5 6.4 0.82 24 232
Mia 50 25 66.9 73.7 88.2 76.3 10.9 0.81 24 184
Mia 50 50 54.5 68.8 54.6 59.3 8.2 0.29 24 200
Mia 50 75 34.9 41.9 66.5 47.8 16.6 0.95 24 227
Mia 50 100 18.2 30.6 40.7 29.8 11.3 0.22 24 187
ser-6
(tm2146)
Water 0 0 98.9 96.9 98.6 100 98.6 1.3 32 230
Water 0 15 95.1 89.6 96.5 93.7 3.6 32 260
Water 0 25 97.7 87.5 90.3 84.8 90.1 5.6 32 221
Water 0 50 95.3 97.5 84.8 78.1 88.9 9.1 32 256
Water 0 75 84.8 87.1 77 63.5 78.1 10.6 32 265
Water 0 100 82.4 78.1 77.9 53 72.9 13.4 32 253
Mia 50 0 100 93.3 100 96.9 97.6 3.2 0.57 32 278
Mia 50 15 98.8 96.4 92.4 95.9 3.2 0.49 32 230
Mia 50 25 97.9 97.5 96.4 91.3 95.8 3.0 0.14 32 190
Mia 50 50 100 100 88.6 92.5 95.3 5.7 0.29 32 252
Mia 50 75 92.2 100 88.5 88.9 92.4 5.3 0.07 32 242
Mia 50 100 95.6 91.3 93.4 95.7 94.0 2.1 4.92E-02 32 221
ser-7
(tm1325)
Water 0 0 68.1 73.3 94.5 78.6 14.0 24 200
Water 0 15 48.1 49.6 32.4 43.4 9.5 24 142
Water 0 25 45.7 42.9 30.9 39.8 7.9 24 152
Water 0 50 38 37.8 36.5 37.4 0.8 24 152
Water 0 75 16.4 20.2 41.8 26.1 13.7 24 160
Water 0 100 25.1 23.2 31.6 26.6 4.4 24 134
Mia 50 0 98.8 98.9 100 99.2 0.7 0.13 24 217
Mia 50 15 95.8 93.8 97.2 95.6 1.7 9.18E-03 24 212
Mia 50 25 100 93.4 97.4 96.9 3.3 2.25E-03 24 193
Mia 50 50 88.5 92 94.6 91.7 3.1 5.30E-04 24 179
Mia 50 75 91.3 92.4 89.4 91.0 1.5 1.37E-02 24 189
Mia 50 100 96.9 91.7 81.6 90.1 7.8 8.94E-04 24 186
tph-1
(mg280)
Water 0 0 97.2 96.1 98.2 97.2 1.1 24 148
Water 0 25 66.9 67.8 76 70.2 5.0 24 156
Water 0 50 52 47.1 56.9 52.0 4.9 24 164
Water 0 75 32.2 34.6 48 38.3 8.5 24 148
Water 0 100 12.2 6.7 42.3 20.4 19.2 24 169
Mia 50 0 94.3 100 96.9 97.1 2.9 0.96 24 161
Mia 50 25 90.4 58.7 78.6 75.9 16.0 0.61 24 159
Mia 50 50 64.8 61.7 69 65.2 3.7 2.33E-02 24 158
Mia 50 75 52.9 28.9 57.9 46.6 15.5 0.47 24 143
Mia 50 100 8.7 1.8 40.6 17.0 20.7 0.85 24 150

Summary of all stress resistance assays performed in Figure 4a. The treatments, water or mianserin (50 µM), with their indicated concentrations (conc.) were added on day 1 of adulthood. Paraquat (PQ) was added in the concentration range of 0 to 100 mM on day 5 and survival after PQ [%] was calculated 24 hr later. Mean and standard deviation (S.D.) of survival after PQ [%] were calculated from 3 to 6 independent experiments (expts.). P-values were calculated between water and mianserin-treatments at the same PQ conc., using t-test. The total number of wells and animals from which data were collected are indicated.

Table 7.

Summary of oxidative stress protection by serotonin antagonists.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.027

Strain name Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.1
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.2
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.3
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.4
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.5
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.6
Fold change in survival after PQ [(Drug/DMSO) -1]
Expt.7
Mean,
Fold change in survival after PQ
S.D.,
Fold change in survival after PQ
P-value
Dihydroergotamine 88 µM
N2 0.62 0.70 0.79 0.19 1.75 1.43 0.91 0.57
ser-5(ok3087) 0.45 0.15 0.10 0.23 0.19 3.49E-02
Metergoline 33 µM
N2 0.54 0.57 0.68 0.94 1.24 1.67 0.94 0.44
ser-5(ok3087) -0.05 -0.27 -0.11 -0.12 -0.13 0.09 1.50E-03
Amperozide 13 µM
N2 0.93 0.74 0.99 0.92 2.49 0.89 1.16 0.66
ser-5(ok3087) 0.30 0.03 -0.58 -0.09 0.45 1.63E-02
Methiothepin 10 µM
N2 0.80 1.08 0.95 0.36 0.77 2.94 1.39 1.19 0.89
ser-5(ok3087) 0.07 0.10 0.16 -0.01 0.08 0.08 1.24E-02
Ketanserin 176 µM
N2 0.63 0.59 1.13 1.38 0.42 1.71 0.98 0.51
ser-5(ok3087) -0.41 -0.14 0.01 -0.07 -0.15 0.18 1.91E-03
Mirtazapine 50 µM
N2 0.8 0.7 1.1 0.4 1.0 0.8 1.5 0.89 0.35
ser-5(ok3087) 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 -0.11 0.07 1.92E-04
LY-165,163 33/PAPP µM
N2 0.48 0.49 1.00 0.94 0.53 1.40 0.81 0.37
ser-5(ok3087) -0.03 0.35 -0.07 -0.16 0.02 0.23 3.19E-03
Mianserin 50 µM
N2 1.10 1.11 1.18 0.53 3.24 1.60 1.46 0.94
ser-5(ok3087) 0.14 -0.18 -0.26 -0.10 0.21 4.49E-02

Summary of all stress resistance assays performed in Figure 4—figure supplement 1b. The treatments, DMSO or serotonin antagonists, with their indicated concentrations (conc.) were added on day 1 of adulthood. Paraquat (PQ) (100 mM) was added on day 5 and survival after PQ [%] was calculated 24 hr later. Mean and standard deviation (S.D.) of survival after PQ [%] were calculated from 3 to 7 independent experiments (expts.). P-values were calculated between N2 and mutant strains for fold change values with indicated small molecule treatments using t-test.

We next asked whether SER-5 was also required for mianserin to preserve low transcriptional drift-variances in redox-related genes. We measured redox gene expression levels by qRT-PCR in wild-type 5-day-old N2 and ser-5(ok3087) animals that were treated with mianserin or water on day 1 (Figure 5a,b; Figure 1—figure supplement 1a). In N2 samples, mianserin increased the expression of stress response genes that drift down with age (sod-1, sod-2, prdx-2, -3, -6) and decreased the expression of stress response genes that drift up with age (sod-4, sod-5, all hsp-16s), an effect that was not observed in ser-5(ok3087) mutants. In contrast, SER-3 and SER-4, two receptors we previously showed to be required for lifespan extension by mianserin, were dispensable for stress protection (Figure 4a,b) (Petrascheck et al., 2007), as well as for the attenuation of drift-variance in redox-associated genes (Figure 4—figure supplement 1c). Thus, in wild-type animals, mianserin treatment preserved low drift-variances in redox-related genes into older age (day 5), in a ser-5 dependent manner (Figure 5a,b).

Figure 5. Mianserin attenuates drift-variance in peripheral tissues via SER-5.

(a) Bar graphs quantifying transcriptional drift (log fold-changes in gene expression) as measured by qRT-PCR in 5-day-old N2 and ser-5(ok3087) animals treated with mianserin, relative to water-treated N2. Mianserin treatment increases expression of genes drifting down with age and decreases expression of genes drifting up with age in N2, but not in ser-5(ok3087) mutants. (See 5b). *P<0.05, **P<0.01, ***P<0.001,t-test; Error bars: S.E.M. (b) Log fold-change in gene expression as a function of age for stress response genes shown in a. Blue arrows indicate how mianserin treatment corrects age-associated changes in gene expression toward an expression pattern as seen in young adults. (c) Bar graphs quantifying log fold-changes in gene expression in 1-day-old N2 and ser-5(ok3087) animals treated with paraquat, relative to water-treated N2 animals. N2 and ser-5(ok3087) show an identical response to paraquat. (d) Mianserin treatment on day 1 of adulthood enhances transcription of sod and hsp-16.x genes in response to an 8h paraquat treatment on day 5 in wt (N2) animals compared to water treated controls. In contrast, mianserin treatment of ser-5(ok3087) animals did not enhance transcription of sod and hsp-16.x genes. mRNA levels of genes were evaluated by qRT-PCR and plotted as fold induction (PQ/water) (Y-axis) for each gene. (e) Survival plot of mianserin-treated and untreated N2 and ser-5(ok3087) animals. ***P<0.001, *P<0.05, Mantel–Haenszel version of the log-rank test. f) Percent increase in lifespan as a function of mianserin concentration. Mutations in ser-5 or synaptic components rendered the animals partially or completely resistant to mianserin-induced lifespan extension. See Figure 5—figure supplement 1 for additional data, and Table 8 for detailed statistics.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.018

Figure 5.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1. This figure relates to Figure 5e in main text.

Figure 5—figure supplement 1.

(a) Kaplan-Meier graphs for lifespan of wt (dotted line) and synaptic mutant animals treated with water (black) or mianserin (blue). Synaptic transmission is required for mianserin-induced lifespan extension. For detailed statistics, see Table 8. (b) Kaplan-Meier graphs for lifespan of wt (dotted lines), ser-5(ok3087), (solid lines) treated with DMSO or serotonin antagonists namely: Dihydroergotamine, Metergoline, Amperozide, Methiothepin, Ketanserin, Mirtazapine, LY-165,163/PAPP or mianserin, on day 1 of adulthood. All 8 serotonergic antagonists completely or partially depend on ser-5.

Importantly, ser-5 mutants were specifically defective in their response to mianserin, but showed no defect in their response to oxidative stress. Young (day 1) wild-type N2 animals and ser-5(ok3087) mutants showed a nearly identical response to oxidative stress (Figure 5c). The age-specific effects of ser-5 could not be attributed to expression changes, as ser-5 expression remained constant from day 1 to day 10 in our RNA-seq experiment.

To test the hypothesis that mianserin preserved the homeostatic capacity of the redox system, as suggested by Figure 3e, we asked whether the treatment with mianserin on day 1 of adulthood led to an enhanced redox gene expression in response to the stressor paraquat in older animals (day 5). We therefore challenged older mianserin-treated or control animals (day 5) with paraquat for 8 hr and measured redox-gene expression by qRT-PCR (Figure 5d). Mianserin treatment led to an enhanced transcription of redox genes in response to paraquat as compared to age-matched control animals. The enhanced response was ser-5 dependent (Figure 5d). Thus, SER-5 is required for mianserin to attenuate age-associated increases in drift-variance in redox genes, and to preserve the homeostatic capacity of the redox system into older age.

Furthermore, lifespan-extension by mianserin was strongly reduced or abrogated in ser-5, snt-1 and unc-26 mutant animals (Figure 5e, f; Figure 5—figure supplement 1a; Table 8). Seven additional serotonergic antagonists/inverse agonists also extended lifespan in a manner that was partially or fully dependent on ser-5 (Figure 5—figure supplement 1b). Thus, these results show that inhibiting serotonergic signals via SER-5 extends lifespan, attenuates age-associated drift-variance in the redox system and preserves the homeostatic capacity of the redox system.

Table 8.

Summary of all lifespan data for mianserin.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.028

Cumulative statistics Statistics of individual expts.
Strain Small molecule No. of expts. Mean lifespan [days]
(+Mia/+water)
change in lifespan [%] S.E.M. No. of animals (+Mia/+water) Mean lifespan (days)
(+Mia/+water)
change in lifespan [%] P-value No. of animals (+Mia/+water)
N2 Mia 12 26.7/19.8 +35 ± 7 642/577 26.4/19.8 +34 1.67E-08 77/59
25.5/21.5 +19 6.85E-07 113/94
28.1/20.1 +40 3.71E-14 95/104
30.6/19.0 +64 3.17E-15 57/50
26.8/21.5 +25 1.87E-11 149/145
22.6/16.6 +27 1.61E-23 151/125
snt-1
(md290)
Mia 3 20.9/18.2 +15 ± 2 236/231 23.3/19.9 +17 1.84E-05 86/90
17.3/15.4 +12 1.18E-02 79/80
22.1/19.3 +15 2.4E-03 71/61
unc-26
(e205)
Mia 3 25.0/26.7 -7 ± 7 135/165 27.8/26.9 +3 0.53 54/68
22.2/26.5 -16 4.52E-02 14/24
26.5/25.3 +5 0.52 67/73
ser-5
(ok3087)
Mia 3 23.4/22.2 +5 ± 5 496/458 23.6/20.6 +15 4.19E-02 152/144
26.4/26.2 +1 0.85 174/144
20.1/19.8 -1 0.25 170/170

Summary of all lifespan experiments performed in Figure 5e,f and Figure 5—figure supplement 1a. N2 and mutant strains were treated with 50 µM mianserin (Mia) on day 1 and lifespan [days] was scored until 95% of animals were dead in all tested conditions. Cumulative statistics and statistics of individual experiments are shown. Mean lifespan [days], change in lifespan [%] and S.E.M. for mianserin-treated (+Mia) and water-treated (+water) animals from multiple, independent experiments (expts.) are shown. Change in lifespan [%] and P-values for individual experiments were calculated using the Mantel–Haenszel version of the log-rank test. Number of animals in individual experiments and all experiments combined are shown.

Mianserin prolongs lifespan by slowing age-associated change in young adults

We next asked whether drift-variance could be used as a metric to monitor age-associated change in young adults. Comparing drift-variances between mianserin-treated and untreated animals, we noticed that by day 10, mianserin-treated animals exhibited a drift-variance slightly lower than that of 3-day-old control animal (P=0.37). This suggested that mianserin-treated animals showed a ~7–8 day delay in age-associated transcriptional change compared to age-matched controls (Figure 2a).

Principle component analysis (PCA), a different statistical method to analyze differences between transcriptomes, confirmed this observation (Figure 6a). PCA showed that control samples aligned on the x-axis (dimension 1) according to age and that 10 day-old mianserin-treated animals aligned closer to 3-day-old than to 10-day-old control animals. These results suggested that the physiological shift that results in the 7–8 day lifespan extension observed in mianserin-treated animals at the end of a lifespan assay was already observable by day 10.

Figure 6. Mianserin extends lifespan by specifically slowing age-associated changes in early adulthood.

(a) PCA plot of RNA-seq data. Each circle represents one RNA-seq sample with the age, in days, indicated. Mianserin-treated day 10 samples show the same transcriptional age as untreated day 3 animals, dotted red line. (b) Mortality curves (moving average) constructed using Gompertz equation for lifespan experiments from 15 independent experiments of ~100 animals each treated with water or mianserin 50 µM (n>1500 total for each condition). Mianserin treatment causes a 7–8 day parallel shift in log mortality as compared to the water-treated animals. (c) Survival of wt animals treated with mianserin for 8 hr, 1 day, 5 days or throughout life was determined and compared to water treated control animals. Removing mianserin after 8 hr or 1 day lessens its effect on lifespan, while removing mianserin on day 5 or maintaining treatment throughout life showed a comparable effect. (d) Mean survival of wt animals treated with water or mianserin for 8 hr, 1 day, 5, 10, 15 days or throughout life was plotted as a function of mianserin exposure in days. Mianserin treatment for 5 to 10 days was required and sufficient for an optimal lifespan extension. (e) Distinct modes of lifespan extension: Proportional lifespan extension leads to a proportional extension across life whereas period-specific lifespan extension leads to a reduced rate of age-associated degeneration during a specific period only. Mianserin reduces the rate of age-associated changes in early adulthood, thereby postponing mortality levels by 7–8 days causing a ‘period-specific lifespan extension’. (f) Model for how mianserin modulates age-associated mortality in early adulthood. Blocking serotonergic signaling via SER-5 decreases transcriptional drift-variance with age in redox genes, leading to preserved homeostatic capacity in redox function, which subsequently delays age-associated mortality. (g) Mianserin does not affect reproductive longevity. Wt animals were treated with water or mianserin (50 µM) on day 1 followed by counting the number of viable eggs laid by them on day 1, day 2, day 3 and day 4. h) Chymotrypsin-like 26S proteasome activity measured from wt animals treated with water or mianserin (50 µM) on day 1 followed by proteasome activity assay on day 2 (upper panel) or day 5 (lower panel). Mianserin treatment does not lead to an increase in proteasome activity, unlike long lived germline-less animals. Error bars S.E.M. See Figure 6—figure supplement 1 for additional data and detailed statistics.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.020

Figure 6.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1. This figure relates to figure 6 in main text.

Figure 6—figure supplement 1.

(a) Mortality curves constructed using Gompertz equation for lifespan experiments of wt (N2) animals from 15 independent experiments of ~100 animals each treated with water or mianserin 50 µM (n>1500 total for each condition). The shift in log mortality as a function of time with mianserin treatment is parallel to the water-treated animals. See table below for aggregate data showing hazard/mortality for water and mianserin treatment. (b) Power of detection for 500, 1000 and 1500 animals in each cohort as used in Figure 6b (α=0.01). Monte-Carlo simulations based on a parametric model derived from our data were used to determine the power of detection. A lifespan extension of 1 day corresponds to a 5% increase in lifespan. (c) Drift-plots show changes in drift-variance in proteasome pathway (KEGG annotation: 03050) associated with 38 genes involved in proteasome activity in animals treated with water or mianserin (50 µM) on day 1 and harvested on day 3, 5 and 10. Attenuation patterns of drift-variance with mianserin treatment corresponds functionally to changes in proteasome activity on day 2 and day 5 (See panel a). Mianserin slightly increases transcriptional drift on day 5 and slightly reduces proteasome activity function. P-values compare variance, not mean, **P<0.01, Levene’s test. Error bars; drift-variance.

We therefore asked whether mianserin slowed age-associated physiological change specifically in early adulthood causing a 7–8 day delay by day 10. If so, mianserin would be expected to specifically lower the mortality rate in young but not in old adults. However, the number of age-associated death events in young adults is too low to directly determine changes in age-associated mortality rates before the age of day 10. As we are comparing mortality in animals either treated with water or mianserin that is added to the same population of worms on day 1 of adulthood, we can confidently state that mortality levels are identical between mianserin-treated and untreated adults at the start of the experiment. Any difference in mortality levels observed from day 1 onwards must therefore be the result of a change in mortality rate by mianserin.

Plotting a mortality curve for over 3,000 mianserin-treated or untreated animals showed a significantly lower mortality level for mianserin-treated animals by day 12 (Figure 6b, Figure 6—figure supplement 1a). Therefore, mianserin treatment decelerated the rise in mortality levels between day 1 and 12 of adulthood. From then on, the mortality curves were parallel showing a 7–8 day shift in mortality across the remaining lifespan. The parallel nature suggested that mianserin did not affect mortality rates past day 12 and that its effect on lifespan was restricted to the period of early adulthood (Figure 6b, Figure 6—figure supplement 1a) (Mair et al., 2003Vaupel, 2010). Power calculations confirmed that these mortality curves were sufficiently powered to detect a one day difference in lifespan in over 90% of the experiments (α=0.01) (Figure 6—figure supplement 1b) (Ye et al., 2014). These results further supported a model in which mianserin treatment specifically lowered age-associated change in early adulthood, causing a shift in physiology and mortality that can be observed in transcriptomes by day 10.

We reasoned that if the effect of mianserin on lifespan precedes the onset of mortality and is completed by day 10, mianserin treatment beyond day 10 should be dispensable. Alternatively, if mianserin still influenced mortality later in life, shorter exposures would lead to a shorter lifespan extension compared to a lifelong exposure. We therefore limited mianserin exposure to 8 hr, 1, 5, 10 and 15 days and compared their lifespan with animals treated for the entire life (Figure 6c,d). Exposing the animals for 5 or 10 days was sufficient to extend lifespan to the same extent as lifelong exposure (Figure 6c,d). Shorter exposures (8 hr, 1 day) also extended lifespan, but not by as much, showing that removing mianserin from the culture is an effective means to restrict its action (Figure 6c,d). Taken together, these results are most consistent with a model in which mianserin specifically lowers the rate of age-associated change during the first few days of adulthood, thereby extending their longevity (Figure 6e) and postponing the onset of mortality. While the change in age-associated mortality rate during early adulthood is too small to be accuratly determined, when we measured drift-variance, it allowed us to monitor the age-associated change in the transcriptome during early adulthood (Figure 6e,f).

Since the effect of mianserin in early adulthood overlapped with the reproductive period (first 5 days of adulthood), we asked whether mianserin treatment increased reproductive lifespan as has been observed in tph-1(mg280) mutants (Sze et al., 2000). Mianserin treatment blocks serotonin-induced egg-laying (Petrascheck et al., 2007), but had a minor effect on amount or timing of spontaneous egg-laying and brood size (Figure 6g). Most importantly, mianserin did not increase reproductive longevity (Figure 6g).

We further considered the possibility that mianserin acted by a mechanism similar to lifespan extension by germline ablation (Figure 6h). Two previous findings suggested otherwise: i) Lifespan extension by germline ablation depends on daf-16, while mianserin does not (Arantes-Oliveira et al., 2002Petrascheck et al., 2007); ii) germline ablation increases lifespan of eat-2(ad1116) mutants while mianserin does not (Crawford et al., 2007). We measured whether mianserin treatment mimicked the increased proteasome activity observed in glp-1 mutants (Vilchez et al., 2012) (Figure 6h). A 24 hr mianserin treatment did not increase the proteasome activity, as measured by a fluorescence-based assay for chymotrypsin-like activity. On day 5, mianserin slightly decreased proteasome activity, consistent with a slight increase in drift-variance in proteasome-related genes (Figure 6h; Figure 6—figure supplement 1c). We concluded that mianserin specifically lowers the rate of age-associated change in somatic tissues and does not involve a mechanism directly related to the germline.

Transcriptional drift-variance increases with age in mice and humans

Our data demonstrate that changes in drift-variance provide a metric for aging that correlates with mortality in C. elegans. To test whether drift-variance also increases with age in mammals, we re-analyzed published gene expression data-sets obtained from aging mouse tissues, aging human brains, and from fibroblasts derived from Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome patients (Figure 7) (Lu et al., 2004Liu et al., 2011Jonker et al., 2013). We calculated drift-variances from brain, kidney, liver, lung, and spleen based on gene expression data-sets from mice aged 13, 26, 52, 78, 104 and 130 weeks. We calculated drift-variances using 13-week-old mice as a young reference (see Methods) and pooled mice into age-bins of 30, 60 and 100 weeks to reduce variability. Drift-variance increased in all tissues with age (Figure 7a). Compared to the drift-variance changes observed in C. elegans (Figure 2a), these changes however were small.

Figure 7. Transcriptional drift-variance increases with age in various species.

Figure 7.

(a) Transcriptional drift-variance in gene expression from different mouse tissues aged 13 to 130 weeks. Drift-plots show an increase in drift-variance with age in mouse brain, kidney, liver, lung and spleen (b) Drift-variance plotted as a function of age for different organs. To obtain drift-variance values for young animals, a single transcriptome was set aside and used a reference. (c) Drift-plot for gene expression from 32 human brains (frontal cortex) plotted as a function of age in years. Data binned in 20-year increments. (d) Drift-variance plotted as a function of age in years for individuals. Each dot corresponds to one brain sample (frontal cortex). Shading indicates 95% confidence interval (ρ=0.603, P=0.0014). (e) Drift plots show a higher transcriptional drift-variance in BJ fibroblasts (BJ) and fibroblasts from Hutchinson Gilford progeria syndrome (HGPS), when compared to H9 embryonic stem cells. Reprogramming the BJ and HGPS cells to induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) leads to a partial reversal of the transcriptional drift-variance to a lower variance corresponding to the young phenotype of the iPSCs. See Figure 2—figure supplement 1 for additional information on transcriptional drift calculation, and Methods section for transcriptional drift calculation in each figure panel.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.022

Because the 13-week-old mice were used as reference for young age (see methods), the drift-variance in the 30-week-old group including the 13-week-old sample is artificially low (Figure 6a, see material and methods). To better reflect the actual variance of the 30-week-old group, we set aside the data of one 13-week-old mouse to use as a young reference and recalculated drift-variances for all samples (Figure 7b). This strategy has the advantage that we can observe the real drift-variance for the 30-week-old group by excluding the reference data-set, but has the disadvantage that the results are less robust as they all depend on a single reference sample. Plotting drift-variance for each organ as a function of age confirmed that as mice age, drift-variance increases in all organs (Figure 7b). It will be interesting to learn if the different rates by which drift-variance increases in different organs will also be observed in other data-sets.

We re-analyzed the data from Lu et al. that recorded gene expression profiles from 32 human brains aged 26 to 106 years of age (frontal cortex) (Figure 7c) (Lu et al., 2004). For the first plot, we binned the data into 20-year bins and calculated the overall drift-variance for each 20-year bin. As a young age reference, we used the mean gene expression of adults below 30 (26, 26, 27, and 29) (see Materials and methods). This analysis shows that over the entire population, drift-variance remains relatively stable until the age of sixty, and then starts to rise (Figure 6c). We also plotted the drift-variance of each individual as a function of age. This revealed a significant correlation (Spearman, rho=0.6, P=0.0014) between age and drift-variance in the human brain.

Irrespective of the age of the mother, the aging process starts afresh for each new generation. We therefore hypothesized that aging must be reversed with each new generation and asked whether it is possible to reverse increases in drift-variances. To address this question, we re-analyzed the data-set generated by Liu et al. who derived induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) from fibroblasts of healthy controls (BJ) and patients suffering from Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome (HPGS), an accelerated aging syndrome (Figure 7e) (Liu et al., 2011). As a young-reference to calculate drift-variance, we used human H9 embryonic stem cells (ESC). As expected for a premature aging syndrome, fibroblasts from HGPS patients showed increased drift-variance relative to BJ control fibroblasts (Figure 7e). Furthermore, nuclear reprogramming reduced drift-variance in iPSCs to levels closer to those seen in H9 embryonic stem cells. Thus, increases in drift-variance are reversed by nuclear reprogramming in vitro

Discussion

In this study, we have analyzed the dynamics of aging C. elegans transcriptomes and how these dynamics are affected by mianserin treatment. We separate transcriptional changes across groups into those that characterize activation or inhibition of entire pathways (type I) and those that characterize the relative expression levels among genes (type II, transcriptional drift, Figure 1h,i). In C. elegans, transcriptional drift continuously increases with age across the transcriptome, substantially altering stoichiometric balances observed in young animals (Figure 2a). Longevity mechanisms induced by either pharmacologically blocking serotonergic signaling or by blocking insulin signaling by daf-2 RNAi attenuate transcriptional drift (Figure 2a,g). Abolishing lifespan extension by these mechanisms by either blocking serotonergic signaling too late (mianserin, day 5) or by addition of daf-16 RNAi (daf-2) abolished the attenuation of drift-variance (Figure 2).

Detailed analysis of redox-related pathways showed that mianserin-reduced drift-variances are associated with improved stress resistance in older age (Figure 3). Mutations in the serotonin receptor SER-5 that abolish the effect of mianserin on drift-variance also abolished its effect on stress resistance and lifespan (Figure 4, 5).

Using transcriptome-wide drift-variance values as a metric for age showed that mianserin treatment attenuated the age-associated increase of drift-variance, thereby preserving the characteristics of a much younger (~3 days-old) transcriptome up to chronological day 10 (Figure 2a, 6a). These results showed that mianserin caused a 7–8 days delay in age-associated transcriptional change and suggested that the physiological changes leading to a lifespan extension were already completed by day 10.

Measuring mortality levels supported this conclusion. By day 12, the entire mortality curve was shifted parallel by 7–8 days (Figure 6b) showing that the physiological delay leading to a lifespan extension was already completed. Experiments in which animals were exposed to mianserin for limited periods of time confirmed that mianserin exposure for the first 5–10 days of adulthood was necessary and sufficient to fully extend lifespan (Figure 6c,d). The most parsimonious explanation that accounts for all these results is that mianserin treatment slows degenerative processes specifically between day 1 and 10, extending the duration of the period of young adulthood thereby postponing the onset of major mortality around mid-life (Figure 6e,f).

Biological interpretation of transcriptional drift-variance

Aging has been shown to cause DNA damage, degeneration of the nuclear architecture, loss of histones, loss of histone modification (Kaeberlein et al., 1999Scaffidi and Misteli, 2006Burgess et al., 2012). These changes contribute to the degenerative phenotypes observed with aging (Mostoslavsky et al., 2006Feser et al., 2010Peleg et al., 2010). In the present study, we used expression patterns of young adults as a reference to monitor the aging process across the transcriptome. We found that aging causes the expression of genes within functional groups to drift apart, causing a loss of co-expression patterns as observed in young adults. We quantified this phenomenon using drift-variance, defined as the variance in gene expression among genes. It is important to distinguish transcriptional noise, which measures the variance of the same genes among samples (Bahar et al., 2006), from transcriptional drift, which measures variance among genes within the same samples. At present it is unclear whether transcriptional drift is the consequence of a regulated program or of degenerative changes in the nucleus that lead to a loss of transcriptional control. Consistent with a regulated program are recent findings that the germline actively represses the activation of heat shock promoters via histone methylation, causing a decline in heat shock capacity (Labbadia and Morimoto, 2015b). Consistent with degenerative changes are recent findings that show the loss of histone methylation to cause aberrant gene expression that increases with age leading to a transcriptional drift-like effect (Somel et al., 2006Mercken et al., 2013Pu et al., 2015Sen et al., 2015).

Irrespective of whether transcriptional drift is the consequence of a regulated program or a degenerative change, its effect on pathway function is likely to be detrimental. Many physiological processes depend on appropriate stoichiometry of their components. Large and persistent deviations in mRNA balance as measured by drift-variance are likely to result in stoichiometric imbalances in protein complexes, negatively affecting proteostasis as has been recently observed (Houtkooper et al., 2013Walther et al., 2015). Our results modulating drift-variance for redox genes via mianserin and SER-5 certainly suggest that the age-associated increases in drift-variance are associated with regulatory decline (Figures 3, 5). Attenuation of transcriptional drift in the redox system was associated with an improved homoestatic capacity, i.e. an improved ability of the redox system to appropriately respond to outward stimuli.

Transcriptional drift also provided a useful concept to analyze aging transcriptomes. Accounting for its effects dramatically simplified what was an initially excessively complex expression pattern (Figure 1). Excluding gene expression changes due to drift left a set of genes that changed expression in response to mianserin treatment that was enriched for genes related to stress, innate immunity, aging and the xenobiotic response. With the exception of the xenobiotic response, which is expected to be triggered by addition of a foreign substance such as mianserin (Figure 2f), all other functions have been linked to serotonin signaling (Table 1) (Zahn et al., 2006Petrascheck et al., 2007Rangaraju et al., 2015a).

Further, in accordance with the hypothesis that increases in drift-variance are a signature of aging in the transcriptome, we find that drift-variance is attenuated by two longevity mechanisms (mianserin and daf-2 RNAi) across large sections of the transcriptome. Many of the age-associated changes that were reversed by mianserin were also reversed by daf-2 RNAi (58%). This overlap is consistent with chemical epistasis experiments. Treating daf-2(e1370) mutants with mianserin causes only a partial extension of lifespan (11% instead of 31%) (Petrascheck et al., 2007) consistent with the idea that many of the genes attenuated by mianserin treatment are already attenuated in daf-2(e1370) mutants and thus do not further contribute to a lifespan extension. It should be noted that age-associated increases in drift-variance do not contradict the idea that transcription factors regulate longevity. Activation of DAF-16 target genes by daf-2RNAi prevent age-associated drift of thousands of genes, thus resulting in a net decrease of drift, even though a transcriptional program has been induced (Figure 2g). Our experiment did not address the questions whether increasing drift-variance beyond what occurs naturally with age accelerates aging and whether attenuation of transcriptional drift-variance is universal to all longevity mechanisms.

At this point, it is prudent to mention possible pitfalls associated with transcriptional drift analysis. Drift-variance calculations require data-sets that include multiple ages (3 or more) as direct statistical comparisons to the young-reference are not permissible. Furthermore, in the context of GO annotations, it is important to realize that if a given GO annotation contains significant numbers of mis-annotated genes, these genes may change expression in a different direction giving the erroneous impression of transcriptional drift. To account for these effects in our study, we i) used the experimentally determined oxidative stress signature derived from Olivera et al (Figure 3e), and ii) used a robust Levene’s test to determine statistical differences. The robust Levene’s test uses a 10% trimmed mean, which removes large outliers such as those that would be expected by mis-annotation. These safeguards, however, are only effective if the number of mis-annotated genes is small relative to the total number of genes.

Conceptually, transcriptional drift is not a biomarker for aging. It is a metric for aging similar to lifespan measurements that can be used to monitor age-associated physiological changes on the molecular level within groups of genes. Lifespan measurements record the fraction of organisms alive in different cohorts at any given time to compare rates of aging, while drift-variance allows a similar comparison based on transcriptional drift-variance. What made drift-variance measures essential for the present study was that it allowed us to monitor age-associated physiological changes in young animals, at a time when age-associated mortality levels are too low to be accurately determined (see below).

Period-specific lifespan extension

Measuring lifespan of mianserin-treated and untreated C. elegans revealed a mean lifespan extension of 7–8 days (Figure 2). Lifespan measurements detect differences after the majority of the animals have died and make no statements about the period during which the relevant physiological events that lead to an increase in lifespan occur (Figure 2c,e) (Mair et al., 2003Partridge and Gems, 2007). The finding that transcriptional drift values in mianserin-treated animals already showed a 7–8 day delay in physiological change as early as day 10 suggested a model in which the physiological events responsible for the 7–8 days lifespan extension take place (and conclude) prior to day 10 (Figure 2a, 6a,e).

Determining mortality levels at different ages confirmed this model. Mianserin or water is added on day 1 of adulthood to the same preparation of N2 animals. The mortality levels of both cohorts (water, mianserin) are therefore identical at the start of the experiment. Thus, the lower mortality level observed on day 12 in mianserin-treated animals is the result of a lower mortality rate prior to day 12 (Figure 6b). Furthermore, mianserin ceases to affect mortality rates past day 12 as evident by highly parallel mortality curves (Figure 6b). As with the results obtained with drift measurements, the most plausible explanation is that mianserin treatment specifically decelerates the rise in mortality in young adults leading to a lower mortality level sometime between day 10 to day 12 that persists throughout life, ultimately revealing itself in a 7–8 day lifespan extension (~30–40% increase in lifespan) (Figure 6b).

Analysis of drift-variance, PCA, mortality and survivorship independently arrive at the same 7–8 days delay in physiology, either measured as a feature of transcriptomes or by recording death times. All methods suggest that the delay is completed before day 10 or 12 and therefore occurs during early adulthood. We further experimentally confirmed this suggestion by showing that treatment for the first five or ten days of life was necessary and sufficient to achieve the same lifespan extension observed with lifelong treatment (Figure 6c,d).

Even though this period exactly overlaps with the reproductive period, the effect of mianserin appears to be specific to somatic tissue (Figure 6g,h). In contrast to germline ablation, mianserin extends lifespan of daf-16 mutants but not of eat-2 mutants (Crawford et al., 2007Petrascheck et al., 2007Vilchez et al., 2012) and does not increase proteasome activity as observed in glp-1 mutants (Figure 6h). It is still possible that the mianserin-induced lifespan extension interacts or depends on the germline, but if it does, the connection is more indirect potentially similar to what has been observed for dietary restriction (Crawford et al., 2007).

Lifespan extension mechanisms that decelerate the rate of mortality are generally interpreted as slowing the aging process, while a parallel shift as the one we observe with mianserin is interpreted as a constant risk factor that causes a proportional shift in the overall risk of death (Mair et al., 2003Harrison et al., 2009Vaupel, 2010Kirkwood, 2015). Our data do not challenge any of these prior interpretations, but add a further possibility. Parallel shifts may also be brought about by a period extension in which the rate of age-associated physiological change is specifically lowered in young adults. Age-associated mortality in young adults is very low compared to extrinsic mortality factors and thus changes in age-associated mortality rates are difficult to reliably determine (Partridge and Gems, 2007Beltran-Sancheza et al., 2012). Specific changes in mortality rates during early adulthood therefore can go unnoticed but manifest themselves later as parallel shifts at the time when age-associated mortality levels are sufficiently high to be reliably determined. Whether the attenuation of physiological changes specific to young adults that affects later mortality, as seen for mianserin, is the equivalent of slowing aging in young adults is a debate for the general aging community.

In summary, this work describes the phenomenon of transcriptional drift and how it can be used as a metric for aging. Using this metric, we show that blocking serotonergic signals by mianserin delays age-associated physiological changes such as transcriptional drift and mortality exclusively during early adulthood, thus extending the duration of this period and postponing the onset of age-associated mortality.

Materials and methods

Measurement of transcriptional drift and drift-variance

Analyzing the RNA-seq data in aging C. elegans, we observed dramatic changes in the transcriptome with age. We simply termed these changes ‘transcriptional drift’, to emphasize the ambiguity of these changes. These changes could either be the result of regulated changes as part of a biological program, or caused by a progressive loss of transcriptional control with age. Note that a progressive loss of transcriptional control does not necessarily have to result in random changes. A gene that is continuously activated in young animals may be less activated in older animals due to a progressive functional decline in the transcriptional machinery. Thus, a gradual loss of transcriptional control would cause an age-associated decline in expression of that gene in a non-random fashion. Conversely, repressive chromatin is lost with age leading to increases in transcription that are repressed in young animals. As most physiological processes depend at least to some degree on transcriptional regulation, we propose that expression changes of genes within the same pathway that go into opposing directions (drift-variance increases) are detrimental for the functionality of the pathway (as seen for redox pathways in Figure 3b). These changes may also allow us to indirectly track the functional decline by measuring transcriptional drift.

Calculating transcriptional drift and drift-variance

Transcriptional drift (td) is the change in transcript level of a gene at a given age from its level in young animals (“young reference”). As all the subsequent calculations depend on the age chosen for “young reference” we made sure to indicate the age used as a “young reference” for each plot (see below). For all the C. elegans work, the “young reference” age was day 1, at the onset of reproductive maturity in adulthood.

For any gene x, transcriptional drift (td) is defined as (Equation 1).

tdgene x = ( No.of transcriptsage[t]No.of transcriptsyoung reference) (1)

or, which is the same as

tdgene x=(cpmage[t]cpmyoung reference) (2)

where, ‘cpm’ stands for counts per million; ‘t’ stands for time in days, weeks or years, dependent on the organism.

Equation 1 normalizes the level of transcription for all genes to 0 for a young animal. Note: If several biological replicates are available for the age of the young reference, a variance for the young age can be calculated (see the section below titled ‘Variance for “the young reference”’).

To evaluate changes in co-expression, we calculated the drift-variance (dv) (Equation 3) over a group of n genes with transcriptional drift-values ranging from tdi=1 to tdn.

drift variance=1n1i=1n(tditd¯)2 (3)

Thus, if genes maintain a youthful co-expression pattern, drift-variance stays relatively small. If large fractions of genes within a GO or an entire transcriptome change expression in opposing directions, the drift-variance increases, suggesting a loss of youthful co-expression patterns as shown in Figure 1h,i.

Variance for the “young reference”

If multiple replicate data-sets for the “young reference” age are available, it is possible to plot drift-variance for the young reference as well. There are two ways to incorporate multiple “young reference” data-sets, each of which has its advantages or disadvantages.

Method #1 uses all “young reference” samples to calculate a mean gene expression level for each individual gene to generate the “young reference” values for Equation 1. Method #1 will result in a drift-variance for the “young reference” age as well, but this drift-variance is too small and should not be used for statistical comparisons due to circular referencing. The advantage of method #1 is that the results for all subsequent ages are more robust as the inclusion of several “young reference” samples thereby reducing the overall noise (used in Figures 2a,g, 3b, 7a,c,e).

Method #2 allows calculating a real drift-variance value for young animals by setting aside one or several samples as the “young reference.” These samples are only used as references and therefore do not contribute to the drift-variance in each plot. For the remaining experimental replicates of the same age, transcriptional drift is then calculated using Equation 1 without including any of the “young reference” samples.” This will result in a drift-variance greater than 0 for the youngest age and show how much drift varies between young animals. Method #2 has the disadvantage that if there are only few young reference samples are available, and only one is used as a young reference, all values of the graph depend on a single reference sample. We used this method #2 to calculate the variances for Figure 7b,d. The case of 7d was ideal as there were 4 samples less than 30 years of age which were set aside as reference and that allowed us to calculate the “young reference”-mean over all 4 samples. As drift-variances for these 4 samples are artificially low due to self referencing they were excluded from the plot. Ideally, an experiment would have 4–6 gene expression replicates for the “young reference” age, in which case, half of them could be used as references, the others as experimental samples.

How transcriptional drift and variance relate to measures like fold-changes in transcription is shown in Supplementary Figure 2a–d. To determine whether the differences in variance were statistically different, we used the Brown-Forsythe version of the Levene’s test, as implemented in STATA software.

Calculations for drift-plots in Figures

Figure: 1g: Volcano plot used mean cpm values from all three biological replicates.

The 0 line (young reference, day 1 expression, yellow line) indicates the expected expression level for young day 1 adult animals.

Black: Each dot represents one of for the 3,367 genes that significantly change expression with age between day 1 and day 3. The -log10(P-value) of the P-value comparing day3 water vs day 1 water is shown as a function of the the log2(cmp day 3 water / cpm day1 water).

Blue: Same 3,367 genes as above. However the -log10(P-value) comparing day3 mianserin vs day 1wateris shown as a function of the the log2(cmps day 3 mianserin / cpm day1 water). Note: both data-sets (black and blue) use identical y- coordinates to demonstrate the reduction in age-associated changes upon mianserin-treatment. (cpm stands for: counts per million).

Young Reference: To obtain a ‘young reference’ value for each individual gene the mean expression level across all three biological replicates of young day 1 old water-treated C. elegans animals was calculated.

Figure 1h, i: Drift plots for genes involved in oxidative phosphorylation (KEGG pathway: cel 00190) and the lysosome (KEGG pathway: cel 04142). Only one out of three replicates was used to generate these plots. Transcriptional drift for oxidative phosphorylation and lysosomal genes (line graphs) was calculated using Equation 1 and plotted as a function of C. elegans age (gray lines). At each age, the transcriptional drift-variance across all genes within the pathway was calculated using Equation 2 and plotted as Tukey-style box plots omitting outliers. Tukey plots were superimposed over the line graphs. See Equation 1, 3. Outliers were only omitted for graphical purposes but not for statistical testing (robust Levene’s test). The lines for each gene were included in these two plots, superimposed on the Tukey-style box plot to illustrate the significance and utility of the box plots in visualizing transcriptional drift.

Young reference: As a “young reference” value for each individual gene, the expression level of young day 1 old water-treated C. elegans animals was used. Only replicate #1 of our data-set was used.

Figure 2a: Drift plots for all 19,196 genes in our data-set of water-treated control and mianserin-treated animals. Tukey plots show drift-variance calculated for the entire transcriptome (Equation 3). See Equation 1, 3. Outliers were only omitted for graphical purposes, but not for statistical testing (robust Levene’s test).

Young reference: To obtain a “young reference” value for each individual gene, the mean expression level across all three biological replicates of young day 1 old water-treated C. elegans animals was calculated.

Figure 2b: Drift plots show transcriptional drift on day 5 for 19,196 genes as a function of mianserin concentration. For each concentration, drift-variances were calculated for 5-day-old animals that were treated with increasing concentrations of mianserin on day 1, and plotted as Tukey-style box plots as a function of mianserin concentrations, excluding outliers. Outliers were only removed for graphical purposes but not for statistical testing (robust Levene’s test).

Young reference: To obtain a “young reference” value for each individual gene, the mean expression level across all three biological replicates of young day 1 old water-treated C. elegans animals was calculated.

Figure 2d: Drift plots show transcriptional drift on day 10 of adulthood for 19,196 genes as a function of age when mianserin-treatment was started. Tukey plots show drift-variance calculated for the entire transcriptome on day 10 (Equation 3) as a function of age at which mianserin-treatment was initiated.

Young reference: To obtain a “young reference” value for each individual gene, the mean expression levels across all three biological replicates of young day 1 old water-treated C. elegans animals was calculated.

Figure 2f: Log2 fold changes in expression for each gene shown in the y-axis were calculated by the formula: y = log2(cpm treatment day 10/cpm water day 1).

Figure 2g:The data from Murphy et al. were dowloaded from the Princeton Puma database. Expression values were calculated using the following variables in the data-set: expression value = ch1netmean/ch2normalizednetmean. Drift plots for control- RNAi, daf-2(RNAi) treated and daf-16(RNAi); daf-2(RNAi) treated animals were plotted as transcriptional drift-variance as a function of C. elegans age. To plot drift-variance for the entire transcriptome as function of age in days, we binned the data as follows. Day 0 (8 hr), day 1 (24 hr), day 2 (28 hr, 40 hr, 52 hr), day 4 (72 hr, 96 hr), day 6 (144 hr, 196 hr).

Young reference: As a “young reference” value for each individual gene we used the expression level at 8 hr of age. The young reference was determined for each RNAi treatement specifically (control RNAi, daf-16(RNAi); daf-2(RNAi), daf-2(RNAi).

Figure 3e: The log fold gene expression with age was calculated for each of the 252 genes that are known to be upregulated in response to oxidative stress and for each of the 88 genes known to be downregulated in response to oxidative stress. We then performed a linear fit for each set of genes for water-treated (gray) and mianserin-treated (blue) samples. Shaded region shows the 95% confidence interval.

Figure 7a, b: 7a) Drift plots showing transcriptional drift and drift-variance in different tissues across different mouse ages. For each age, the drift-variance was calculated across the entire transcriptome (Equation 3) and plotted as Tukey-style box plots omitting outliers. As only three mice were available for each age, we pooled two ages for each age bin.

7b) Drift-variance for each tissue as a function of age.

Young Reference: 7a: To obtain a “young reference” value for each individual gene, the mean expression level across all three biological replicates of young 13-week-old mice was calculated for each tissue.

Young Reference 7b: To obtain “young reference” values for each individual gene, we used one single 13-week-old replicate as a “young reference” from each tissue. The data from the “young reference” did not contribute to the graph and thus show a real transcriptional drift-variance.

Figure 7c, d: 7c). Drift plots showing transcriptional drift-variance in human gene expression data from frontal cortices as a function of age. For 7c, the data were pooled into 20 year bins.

7d) Plots drift-variance calculated based on Equation 3 as a function of age for each sample individually.

Young Reference:To obtain “young reference” values for each individual gene, the mean gene expression levels was calculated averaging expression levels from 4 samples aged 25 to 29 years and used as the “young reference” value in Equation 1.

Figure 2—figure supplement 1: e) The transcriptional drift plots were constructed by using the GEO data-sets GSE21784 and GSE46051, which are independent publicly available data-sets for aging C. elegans.

f) The transcriptional drift plots were constructed by sub-sampling the data from our RNA-seq. We randomly assigned half of all genes (out of 19,196) to one of 10 gene-sets each containing ~1000 genes (5%) and plotted the drift-variance for each set. All 10 sets look nearly indistinguishable to Figure 2a.

Figure 2—figure supplement 2: f) The drift plot was constructed by removing all the genes from our data-set that were not detected in the sterile CF512 strain, thereby removing genes likely resulting from eggs and germline.

g) The drift plot was constructed by removing all genes from our data-set that were detected by RNA-seq in isolated C. elegans eggs.

k) Gene-sets enriched in AFD neurons (left plot), ASE neurons (middle plot) and NSM neurons (right plot) were used to construct drift plots based on their expression in our data-set.

Principle component analysis

Principal components analysis plot (Figure 6a) was generated from the counts table using multidimensional scaling as implemented by the plotMDS function in the edgeR package, which computes inter-sample distances as the root-mean-square of the 500 genes with the largest log2 fold-changes between each pair of sample (the 'leading log fold-change").

Chemicals

Solvents used to prepare stock solutions: Paraquat was dissolved in water; mianserin was dissolved either in water or DMSO as mentioned; Mirtazapine, Dihydroergotamine, LY-165,163/PAPP, Mirtazapine, Metergoline, Ketanserin, Methiothepin, and Amperozide were dissolved in DMSO; FUDR was dissolved in S-complete (Table 9).

Table 9.

List of small molecules and chemicals used in this study with information

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.029

Molecule name CAS number Catalog number Manufacturer
Mianserin HCl 21535-47-7 0997 Tocris
Mirtazapine 85650-52-8 M3368 LKT Laboratories
Dihydroergotamine mesylate 6190-39-2 0475 Tocris/R&D systems
LY-165,163/PAPP 1814-64-8 S009 Sigma
Mirtazapine 61337-67-5 M3368 LKT labs
Metergoline 17692-51-2 M3668 Sigma
Ketanserin tartarate 83846-83-7 S006 Sigma
Methiothepin mesylate 74611-28-2 M149 Sigma
Amperozide HCl 86725-37-3 2746 Tocris/R&D systems
Paraquat
(Methyl viologen)
1910-42-5 AC227320010 Acros Organics
FUDR 50-91-9 F0503 Sigma-Aldrich
DMSO 67-68-5 472301 Sigma-Aldrich

Strains

Detailed descriptions of all strains used in this study are tabulated below. All strains were backcrossed at least 4 times with the N2 Bristol strain. All strains were maintained as described in (Brenner, 1974). The strains with name starting with VV were generated by outcrossing to N2 Bristol strain in our lab (Table 10).

Table 10.

List of mutant and fluorescent strains outcrossed and used in this study.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.030

Strain name Genotype No.of times outcrossed Gene name Transgene Allele Parent strain(s)
VV78 unc-26 (e205) IV 4 unc-26 e205 CB205
VV80 snt-1 (md290) II 4 snt-1 md290 NM204
MT15434 tph-1 (mg280) II 4 tph-1 mg280 MT15434
DA1814 ser-1 (ok345) X 10 ser-1 ok345 DA1814
OH313 ser-2 (pk1357) X 4 ser-2 pk1357 OH313
DA1774 ser-3 (ad1774) I 3 ser-3 ad1774 DA1774
AQ866 ser-4 (ok512) III 5 ser-4 ok512 AQ866
VV130 ser-5(ok3087) I 4 ser-5 ok3087 RB2277
FX2647 ser-5 (tm2647) I 0 ser-5 tm2647 FX2647
FX2654 ser-5 (tm2654) I 0 ser-5 tm2654 FX2654
FX2146 ser-6 (tm2146) IV 0 ser-6 tm2146 FX2146
DA2100 ser-7 (tm1325) X 10 ser-7 tm1325 DA2100

Lifespan assay and analysis

Lifespan assays were conducted in 96-well plates as described in (Solis and Petrascheck, 2011Rangaraju et al., 2015b). Briefly, age-synchronized animals were cultured in S-complete media containing E. coli OP50 as feeding bacteria (~2 × 109 bacteria mL−1) in 96-well plates, such that 5–15 worms are in each well. At the L4 stage, FUDR was added to prevent animals from producing offspring. Solvent (water or DMSO) or small molecules were added on day 1 of adulthood, exposing the worms to control or compound treatment until the end of the assay. When used, DMSO was kept to a final concentration of 0.33% v/v. Live animals were scored visually, based on movement induced by shaking and application of light to each well. Animals were scored three times a week, until 95% of animals were dead in all the tested conditions. Statistical analysis was performed using the Mantel–Haenszel version of the log-rank test.

Stress resistance assays

Resistance to oxidative stress was determined by measuring survival of mianserin-treated and untreated worms after a 24 hr exposure to the ROS-generator paraquat (Methyl viologen). Experimental worm cultures were set up as described in Lifespan assays. For dose response assays, paraquat was added to a final concentration of 0, 25, 50, 75, 100 mM on day 5 of adulthood. For paraquat time-course experiment (Figure 3c), paraquat was added 3 days, 5 days, or 10 days after addition of mianserin on day 1 of adulthood. For mianserin time-course experiment (Figure 3d), 50 µM mianserin was added on day 1, day 3 or 5 of adulthood, followed by 100 mM paraquat on day 10. For all experiments, survival of worms was assessed 24 hr after paraquat addition and expressed as the percentage of live versus total animals.

RNA-sequencing (RNA-seq) transcriptional studies and data analysis

Mianserin-induced changes in transcription were determined by RNA-seq. A total of 12 conditions were tested each run in three biological replicates. N2 worms were cultured in 96-well plates as described in (Solis and Petrascheck, 2011). Animals in cohort #1 were treated on day 1 with water (solvent) or 50 µM mianserin, and harvested on day 3, 5, and 10 of adulthood. Animals in cohort #2 were treated with water (solvent control) or mianserin (2, 10, or 50 µM) on day 1 of adulthood and harvested on day 5. Animals in cohort #3 were treated with water (solvent) or 50 µM mianserin on day 1, day 3 and day 5 and harvested on day 10 (See Figure 1a). RNA was also harvested from untreated day 1 adults, to obtain the “young reference”. Harvested animals were washed three times in ice cold Dulbecco’s phosphate buffer saline and frozen in liquid nitrogen. A parallel lifespan assay was conducted for all cohorts to ensure mianserin action. Three biological replicates were harvested for every cohort. To extract RNA, frozen worms were re-suspended in ice-cold Trizol, zirconium beads, and glass beads (cat # 03961-1-103 and cat # 03961-1-104) in the ratio of 5:1:1 respectively, and disrupted in Precellys lysing system (6500 rpm, 3 x 10 s cycles) followed by chloroform extraction. For RNA-seq, the extracted RNA was precipitated and purified further using Qiagen RNAeasy Mini kit columns (cat # 74104). RNA was precipitated using isopropanol and washed once with 75% ethanol. Integrity of the RNA was confirmed with a Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). To prepare the library, 100 ng of total RNA per sample was processed using NuGEN Encore Complete DR RNA-seq Prep Kit (NuGEN; San Carlos; CA, USA), as per manufacturer’s instructions. The libraries were sequenced using v2 sequencing chemistry in a HiSeq2000 platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA). A single-read sequencing approach was used with 100 cycles, resulting in reads with a length of 100 nucleotides each. Libraries containing their own index sequences were sequenced in a multiplex manner by pooling six libraries per lane. Resulting sequences were obtained after 20–30 million reads per sample. Sequence data were extracted in FASTQ format and used for data analysis.

RNA-seq data analysis

RNA-seq data were analyzed by aligning the reads to the C. elegans reference genome and transcriptome from WormBase using Tophat 2 (Kim et al., 2013), and unambiguously mapped reads were counted for each annotated gene in each sample (Lawrence et al., 2013). Data were normalized for sequencing depths (counts per million, cpm) but not for gene length as no comparisons between genes within the same sample were made. The quasi-likelihood F-test from the edgeR package (Robinson and Oshlack, 2010Lund et al., 2012) was used to test these counts for statistically significant differential gene expression between water- and mianserin-treated samples, while controlling for expression differences between the 3 biological replicates. We performed multiple testing correction by using the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure to compute a false discovery rate (FDR) value for each gene, and we considered an FDR less than 10% to be significant (Benjamini and Hochberg, 1995Zhang et al., 2009).

Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and data analysis

All qRT-PCR experiments were conducted according to the MIQE guidelines (Bustin et al., 2009), except that samples were not tested in a bio-analyzer, but photometrically quantified using a Nanodrop. All strains were cultured in 96-well plates as described in (Solis and Petrascheck, 2011). Water (solvent) or mianserin were added on day 1 of adulthood and worms were harvested on day 5. RNA was extracted as described above, followed by DNAse (Sigma, cat # AMPD1-1KT) treatment and reverse transcription using iScript RT-Supermix (BIO-RAD, cat # 170–8841) at 42ºC for 30 min. Quantitative PCR reactions were set up in 384-well plates (BIO-RAD, cat # HSP3901), which included 2.5 µl Bio-Rad SsoAdvanced SYBR Green Supermix (cat # 172–5264) or Kapa SYBR Fast master mix (cat # KK4602), 1 µl cDNA template (2.5 ng/µl, to final of 0.5 ng/µl in 5 µl PCR reaction), 1 µl water, and 0.5 µl of forward and reverse primers (150 nM final concentration for BIO-RAD SYBR mix and 75 nM final for Kapa SYBR mix) (see Table below for oligo pairs used for qRT-PCR of genes tested). Quantitative PCR was carried out using a BIO-RAD CFX384 Real-Time thermocycler (95ºC, 3 min; 40 cycles of 95ºC 10 s, 60ºC 30 s; Melting curve: 95ºC 5 s, 60ºC- 95ºC at 0.5ºC increment, 10 s). Gene expression was normalized to three reference genes, rcq-5, crn-3 and rpl-6, using the BIO-RAD CFX Manager software. Statistical significance was determined using Student’s t-test (Table 11).

Table 11.

List of oligos used for qRT-PCR

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.031

Gene name qRT-PCR forward primer (5’-3’) qRT-PCR reverse primer (5’-3’)
sod-1 CGTAGGCGATCTAGGAAATGTG AACAACCATAGATCGGCCAACG
sod-2 TTCAACCGATCACAGGAGTC GCTCCAAATCAGCATAGTCG
sod-3 ATGGACACTATTAAGCGCGA GCCTTGAACCGCAATAGTG
sod-4 ATGTGGAACTATCGGAATTGTG GGTTGAGATTGTGTAACTGGA
sod-5 ATGGAGACTCAACCGATGG GACCACGGAATCTCTTCCT
ctl-1 AATGGATACGGAGCGCATAC AACCTTGAGCAGGCTTGAAA
ctl-2 TGATTACCCACTGATCGAGG GCGGATTGTTCAACCTCAG
ctl-3 CAATCTAACGGTCAACGACAC CATTGGATGTGGTGAGCAG
prdx-2 CATTCCAGTTCTCGCTGAC ATGATGAAGAGTCCACGGA
prdx-3 GTTCCGTTCTCTTGGAGCTG CTTGTTGAAATCAGCGAGCA
prdx-6 GGAGAACAATGGCTGATGC ATCTGAACATGGCGTTTGC
hsp-16.1 ACCACTATTTCCGTCCAGCT TGACGTTCCATCTGAGCCAT
hsp-16.11 ACCACTATTTCCGTCCAGCT TGACGTTCCATCTGAGCCAT
hsp-16.2 TCGATTGAAGCGCCAAAGAA TCTCTTCGACGATTGCCTGT
hsp-16.41 TCTTGGACGAACTCACTGGA TCTTGGACGAACTCACTGGA
hsp-16.48 CTCATGCTCCGTTCTCCATT GAGTTGTGATCAGCATTTCTCCA
hsp-16.49 CTCATGCTCCGTTCTCCATT GAGTTGTGATCAGCATTTCTCCA
crn-3 GAATGCACTCATGAACAAAGTC TAATGTTCGACTGATGAACCG
rcq-5 GATGTTAGAGCTGTAATTCACTGG ATCTCTTCCAGCTCTTCCG
rpl-6 TTCACCAAGGACACTAGCG GACAGTCTTGGAATGTCCGA

Measurement of 26S proteasome activity

Wild-type N2 worms were cultured as described (Solis and Petrascheck, 2011). Water or Mianserin 50 µM were added on day 1 and 26S proteasome activity was assayed on day 2 and day 5 using the Millipore Proteasome activity kit (cat# APT280), following manufacturer’s protocol. Equal number of worms per condition were washed off culture media using ice cold Dulbecco’s phosphate buffer saline and freshly lysed using Precellys system (6500 rpm, 3 x 10 s cycles) in assay buffer (25 mM HEPES, pH 7.5, 0.5mM EDTA, 0.05% NP-40, and 0.001% SDS (w/v)). Chymotrypsin-like proteasome activity in the lysates were assessed using the Suc-LLVY-AMC substrate and fluorogenic AMC substrate cleavage was measured in 20 min intervals for 120 min. A subset of lysates were pre-incubated with Lactacystin (12.5 µM final) to ensure specificity of AMC cleavage by 26S proteasome. The amount of cleaved AMC fragments were quantified using TECAN xfluor safire II system at excitation of 360 nm and emission of 480 nm. The resulting readings were normalized to the total protein content in the samples measured using Bradford assay.

Mortality curve and probability of detection

Mortality curves were generated based on the life table provided in Figure 6—figure supplement 1, tabulating death times of 15 independent experiments performed over 5 years. Each experiment consisted of 2 cohorts (water or 50 µM mianserin) and each cohort consisted of ~100 worms each amounting to ~1500 worms per condition. Power of detection was determined by Monte-Carlo simulations using a parametric model with parameters derived from our survival data of a cohort of over 5,026 N2 animals. The power of detection plot (Figure 6—figure supplement 1) shows the probability to detect a true lifespan extension with a significance level α=0.01 as a function of percent increase in lifespan for an experiment consisting of n animals. An accuracy of 1 day is the equivalent of a 5% increase in lifespan.

Acknowledgements

This work was funded by grants to MP, from the NIH (DP2 OD008398), a grant from The Ellison Medical foundation (AG-NS-0928-12), an MDA Development Grant for SR, and an NSF GRFP Fellowship for GMS. SEE is supported by The Ellison Medical Foundation (AG-NS-0950-1), and by a Baxter Foundation Young Faculty Award. Some strains were provided by Shigen-Japan or the CGC, which is funded by NIH Office of Research Infrastructure Programs (P40 OD010440). We thank Jim Priess (U. Washington), and Bruce Bowerman (U. Oregon) for advice, and Dr. Veena Prahlad, Dr. Eros Lazzerini Denchi, Dr. Maria Carretero, Dr. Bruno Conti, Dr. Andrew Chisholm and Caroline Broaddus for critical reading of the manuscript.

Funding Statement

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Funding Information

This paper was supported by the following grants:

  • NIH Office of the Director New Innovator Award to Michael Petrascheck.

  • Ellison Medical Foundation New Scholar in Aging Award to Michael Petrascheck.

  • Muscular Dystrophy Association Development Grant/ Postdoctoral Fellowship to Sunitha Rangaraju.

Additional information

Competing interests

The author declares that no competing interests exist.

Author contributions

SR, conceived, designed and planned the studies; outcrossed the mutant strains, and performed the RNA-seq experiments and lifespan experiments; performed RNA work and qRT-PCR; performed the stress resistance assays; performed data; interpreted the results, prepared the figures and tables, and wrote the paper analyses; Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

GMS, performed RNA work and qRT-PCR;performed the stress resistance assays, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

RCT, performed data analyses; Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

RLG-A, performed the stress resistance assays; performed data analyses; Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

LK, contributed intellectually to the study; Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

SEE, performed and analyzed FUDR embryo imaging experiments; Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

ABN, conceived, designed and planned the studies; Conception and design, Drafting or revising the article, Contributed unpublished essential data or reagents.

DRS, conceived, designed and planned the studies; Conception and design, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

MP, conceived, designed and planned the studies;performed data analyses; interpreted the results, prepared the figures and tables, and wrote the paper, Conception and design, Acquisition of data, Analysis and interpretation of data, Drafting or revising the article.

Additional files

Major datasets

The following datasets were generated:

Michael Petrascheck, Ryan C Thompson,2016,Suppression of Transcriptional Drift Extends C. elegans Lifespan by Postponing the Onset of Mortality,http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE63528,Publicly available at the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (Accession no: GSE63528).

References

  1. Alavez S, Vantipalli MC, Zucker DJS, Klang IM, Lithgow GJ. Amyloid-binding compounds maintain protein homeostasis during ageing and extend lifespan. Nature. 2011;472:226–229. doi: 10.1038/nature09873. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Arantes-Oliveira N. Regulation of life-span by germ-line stem cells in caenorhabditis elegans. Science. 2002;295:502–505. doi: 10.1126/science.1065768. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Ashburner M, Ball CA, Blake JA, Botstein D, Butler H, Cherry JM, Davis AP, Dolinski K, Dwight SS, Eppig JT, Harris MA, Hill DP, Issel-Tarver L, Kasarskis A, Lewis S, Matese JC, Richardson JE, Ringwald M, Rubin GM, Sherlock G. Gene ontology: tool for the unification of biology. Nature Genetics. 2000;25:25–29. doi: 10.1038/75556. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Bahar R, Hartmann CH, Rodriguez KA, Denny AD, Busuttil RA, Dollé MET, Calder RB, Chisholm GB, Pollock BH, Klein CA, Vijg J. Increased cell-to-cell variation in gene expression in ageing mouse heart. Nature. 2006;441:1011–1014. doi: 10.1038/nature04844. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Balch WE, Morimoto RI, Dillin A, Kelly JW. Adapting proteostasis for disease intervention. Science. 2008;319:916–919. doi: 10.1126/science.1141448. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bansal A, Zhu LJ, Yen K, Tissenbaum HA. Uncoupling lifespan and healthspan in caenorhabditis elegans longevity mutants. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015;112:E277–E286. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1412192112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartke A. Early life events can shape aging and longevity. Current Aging Science. 2015;8:11–13. doi: 10.2174/1874609808666150422123355. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Beltrán-Sánchez H, Crimmins EM, Finch CE. Early cohort mortality predicts the rate of aging in the cohort: a historical analysis. Journal of Developmental Origins of Health and Disease. 2012;3:380–386. doi: 10.1017/S2040174412000281. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate - a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B-Methodological. 1995;57:289–300. [Google Scholar]
  10. Bishop NA, Lu T, Yankner BA. Neural mechanisms of ageing and cognitive decline. Nature. 2010;464:529–535. doi: 10.1038/nature08983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brenner S. The genetics of caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 1974;77:71–94. doi: 10.1093/genetics/77.1.71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Budovskaya YV, Wu K, Southworth LK, Jiang M, Tedesco P, Johnson TE, Kim SK. An elt-3/elt-5/elt-6 GATA transcription circuit guides aging in c. elegans. Cell. 2008;134:291–303. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.044. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Burgess RC, Misteli T, Oberdoerffer P. DNA damage, chromatin, and transcription: the trinity of aging. Current Opinion in Cell Biology. 2012;24:724–730. doi: 10.1016/j.ceb.2012.07.005. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Burkewitz K, Morantte I, Weir HJM, Yeo R, Zhang Y, Huynh FK, Ilkayeva OR, Hirschey MD, Grant AR, Mair WB. Neuronal CRTC-1 governs systemic mitochondrial metabolism and lifespan via a catecholamine signal. Cell. 2015;160:842–855. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.02.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Bustin SA, Benes V, Garson JA, Hellemans J, Huggett J, Kubista M, Mueller R, Nolan T, Pfaffl MW, Shipley GL, Vandesompele J, Wittwer CT. The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clinical Chemistry. 2009;55:611–622. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2008.112797. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Chin RM, Fu X, Pai MY, Vergnes L, Hwang H, Deng G, Diep S, Lomenick B, Meli VS, Monsalve GC, Hu E, Whelan SA, Wang JX, Jung G, Solis GM, Fazlollahi F, Kaweeteerawat C, Quach A, Nili M, Krall AS, Godwin HA, Chang HR, Faull KF, Guo F, Jiang M, Trauger SA, Saghatelian A, Braas D, Christofk HR, Clarke CF, Teitell MA, Petrascheck M, Reue K, Jung ME, Frand AR, Huang J. The metabolite alpha-ketoglutarate extends lifespan by inhibiting ATP synthase and TOR. Nature. 2014;510:397–401. doi: 10.1038/nature13264. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Crawford D, Libina N, Kenyon C. Caenorhabditis elegans integrates food and reproductive signals in lifespan determination. Aging Cell. 2007;6:715–721. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2007.00327.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Currais A. Ageing and inflammation – a central role for mitochondria in brain health and disease. Ageing Research Reviews. 2015;21:30–42. doi: 10.1016/j.arr.2015.02.001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Curran SP, Ruvkun G. Lifespan regulation by evolutionarily conserved genes essential for viability. PLoS Genetics. 2007;3:e56. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0030056. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. David DC, Ollikainen N, Trinidad JC, Cary MP, Burlingame AL, Kenyon C, Ahringer J. Widespread protein aggregation as an inherent part of aging in c. elegans. PLoS Biology. 2010;8:e1000450. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1000450. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. de Magalhaes JP, Curado J, Church GM. Meta-analysis of age-related gene expression profiles identifies common signatures of aging. Bioinformatics. 2009;25:875–881. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btp073. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Etchberger JF, Lorch A, Sleumer MC, Zapf R, Jones SJ, Marra MA, Holt RA, Moerman DG, Hobert O. The molecular signature and cis-regulatory architecture of a c. elegans gustatory neuron. Genes & Development. 2007;21:1653–1674. doi: 10.1101/gad.1560107. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Evason K, Collins JJ, Huang C, Hughes S, Kornfeld K. Valproic acid extends caenorhabditis elegans lifespan. Aging Cell. 2008;7:305–317. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2008.00375.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Feser J, Truong D, Das C, Carson JJ, Kieft J, Harkness T, Tyler JK. Elevated histone expression promotes life span extension. Molecular Cell. 2010;39:724–735. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2010.08.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Fushan AA, Turanov AA, Lee S-G, Kim EB, Lobanov AV, Yim SH, Buffenstein R, Lee S-R, Chang K-T, Rhee H, Kim J-S, Yang K-S, Gladyshev VN. Gene expression defines natural changes in mammalian lifespan. Aging Cell. 2015;14:352–365. doi: 10.1111/acel.12283. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Garsin DA. Long-lived c. elegans daf-2 mutants are resistant to bacterial pathogens. Science. 2003;300:1921. doi: 10.1126/science.1080147. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Gillman PK. A systematic review of the serotonergic effects of mirtazapine in humans: implications for its dual action status. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental. 2006;21:117–125. doi: 10.1002/hup.750. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Gladyshev VN. The origin of aging: imperfectness-driven non-random damage defines the aging process and control of lifespan. Trends in Genetics. 2013;29:506–512. doi: 10.1016/j.tig.2013.05.004. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Gomez-Amaro RL, Valentine ER, Carretero M, LeBoeuf SE, Rangaraju S, Broaddus CD, Solis GM, Williamson JR, Petrascheck M. Measuring food intake and nutrient absorption in caenorhabditis elegans. Genetics. 2015;200:443–454. doi: 10.1534/genetics.115.175851. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Greer EL, Maures TJ, Ucar D, Hauswirth AG, Mancini E, Lim JP, Benayoun BA, Shi Y, Brunet A. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance of longevity in caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 2011;479:365–371. doi: 10.1038/nature10572. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Haigis KM, Sweet-Cordero A. New insights into oncogenic stress. Nature Genetics. 2011;43:177–178. doi: 10.1038/ng0311-177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Harrison DE, Strong R, Sharp ZD, Nelson JF, Astle CM, Flurkey K, Nadon NL, Wilkinson JE, Frenkel K, Carter CS, Pahor M, Javors MA, Fernandez E, Miller RA. Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice. Nature. 2009;460:392–395. doi: 10.1038/nature08221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Horvath S, Garagnani P, Bacalini MG, Pirazzini C, Salvioli S, Gentilini D, Di Blasio AM, Giuliani C, Tung S, Vinters HV, Franceschi C. Accelerated epigenetic aging in down syndrome. Aging Cell. 2015;14:491–495. doi: 10.1111/acel.12325. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Houtkooper RH, Mouchiroud L, Ryu D, Moullan N, Katsyuba E, Knott G, Williams RW, Auwerx J. Mitonuclear protein imbalance as a conserved longevity mechanism. Nature. 2013;497:451–457. doi: 10.1038/nature12188. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Huang C, Xiong C, Kornfeld K. Measurements of age-related changes of physiological processes that predict lifespan of caenorhabditis elegans. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004;101:8084–8089. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0400848101. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Johnson T. Increased life-span of age-1 mutants in caenorhabditis elegans and lower gompertz rate of aging. Science. 1990;249:908–912. doi: 10.1126/science.2392681. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Jonker MJ, Melis JPM, Kuiper RV, van der Hoeven TV, Wackers PFK, Robinson J, van der Horst GTJ, Dollé MET, Vijg J, Breit TM, Hoeijmakers JHJ, van Steeg H. Life spanning murine gene expression profiles in relation to chronological and pathological aging in multiple organs. Aging Cell. 2013;12:901–909. doi: 10.1111/acel.12118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kaeberlein M, McVey M, Guarente L. The SIR2/3/4 complex and SIR2 alone promote longevity in saccharomyces cerevisiae by two different mechanisms. Genes & Development. 1999;13:2570–2580. doi: 10.1101/gad.13.19.2570. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Kenyon C, Chang J, Gensch E, Rudner A, Tabtiang R. A c. elegans mutant that lives twice as long as wild type. Nature. 1993;366:461–464. doi: 10.1038/366461a0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Kim D, Pertea G, Trapnell C, Pimentel H, Kelley R, Salzberg SL. TopHat2: accurate alignment of transcriptomes in the presence of insertions, deletions and gene fusions. Genome Biology. 2013;14:R36. doi: 10.1186/gb-2013-14-4-r36. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Kirkwood TBL. Deciphering death: a commentary on gompertz (1825) 'on the nature of the function expressive of the law of human mortality, and on a new mode of determining the value of life contingencies'. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2015;370:20140379. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2014.0379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Krzywinski M, Altman N. Points of significance: visualizing samples with box plots. Nature Methods. 2014;11:119–120. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2813. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Kumsta C, Thamsen M, Jakob U. Effects of oxidative stress on behavior, physiology, and the redox thiol proteome of caenorhabditis elegans. Antioxidants & Redox Signaling. 2011;14:1023–1037. doi: 10.1089/ars.2010.3203. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Labbadia J, Morimoto RI. The biology of proteostasis in aging and disease. Annual Review of Biochemistry. 2015a;84:435–464. doi: 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060614-033955. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Labbadia J, Morimoto RI. Repression of the heat shock response is a programmed event at the onset of reproduction. Molecular Cell. 2015b;59:639–650. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2015.06.027. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Lawrence M, Huber W, Pagès H, Aboyoun P, Carlson M, Gentleman R, Morgan MT, Carey VJ, Prlic A. Software for computing and annotating genomic ranges. PLoS Computational Biology. 2013;9:e1003118. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003118. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Liu G-H, Barkho BZ, Ruiz S, Diep D, Qu J, Yang S-L, Panopoulos AD, Suzuki K, Kurian L, Walsh C, Thompson J, Boue S, Fung HL, Sancho-Martinez I, Zhang K, III JY, Belmonte JCI, 3rd Recapitulation of premature ageing with iPSCs from hutchinson–gilford progeria syndrome. Nature. 2011;472:221–225. doi: 10.1038/nature09879. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Lu T, Pan Y, Kao S-Y, Li C, Kohane I, Chan J, Yankner BA. Gene regulation and DNA damage in the ageing human brain. Nature. 2004;429:883–891. doi: 10.1038/nature02661. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Lund SP, Nettleton D, McCarthy DJ, Smyth GK. Detecting differential expression in RNA-sequence data using quasi-likelihood with shrunken dispersion estimates. Statistical Applications in Genetics and Molecular Biology. 2012;11 doi: 10.1515/1544-6115.1826. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Mair W. Demography of dietary restriction and death in drosophila. Science. 2003;301:1731–1733. doi: 10.1126/science.1086016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Maures TJ, Greer EL, Hauswirth AG, Brunet A. The H3K27 demethylase UTX-1 regulates c. elegans lifespan in a germline-independent, insulin-dependent manner. Aging Cell. 2011;10:980–990. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00738.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Mercken EM, Crosby SD, Lamming DW, JeBailey L, Krzysik-Walker S, Villareal DT, Capri M, Franceschi C, Zhang Y, Becker K, Sabatini DM, de Cabo R, Fontana L. Calorie restriction in humans inhibits the PI3K/AKT pathway and induces a younger transcription profile. Aging Cell. 2013;12:645–651. doi: 10.1111/acel.12088. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mi H. The PANTHER database of protein families, subfamilies, functions and pathways. Nucleic Acids Research. 2004;33:D284–D288. doi: 10.1093/nar/gki078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Mostoslavsky R, Chua KF, Lombard DB, Pang WW, Fischer MR, Gellon L, Liu P, Mostoslavsky G, Franco S, Murphy MM, Mills KD, Patel P, Hsu JT, Hong AL, Ford E, Cheng H-L, Kennedy C, Nunez N, Bronson R, Frendewey D, Auerbach W, Valenzuela D, Karow M, Hottiger MO, Hursting S, Barrett JC, Guarente L, Mulligan R, Demple B, Yancopoulos GD, Alt FW. Genomic instability and aging-like phenotype in the absence of mammalian SIRT6. Cell. 2006;124:315–329. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2005.11.044. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Murphy CT, McCarroll SA, Bargmann CI, Fraser A, Kamath RS, Ahringer J, Li H, Kenyon C. Genes that act downstream of DAF-16 to influence the lifespan of caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 2003;424:277–283. doi: 10.1038/nature01789. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Oliveira RP, Abate JP, Dilks K, Landis J, Ashraf J, Murphy CT, Blackwell TK. Condition-adapted stress and longevity gene regulation by caenorhabditis elegans SKN-1/Nrf. Aging Cell. 2009;8:524–541. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2009.00501.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Onken B, Driscoll M, Hart AC. Metformin induces a dietary restriction–like state and the oxidative stress response to extend c. elegans healthspan via AMPK, LKB1, and SKN-1. PLoS ONE. 2010;5:e8758. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0008758. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Osborne Nishimura E, Zhang JC, Werts AD, Goldstein B, Lieb JD, Mango SE. Asymmetric transcript discovery by RNA-seq in c. elegans blastomeres identifies neg-1, a gene important for anterior morphogenesis. PLOS Genetics. 2015;11:e1005117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1005117. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Partridge L, Gems D. Benchmarks for ageing studies. Nature. 2007;450:165–167. doi: 10.1038/450165a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Peleg S, Sananbenesi F, Zovoilis A, Burkhardt S, Bahari-Javan S, Agis-Balboa RC, Cota P, Wittnam JL, Gogol-Doering A, Opitz L, Salinas-Riester G, Dettenhofer M, Kang H, Farinelli L, Chen W, Fischer A. Altered histone acetylation is associated with age-dependent memory impairment in mice. Science. 2010;328:753–756. doi: 10.1126/science.1186088. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Petrascheck M, Ye X, Buck LB. An antidepressant that extends lifespan in adult caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 2007;450:553–556. doi: 10.1038/nature05991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Pincus Z, Smith-Vikos T, Slack FJ, Kim SK. MicroRNA predictors of longevity in caenorhabditis elegans. PLoS Genetics. 2011;7:e1002306. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1002306. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Pu M, Ni Z, Wang M, Wang X, Wood JG, Helfand SL, Yu H, Lee SS. Trimethylation of Lys36 on H3 restricts gene expression change during aging and impacts life span. Genes & Development. 2015;29:718–731. doi: 10.1101/gad.254144.114. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Rahman MM, Sykiotis GP, Nishimura M, Bodmer R, Bohmann D. Declining signal dependence of Nrf2-MafS-regulated gene expression correlates with aging phenotypes. Aging Cell. 2013;12:554–562. doi: 10.1111/acel.12078. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Rangaraju S, Solis GM, Andersson SI, Gomez-Amaro RL, Kardakaris R, Broaddus CD, Niculescu AB, Petrascheck M. Atypical antidepressants extend lifespan of Caenorhabditis elegans by activation of a non-cell-autonomous stress response. Aging Cell. 2015a;14:971–981. doi: 10.1111/acel.12379. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Rangaraju S, Solis GM, Petrascheck M. High-throughput small-molecule screening in caenorhabditis elegans. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2015b;1263:139–155. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2269-7_11. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Robinson MD, Oshlack A. A scaling normalization method for differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data. Genome Biology. 2010;11:R25. doi: 10.1186/gb-2010-11-3-r25. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Scaffidi P. Lamin a-dependent nuclear defects in human aging. Science. 2006;312:1059–1063. doi: 10.1126/science.1127168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Sen P, Dang W, Donahue G, Dai J, Dorsey J, Cao X, Liu W, Cao K, Perry R, Lee JY, Wasko BM, Carr DT, He C, Robison B, Wagner J, Gregory BD, Kaeberlein M, Kennedy BK, Boeke JD, Berger SL. H3K36 methylation promotes longevity by enhancing transcriptional fidelity. Genes & Development. 2015;29:1362–1376. doi: 10.1101/gad.263707.115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Solis GM, Petrascheck M. Measuring caenorhabditis elegans life span in 96 well microtiter plates. Journal of Visualized Experiments. 2011 doi: 10.3791/2496. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Somel M, Khaitovich P, Bahn S, Pääbo S, Lachmann M. Gene expression becomes heterogeneous with age. Current Biology. 2006;16:R359–R360. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.04.024. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Southworth LK, Owen AB, Kim SK, Copenhaver GP. Aging mice show a decreasing correlation of gene expression within genetic modules. PLoS Genetics. 2009;5:e1000776. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1000776. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Spencer WC, McWhirter R, Miller T, Strasbourger P, Thompson O, Hillier LW, Waterston RH, Miller DM, Dupuy D, 3rd Isolation of specific neurons from c. elegans larvae for gene expression profiling. PLoS ONE. 2014;9:e112102. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0112102. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Sulston JE, Schierenberg E, White JG, Thomson JN. The embryonic cell lineage of the nematode caenorhabditis elegans. Developmental Biology. 1983;100:64–119. doi: 10.1016/0012-1606(83)90201-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Sze JY, Victor M, Loer C, Shi Y, Ruvkun G. Food and metabolic signalling defects in a caenorhabditis elegans serotonin-synthesis mutant. Nature. 2000;403:560–564. doi: 10.1038/35000609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Tatum MC, Ooi FK, Chikka MR, Chauve L, Martinez-Velazquez LA, Steinbusch HWM, Morimoto RI, Prahlad V. Neuronal serotonin release triggers the heat shock response in c. elegans in the absence of temperature increase. Current Biology. 2015;25:163–174. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2014.11.040. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Taylor RC, Dillin A. Aging as an event of proteostasis collapse. Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology. 2011;3:a004440. doi: 10.1101/cshperspect.a004440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Taylor RC, Berendzen KM, Dillin A. Systemic stress signalling: understanding the cell non-autonomous control of proteostasis. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2014;15:211–217. doi: 10.1038/nrm3752. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Vaupel JW. Biodemography of human ageing. Nature. 2010;464:536–542. doi: 10.1038/nature08984. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Vilchez D, Morantte I, Liu Z, Douglas PM, Merkwirth C, Rodrigues APC, Manning G, Dillin A. RPN-6 determines c. elegans longevity under proteotoxic stress conditions. Nature. 2012;489:263–268. doi: 10.1038/nature11315. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Walther DM, Kasturi P, Zheng M, Pinkert S, Vecchi G, Ciryam P, Morimoto RI, Dobson CM, Vendruscolo M, Mann M, Hartl FU. Widespread proteome remodeling and aggregation in aging c. elegans. Cell. 2015;161:919–932. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.03.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Ye X, Linton JM, Schork NJ, Buck LB, Petrascheck M. A pharmacological network for lifespan extension in caenorhabditis elegans. Aging Cell. 2014;13:206–215. doi: 10.1111/acel.12163. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Zahn JM, Sonu R, Vogel H, Crane E, Mazan-Mamczarz K, Rabkin R, Davis RW, Becker KG, Owen AB, Kim SK. Transcriptional profiling of aging in human muscle reveals a common aging signature. PLoS Genetics. 2006;2:e115. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.0020115. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Zhang Y, Lu H, Bargmann CI. Pathogenic bacteria induce aversive olfactory learning in caenorhabditis elegans. Nature. 2005;438:179–184. doi: 10.1038/nature04216. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Zhang Y, Shao Z, Zhai Z, Shen C, Powell-Coffman JA, Hart AC. The HIF-1 hypoxia-inducible factor modulates lifespan in c. elegans. PLoS One. 2009;4:e6348. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006348. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
eLife. 2015 Dec 1;4:e08833. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08833.034

Decision letter

Editor: K VijayRaghavan1

In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.

Thank you for submitting your work entitled "Suppression of Transcriptional Drift Extends Lifespan by Prolonging C. elegans Youth" for peer review at eLife. Your submission has been favorably evaluated by K VijayRaghavan (Senior editor, who also served as Reviewing editor) and three reviewers.

The reviewers have discussed the reviews with one another and the Reviewing editor has drafted this decision to help you prepare a revised submission. If the requirements specified in the comments below can be addressed within the next two months, we will be happy to consider a substantially revised version of this manuscript. However, given the concerns raised by the reviewers, you may wish to consider another venue for the publication of this work. If you are unable to comply with the recommendations of the reviewers, please let us know if you wish to withdraw the work from further consideration.

Summary:

In this manuscript the authors present a framework in which age-specific transcriptional variance is examined as a biomarker of aging that is susceptible to modulation through serotonergic signaling. The authors interpret the effects of the drug mianserin, which inhibits serotonergic signaling and extending lifespan, as a manipulation that prolongs a putative youthful state. They assert that such data provide the first evidence that lifespan extension can be achieved by prolonging a specific period of life. Overall, we appreciate the approach and the questions that have been asked here, particularly that this way of viewing aging gets out of the rut of thinking that specific single genes in are key to aging.

While the ideas in the manuscript are thoughtful and creative, there are several major considerations that, in our opinion, severely limit the impact of the manuscript and call into question the authors' main conclusions. In our view, these need to be clearly and satisfactorily addressed. A manuscript with these major revisions will be re-examined by the reviewers and editor.

Essential revisions:

1) The paper would be improved considerably if the speculations were toned down, and the data were allowed to speak for themselves. Most importantly, the ideas and hypotheses presented in the manuscript are not tested in a rigorous manner. The authors use predominantly descriptive data to support their own interpretation of the biology without asking whether they are also consistent with alternative interpretations. For example, the authors claim that if their measure of drift variance increases with age it is a sign of loss of homeostasis and of an increase in aging-related loss of transcriptional control. However, because the authors are examining among-gene variance (more on that below), this observation is also consistent with a model in which gene expression changes with age in a strongly regulated manner. Some genes may increase/decrease expression with age to promote reproduction, for example, or to modulate adult-specific behaviors. Even if such gene expression was regulated with 100% precision (i.e., reproducibly identical among individuals) then the variance in expression among genes will increase with age. Slowing the aging process (i.e., reducing the slope of that increase) would also reduce the rate of increase in drift-variance. This would occur without any specific youthful phase and completely in the absence of any sort of aging-related loss of transcriptional control. In other words, a model that is conceptually the opposite of the one proposed by the authors is consistent with many aspects of their observed data. There is no attempt or framework to distinguish this (and other) alternative hypotheses. For example, models of homeostasis can be separated from models of defined, aging-related changes by also examining variance within genes.

2) Consideration of alternative models is also lacking from other aspects of the manuscript. For example, the authors interpret the data in Figures 3C and 3D as implying that mianserin early in life is the key aspect of the manipulation that leads to enhanced stress resistance. While this interpretation is consistent with the observations, so is a more parsimonious one; that increased time on mianserin increases stress resistance regardless of the age at which it is given. (See also other concerns, below, on mianserin experiments).

3) Many studies in different species have described versions of the concept that parameters associated with fidelity of gene expression decline with age. These include evidence concerning proteostasis and stress response "collapse", as well as transcriptional changes, noise, and epigenetic alterations associated with age. Many of these changes occur during early adulthood in the worm. These findings are cited to an extent, but not comprehensively and not in a way that fully develops this idea. This is important because it is not clear whether transcriptional drift truly represents something new, or yet another parameter reflecting this regulatory decline. That doesn't mean the marker isn't useful, but it needs to be put into a more appropriate context in order to judge its significance.

4) The claim is that drift variance is a biomarker of aging, i.e., a measure that more accurately predicts "physiological age" or future lifespan better than chronological age. However, a population measure is used, which confounds several influences. True biomarkers of aging must be defined at the level of the individual, and they are ideally based on rates of change across ages (repeated measures) and are validated by establishing that they predict remaining lifespan better than chronological time itself. Even if we accept this as a biomarker, the human data are confusing, where transcriptional drift variance doesn't appear to exhibit significant differences across test subjects until the age of 60 (Figure 6C). Does this imply that humans are in their youthful state until 60? These data appear to undermine the notion that this measure is an evolutionary conserved bio-marker of aging.

5) We do not understand the assertion that there exists a qualitatively distinct, youthful phase. If we accept drift variance as a biomarker of aging, all of the data appear to change relatively continuously throughout the measurement period. It is formally possible that if the authors' normalize gene expression to L2 data that age 1 day adults would have lots of "drift." In other words, the work is lacking specific criteria upon which to define this hypothetical new youth stage. The lack of a clear definition for "youth" leads to confusion and ambiguity. For example, the authors state: "Simply put, by chronological age of day 10, mianserin treated animals had yet to progress transcriptionally beyond the physiological age of day 3 [based on data in Figure 2]." However, they do not point out that mianserin treated individuals on day 10 have higher variance than they do on day 2 (even though they do have similar levels of variance seen in younger control populations), which implies that they have "gotten worse" over time. If we accept that they putatively remain in a youthful stage, then we must accept that they were hyper-youthful early on and that youth was subject to the same process of change in drift variance as aging. So how is this different from aging itself?

6) Furthermore, additional insight into the youthful state could have been provided by including data beyond age 10 days. At 10 days old, more than 95% of the worms are still alive. Have authors measured what is the transcriptional drift at 50% of the survival? Or 90% of the survival? Does transcriptional drift increase linearly, or does it plateau at a high level later in life, as the authors seem to suggest. If transcriptional drift mostly happens in early life, can this be reliably used as a biomarker of aging?

7) Importantly, it seems like a stretch to conclude that mianserin specifically slows aging during youth, at least based upon the evidence here. As noted above, many parameters degenerate during early adulthood, but aging biomarkers become manifest later. Isn't it more likely that drift and other markers of gene expression changes reflect an early degeneration in control that will play out in its biological effects later, rather than a specific marker of "aging" in the young? To address this idea definitively, we would need to know whether other interventions have the same effect on transcriptional drift, or act on downstream or different parameters. Is mianserin unique, or is protecting the animal from this regulatory decline the most effective way to delay aging, and one that is seen in most contexts of long life?

8) The worm is different in many ways biologically at day 1 compared to later days. Reproduction ceases day 4-6, and body size increases during adulthood. How might these affect "drift", or vice-versa? Does mianserin affect these parameters? How can claims be made about effects on aging early in life without considering this biology? It is either disingenuous or naïve to describe young adulthood in terms of a period of aging while ignoring the biological events that are occurring, particularly the cessation of reproduction.

Some additional important points:

9) What are the genes and GO terms that are changed between mianserin and untreated animals? Is this transcriptional signature like daf-2, or like CR treatment? This would be good to know and discuss before using transcriptional drift analysis, which looks at the rate of those changes, since later some of these targets (?) are discussed in the redox potential experiments. This information would also help us understand what the underlying mechanisms of mianserin's delay of aging are. And how many of these expression differences are attributed to eggs rather than soma?

10) Most of these experiments in worms, with the exception of the published data on daf-2 and daf-16 RNAi (which use worms without sperm), use animals that are still fertile. Since that is the case, how can the authors know which transcripts are due to changes in the soma, which presumably are the ones they are interested in because of aging, or due to changes in the eggs? It seems that the authors could do some comparisons with the control worms from the sterile animals to address this point; otherwise, one set of experiments that uses mianserin-treated sterile animals would be expected.

11) While the SER-5 data are clear, we did not fully understand why other receptors would not be needed for stress protection which they are still needed for the lifespan effect.

12) Does daf-16 suppress mianserin effects or act in parallel?

Conclusion and Reiterations:

At the cost of being repetitive we summarise our consultations on the major points of 'drift' and 'youth'.

13) Drift

If drift indeed is a marker of something useful, this needs to be stated very clearly for all the concerns given above. The idea of "drift" seems to be another manifestation of regulatory/homeostatic collapse, a phenomenon already described in various other ways". We do not see direct evidence that transcriptional "noise" indeed arises from dysregulation and that it is a general phenomenon across the genome. Even in a case that "drift" represents loss of homeostasis or failure of transcriptional regulation rather than "programmed" expression pattern, we still have reservations in using the transcriptional drift as a bio-marker of aging. As stated above, conceptually, a bio-marker should have a predictive power of an individual and it is not clear how a metric that "describes" variance in a population can be considered a good way to predict an individual's physiological age. We are concerned that the idea of drift as elaborated in the manuscript has the potential to really muddy the waters when it comes to an already confusing body of literature that examines gene dysregulation with aging. At the very least, a discussion of this matter should be expanded to include a broader survey of the existing literature and a more rigorous analysis of the data that includes consideration of alternative models. (For example, are there longevity mutants that do not suppress drift and instead use a different mechanism?)

14) Youth (and Mianserin)

In our view to the idea of an effect on "youth" is not established, given the concerns we have stated above, and particularly given the coincidence with reproductive cessation. In addition to the eggs, reproduction itself is probably the most influential program that would change gene expression in young adults. Changes in developing eggs would account for a huge fraction of the transcriptional changes in the "aging" worms that have nothing to do with aging. The mianserin experiments were done with WT worms (and even FUdR would not change this point), so the authors need to seriously address this concern. That would be distinct from drift. If reproduction were somehow accounted for, we might be more willing to approach the authors' interpretation of the variance data. Even if reproduction is addressed, the notion of a specific effect on youth is still tenuous unless the authors show that an intervention that can affect aging late in life can affect "drift" at that point. So, the 'youth as a developmental stage' idea is not tenable, and this aspect is best left out, unless the issue of reproduction is addressed.

eLife. 2015 Dec 1;4:e08833. doi: 10.7554/eLife.08833.035

Author response


[…] While the ideas in the manuscript are thoughtful and creative, there are several major considerations that, in our opinion, severely limit the impact of the manuscript and call into question the authors' main conclusions. In our view, these need to be clearly and satisfactorily addressed. A manuscript with these major revisions will be re-examined by the reviewers and editors.

Thank you for the comments, giving us an opportunity to revise the paper and taking the time to review our manuscript. We acknowledge that we made several omissions like alternative hypotheses, but only to shorten an already long and somewhat complicated story. We have re-written large sections of the manuscript to incorporate all the changes.

We certainly did not start this project with any preconceived notion or deviated from common practice to prove a point. What concerned us at the outset of this project was that standard gene-expression analysis resulted in a very complex gene expression pattern that was able to support almost any hypothesis for our data-set depending upon what genes are picked and analyzed (data included in the revised manuscript, Figure 1–figure supplement 1). If indeed there is a situation that “muddies” the waters, it is this.

Incorporating the concept of transcriptional drift into the analysis results in a very sensible and comprehensive picture and all the conclusions we present are the direct consequence of this change in view (drift-analysis). In the revised manuscript we included the most important alternative hypothesis that we considered as well as additional experiments to test them. We acknowledge that this manuscript at times is difficult to read due to new ways of addressing expression analysis using variance, non-parametric statistics, log mortality and so forth. We hope that we have done a better job in explaining all our ideas the second time around.

We strived to address all the reviewers concerns, substantially revised the manuscript and included additional experiments. As there were many concerns, and as we try to provide a substantial answer to all of them, this became a rather long response. To make this as easy as possible, we therefore start with answers to points 13 (usefulness of drift) and 14 (youth and eggs). We have started with point 14 which we split into the question of FUDR and RNA coming from egg contamination and the question of “youth” extension. After answering the general points 13 and 14, we will proceed and address all the other major and minor concerns point by point.

14) Youth (and Mianserin) In our view to the idea of an effect on "youth" is not established, given the concerns we have stated above, and particularly given the coincidence with reproductive cessation. In addition to the eggs, reproduction itself is probably the most influential program that would change gene expression in young adults. Changes in developing eggs would account for a huge fraction of the transcriptional changes in the "aging" worms that have nothing to do with aging. The mianserin experiments were done with WT worms (and even FUdR would not change this point), so the authors need to seriously address this concern. That would be distinct from drift. If reproduction were somehow accounted for, we might be more willing to approach the authors' interpretation of the variance data. Even if reproduction is addressed, the notion of a specific effect on youth is still tenuous unless the authors show that an intervention that can affect aging late in life can affect "drift" at that point. So, the 'youth as a developmental stage' idea is not tenable, and this aspect is best left out, unless the issue of reproduction is addressed.

13) Drift.

If drift indeed is a marker of something useful, this needs to be stated very clearly for all the concerns given above. The idea of "drift" seems to be another manifestation of regulatory/homeostatic collapse, a phenomenon already described in various other ways". We do not see direct evidence that transcriptional "noise" indeed arises from dysregulation and that it is a general phenomenon across the genome. Even in a case that "drift" represents loss of homeostasis or failure of transcriptional regulation rather than "programmed" expression pattern, we still have reservations in using the transcriptional drift as a bio-marker of aging. As stated above, conceptually, a bio-marker should have a predictive power of an individual and it is not clear how a metric that "describes" variance in a population can be considered a good way to predict an individual's physiological age. We are concerned that the idea of drift as elaborated in the manuscript has the potential to really muddy the waters when it comes to an already confusing body of literature that examines gene dysregulation with aging. At the very least, a discussion of this matter should be expanded to include a broader survey of the existing literature and a more rigorous analysis of the data that includes consideration of alternative models. (For example, are there longevity mutants that do not suppress drift and instead use a different mechanism?)

We have further distilled the points 14 and 13 into three main concerns:

Concern 1: (Answer to point 14) The technical issue of the presence of eggs and their possible confounding factor in the presented transcriptomes.

Concern 2: (Answer to point 14) Additional data that support the claim that mianserin extends lifespan by extending the period of young adulthood by modulating the rate of aging exclusively during young adulthood and not at any later age.

Concern 3: (Answer to point 13). The general usefulness of drift and what it can and cannot do.

Concern 1: The technical problem of the presence of eggs and their transcripts in our RNA-seq data

Reiteration of the concern:

Adult C. elegans animals contain eggs that are a source of “young RNA”. Extracting RNA from fertile animals containing eggs results in RNA samples containing eggs as well as adult somatic RNA. The reviewers argue that the amount of RNA from eggs is substantial and will potentially blur any gene expression signals across different ages.

Response:

During the design of this study, we have tested mianserin on CF512 animals and mianserin increases the lifespan of CF512 animals, showing that its lifespan extension is not dependent on the method of sterilization. However, because mianserin does not extend lifespan when added after day 5, at the beginning of the study, we suspected a link to reproduction (we now show that mianserin does not affect reproductive longevity (Figure 6G). We therefore decided to use FUDR for our RNA-seq study instead of sterile animals, as FUDR-treated animals still have to invest resources and energy into making eggs.

We have included Figure 2–figure supplement 2 to address the concerns relating to the presence of egg RNA in our samples, raised in point 14. The following supplementary data included in the revised manuscript show that the RNA derived from FUDR-treated eggs is minor in our whole animal samples and that it does not affect any statements made about drift.

Figure 1–figure supplement 1 (A-I):

A) Eggs/embryos isolated from day 1 adults that were FUDR-treated at the L4 stage, uniformly arrest around the 400-500 cell stage, right at the ventral closure around “bean stage”. This arrest is permanent and the eggs are still at the stage 72 h later. FUDR-treated eggs show a much shrunken appearance consistent with a smaller cell mass.

B) All FUDR-treated animals have a germline and produce eggs 24 h after addition of FUDR, and these animals are indistinguishable from non-FUDR-treated animals. Of note, we observed many of the reported side-effects of FUDR only to occur when FUDR is used on NGM plates. Use of FUDR in our 96 well culture conditions does not result in side-effects such as developmental delays, lack of a germline or lifespan extension of gas-1 mutants.

C) Consistent with the embryonic arrest and shrunken appearance, FUDR-treated eggs produce 5 to 6 times less RNA compared to untreated eggs. Extracting RNA from FUDR-treated adults or from their eggs (normalized by number of adults from which RNA were extracted) shows that the RNA content from FUDR-treated eggs makes only ~5% of total RNA from whole animals, while non-FUDR-treated animals contain 25% of RNA arising from eggs.

D) RNA extracted from whole worms (+eggs) treated with FUDR and eggs only, resolved in an agarose gel.

Given these results, the ~5% contamination of egg-RNA still falls within the detection limit of RNA-seq. To account for the contribution of this small percentage of egg RNA in our RNA-seq samples, the following measures were taken. In Figure 2–figure supplement 2E, F and G, we will account for the contamination of egg RNA by calculating drift using only genes that were found to be expressed in sterile CF512 animals (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F) or by excluding genes that are expressed in eggs (Figure 2–figure supplement 2G).

Before we explain the recalculations of drift using restricted datasets to omit any influence of eggs, we would like to point out what information can be extracted from Tukey-style plots with respect to transcriptomes. The plot consists of the “whiskers” representing 1.5 x interquartile mean and the “box” which represents the interquartile mean itself (Figure 2–figure supplement 2E). In other words, in a drift plot, the box represents the 50% of the transcriptome that changes least, while the whiskers represent the rest of the genes (50% without outliers) that change most (see PMID: 24645192 for details). Every drift plot in our manuscript in which drift changes with age shows that the change is present in the whiskers as well as in the box. Thus, drift is not driven by a few hundred genes that change extremely but is driven by thousands of changes distributed across the entire transcriptome. For the question of RNA from eggs, what this means is that even if we assume the worst possible scenario for our hypothesis that the eggs RNA is the RNA that changes more than any other RNA (in which case the whiskers would represent egg RNA), this would not be sufficient to alter the drift-variance across the entire sample. We chose the Tukey-style plots to avoid the situation where results are driven by extreme outliers or non-normal distributions (which are present in our datasets). Because drift is driven by thousands of gene changes, its results are extremely robust and don’t change even if we introduce massive changes to the subsets of genes we analyze (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F). As we see a drift phenomenon even in the interquartile mean (50% of the transcriptome that changes least with age), drift is a global effect across the transcriptome (Figure 2–figure supplement 2E) and is resilient to sub-sampling (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F).

To test whether the above stated arguments are true, we calculated drift for different gene-sets that should exclude RNA resulting from eggs (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F-G). As the Murphy et al., 2003 data were derived from CF512 animals (sterile), the genes detected in this sample are not of embryonic origin. We therefore excluded all genes not detected by Murphy et al., 2003 from our dataset and recalculated drift. The resulting drift plot confirms our previous results (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F). The potential problem with the approach used in (Figure 2–figure supplement 2F) is that it only removed eggs/germline genes that are specific for eggs but that it did not remove genes that were present in both, eggs and soma. For Figure 2–figure supplement 2G, we removed all the genes that were identified in C. elegans eggs by RNA-seq (PMID:25875092), detecting ~7,700 transcripts. Most of the 7,700 transcripts identified in eggs were present in our dataset. Note that in this case, we remove all ubiquitously expressed genes like ribosomal, mitochondrial and similar genes that are present in both embryos and soma. Even though this operation removes only ~7,200 out of 19,196 individual genes, speaking in terms of total RNA, these ~7,200 genes account for 73% of the entire transcriptome in total counts. These genes belong to the class of mostly highly expressed genes. Despite this dramatic reduction in overall RNA, the remaining 11, 904 genes (mostly low expressing genes) again confirm that drift is increasing with age and that day 10 mianserin-treated animals show the same drift variance as day 3 untreated animals. The median expression increase seen in plot Figure 2–figure supplement 2G is an artifact because most of the high expressing genes have been removed and the remaining low expressing genes cannot really decrease any further. However, with respect to each other, the result remains unchanged.

To identify gene-sets that could not have originated from the FUDR-treated eggs, we exploited the fact that FUDR causes a relatively specific arrest in embryonic development before the birth of AFD, ASE and NSM neurons. To ascertain that FUDR arrests embryonic development before the birth of these neurons, we imaged eggs of C. elegans that carried a Pgcy-8::GFP transgene (AFD marker) that were FUDR-treated or not (Figure 2–figure supplement 2H, I, J). Eggs from untreated animals showed a clear expression of the marker, while FUDR-treated eggs did not (Figure 2–figure supplement 2 I, J (n>100)). FUDR did not repress the expression of the Pgcy-8::GFP transgene in adults, showing that the lack of a signal in FUDR-treated eggs is due to a uniform arrest before the neurons are born and not due to inhibition of expression of the transgene by FUDR. As AFD neurons are born before ASE and NSM neurons, these results suggested that none of these three neurons are present in FUDR-treated eggs (Sulston 1983). Gene-sets for genes that are highly enriched in these three neuron types (AFD, ASE, NSM) have been published (PMID17606643, 25372608). We therefore constructed drift-plots for our datasets only using genes highly enriched in AFD, ASE or NSM neurons. Even for these highly restricted gene-sets, transcriptional drift dramatically increased with age and was repressed by mianserin (Figure 2–figure supplement 2K).

In summary: FUDR-treated eggs arrest, produce little RNA and constitute only a minor fraction of total RNA. Drift plots using gene-sets excluding genes found in eggs show the same results. We hope that this series of experiments convince the reviewers that contamination from egg-derived RNA is minimal in FUDR-treated animals, and immaterial of the method of sterilization (the murphy data show drift too) and that our conclusions are not influenced by a small subset of eggs RNA genes (~5%), as drift is very robust and replicable across many adult-specific subsets of genes.

Concern 2: Period extension of young adulthood and the relation to the germline

In response to: “youth as a developmental stage' idea is not tenable, and this aspect is best left out, unless the issue of reproduction is addressed”. We agree that youth is not a developmental stage and removed the word “youth” as well as the word “stage” from the manuscript. We conducted two additional experiments, which support the period-specific extension and therefore, we have not removed the concept of a period extension. The results clearly came out in support of a model in which mianserin specifically slows age-associated changes in young adults before the onset of mortality in middle age (literally day 10 is the middle age of a 21 day lifespan).

For a longevity mechanism to act during a specific period of time (period extension), the idea of youth to be a specific stage, as we framed it before, is not necessary. The only requirement for a period extension model is the existence of processes that occurs for a limited window during the life of an organism and causes some kind of degeneration during that period. If such a process occurs in young adults, it will lead to a higher mortality level by the onset of major mortality around mid-life. Thus, reducing the degenerative changes will extend lifespan but the effect will occur only if initiated during the specific period and the effect will be restricted to that period. To frame it in colloquial terms for mianserin, mianserin specifically slows aging in young adults and thereby lowers the mortality level by the time the animals reach middle age.

What is conceptually new? What is not new is that aging starts in young animals. What is new is that certain mechanisms specifically slow the age-associated physiological decline during young adulthood and not throughout life. Aging in early adulthood can be specifically slowed down without slowing down aging in later in life. The effect of the intervention on longevity has a beginning and an end, and the end is long before the animal dies. In the case of mianserin, its effect on longevity ends even before the onset of major mortality (see below for implications on treating age-related disease).

The mentioning of Gompertz curves by one of the reviewers made us realize that mortality analysis provides an independent method other than drift to test the period extension model. In a mortality plot a period-specific lifespan extension would lead to a lower mortality rate in young adults followed by a parallel shift in mortality levels at later ages. If period specific lifespan extensions exist, as we claim, why do mortality curves thus far failed to detect such an extension mechanism? The technical problem is that mortality curves are “blind” for the period of young adulthood (before day 10 in worms). The uncertainties in mortality levels and rates for young adults are too large to detect a deceleration of the age-associated mortality rate, for the following technical reasons: First, mortality curves cannot reliably measure changes in age-associated mortality rates in young adults, because the age-associated contribution of mortality is too small in relation to non-aging-associated mortality, i.e. accidental deaths (see below, Technical note). However, as remarked by others, it is important but difficult to separate aging-associated deaths from non-aging-associated deaths (PMID: 17994065). Non-aging-associated deaths pose a serious problem because in most cases it is nearly impossible to distinguish an accidental death from a death due to aging and even small mistakes will have an enormous influence. Using very high number of animals will not solve this problem as the number of non-aging-associated deaths will increase proportionally. Second, since age-associated mortality levels are so low in young adults, it is generally not possible to ascertain that two populations started out at the same mortality level. Thus different mortality levels observed later in life, when mortality levels are high enough to be determined reliably, could always be the consequence of different mortality levels at the start, rather than a change in mortality rates.

Drift-variance suggested that the action of mianserin decelerated the age-associated changes before day 10, a time at which it is very difficult to measure mortality levels as well as mortality rates to the precision necessary to independently test the results obtained by drift. The following experiments circumvent the above mentioned problems and provide new evidence based on demographic mortality analysis, that suggest that mianserin acts by decelerating age-associated physiological changes exclusively during the first 5 to 10 days of life (Figure 6).

Evidence that mianserin extends lifespan by decelerating age-associated changes during young adults only: At the end of a lifespan assay, one can detect that mianserin treatment caused the animals to die 7-8 days later, which is to say that the physiological decline leading to death was delayed by 7-8 days. A lifespan assay makes no statement on when during the life of the animal this delay occurred. Analyzing drift-variance detected a physiological delay of 7-8 days by day 10 suggesting the possibility that the physiological delay happened and concluded before middle age (middle age= day 10, literally half of the mean lifespan of 21 days).

To test this possibility with an independent method, we used demographic mortality analysis as a way to test the period-extension model. By treating one half of a synchronized population of isogenic worms (N2) with water and the other with mianserin, we ascertain that the mortality levels were identical for both mianserin and water treated control animals at the start of the experiment (day 1). Any difference in mortality levels between the two populations at a later time must therefore be due to different mortality rates. Such a statement for example can never be made when comparing mutants as it is always possible that mutations cause a different mortality level form the start due to slight alterations in development. A period extension model predicts that mianserin treatment will lower the mortality rate during the first few days of adulthood but not later, exerting an anti-aging effect during a specific period of life (young adulthood). This experimental design allows us to distinguish differences in age-associated mortality rates during young adulthood even though age-associated mortality levels at that age are too small to be directly measured (see Technical note for estimates and details).

Combining all lifespan experiments testing mianserin in the past 5 years, in which mianserin was tested using identical conditions (n>3000), we find that by day 12 of adulthood, mianserin-treated animals clearly showed lower mortality levels than water-treated controls. As both cohorts started at an unknown, but identical mortality level, the most plausible explanation is that mianserin lowered the mortality rate during the first 12 days of life leading to a lower mortality level as soon as mortality levels can be reliably measured (day 12). Furthermore, the parallel curves show that after day 12, mianserin has no effect on the mortality rate. Thus, lowering the mortality rate in young adults, without effects later, leads to a 7-8 day parallel shift in the lifespan curve. Mortality analysis, similar to drift-variance, shows that the 7-8 day shift in physiology, that ultimately causes a lifespan extension, is already present before the onset of major mortality in middle age (day 10, literally half the lifespan of 21 days),supporting the period-specific extension model.

As one of the reviewers correctly pointed out, parallel shifts have been interpreted as “non-aging,” and we agree with this interpretation. However the “non-aging” statement is only true for the ages during which mortality analysis can reliably determine mortality levels. Our result show that period extensions can give rise to parallel shifts in lifespan curves if they slow down aging in young adults, a period during which age-associated mortality rates are very difficult to determine.

A second experiment further added evidence that the effect of mianserin on lifespan ends by day 10. We treated C. elegans with mianserin for restricted periods of time (8h, 1, 5 10 and 15 days) and show that exposure for 5 to 10 days is necessary and sufficient to fully extend lifespan and that longer treatments do not further extend lifespan. This finding is again consistent with the model that mianserin slows the rate of age-associated decline during a very restricted period in life ranging from day 1 to day 10.

Technical note: Detecting mortality in young adults: Our statement that mortality levels in humans before age 40 are mostly driven by extrinsic mortality factors that mask the age-associated increase are based on the paper of Beltram-Sanches et al (PMID:23626899) analyzing 650 human cohorts from several countries. In these studies, it becomes clear that mortality levels in humans before the age of 40 are not driven by age, but by extrinsic factors. This seems similar in worms. Our statement that C. elegans mortality levels before day 12 cannot be reliably quantified to detect changes in mortality rates is based on our data measuring lifespan for large cohorts (ranging 500 to 50,000 animals). From these data-sets, we estimate that there are generally 1: 1000 dead animals by day 1 of adulthood (e.g. 56 out of 54,688). Many of them, however, were unlikely to have died due to aging suggesting that the age-associated mortality rate on the first day of adulthood (day 1) is lower than 1:1000. Even around day 4, we find that mortality rates vary by several fold between experiments again suggesting that even the few deaths caused by extrinsic, non-aging factors (e.g. protruded vulvas) cause a dramatic variation. Our current best estimate for day 4 and 5 is a mortality rate of 0. 003 (3:1000). But again if only one of these 3 deaths is due to non-aging, the value is off by 33% and if two are, the value is off by a factor 3, making it impossible to distinguish different rates. Starting from day 12 the mortality levels between large cohorts of over 1000 animals become comparable. We found publications showing mortality curves that include values for young C. elegans adults, but none of these studies included confidence intervals nor any power of detection calculations. As these studies generally used lower number of animals compared to our larger cohorts, we have to assume that the errors for young adults inherent in published mortality curves are as substantial as the error in our curves.

In summary, we agree that youth is not a stage and youth was a poor choice of word. We argue that a period extension model doesn’t require a specific stage but only degenerative changes that occur during a restricted period throughout life. In the revised manuscript, we provide evidence that the mortality rate in early adulthood is decelerated in mianserin-treated animals as suggested by drift-analysis. We show that mianserin treatment is only required for a limited period of life. The conceptual novelty is that period extension is a class of lifespan-extending mechanisms that act within a defined beginning and an end and that mechanisms exist that specifically extend the duration of the period of early adulthood. Period extensions that extend the period of young adulthood have been missed, as age-associated mortality levels are very difficult to measure in young adults. We show that a deceleration of mortality rates early in adult life seizes before the onset of mortality. Period extensions provide an additional explanation on how parallel curve shifts in mortality curves arise and that the longevity effects do not have to act throughout life.

In the revised manuscript we added the two additional experiments mentioned above.

I) Figure 6B: We show that the 7-8 day shift seen in the transcriptome by drift analysis and PCA (Figure 6A) precedes a 7-8 day shift in the mortality curves. With 1500 animals in each condition, our mortality curve has the statistical power to detect differences of 1 day. These results show that mianserin lowers the mortality rate prior to day 12, but not after day 12.

II) Figure 6C and D: We further expose worms to 8h, 1, 5, 10, 15 days of mianserin and compare the effect on lifespan to lifelong treatment. Mianserin treatment for 5 to 10 days is required and sufficient for a full lifespan extension. Shorter exposures give less of an effect and longer exposures don’t increase it further. As one reviewer eloquently put it, mianserin prevents the degenerative changes happening early in adulthood. This in turn results in lower mortality levels when the animals reach middle age (literally half the lifespan, day 10-12) and thus ultimately translates into a lifespan extension, even though the effect has seized long ago.

Reproduction: There is the concern that we ignored the possibility that mianserin acts by a mechanism related to lifespan extension by germline ablation or similar:

We completely agree with the reviewers that the period in which mianserin exerts its lifespan extending effect overlaps exactly with the reproductive period. Furthermore, tph-1 mutant animals have been shown to have an extended reproductive lifespan in a manner dependent on daf-16 (PMID: 10676966). All these examples, clearly suggest an involvement of the germline in the lifespan-extending effect in other lifespan-extending paradigms. We did not mention possible effects on the germline because prior experiments have convinced us otherwise. Mianserin extends the lifespan of daf-16 mutants and germline ablation does not. Mianserin does not extend the lifespan of eat-2 mutants but germline ablation does (PMID: 18033297, PMID: 17711560). We now mention this explicitly in the text.

We added two new experiments that are again inconsistent with an effect of mianserin on the germline.

I) Figure 6G: We tested whether mianserin-treatment extends the reproductive period. It did not. The number of eggs that mianserin-treated animals lay is about the same as untreated controls.

II) Figure 6H: We asked whether mianserin treatment increased proteasome activity as seen in glp-1(ts) mutants. It did not and on day 5 showed a slight reduction. Interestingly, the drift plots for proteasome genes show that mianserin treatment increases drift variance on day 5, consistent with a slight reduction in proteasome activity with Mianserin.

Concern 3: What is drift useful for?

Regulation vs. deregulation:

Two reviewers appear to argue opposing points whether drift is an addition to the concept of the regulatory/proteostatic collapse and thus a sign of deregulation or whether drift is due to regulated change. We have re-written the manuscript in a way that does not take a position on whether the changes observed with drift are due to regulation or deregulation (see also our answer to point 1 for more detail). We also stated this very clearly in the first version, but it seems that the word “drift” has suggested that we have taken a clear position on the issue. We used the word drift because of prior uses by others (e.g. “epigenetic drift” used by George Martin).

The point we are trying to make is that as animals age, co-expression patterns change causing dramatic changes in mRNA balance between genes cooperating in the same function. Sustained imbalances in mRNA relations that can reach 400 fold differences are unlikely to be beneficial for the pathways function as we show for the redox pathway. Irrespective of whether the changes in the transcriptome are due to regulation or deregulation, their effect on physiological function is degenerative.

Conceptually, drift measurements are similar to lifespan measurements but allow tracking the rate of physiological change within any type of -omics data. Stoichiometric balance changes with age not only in transcriptomes but also in proteomes and metabolomes. In collaboration with other labs, we are about to submit a paper describing metabolomic drift in aging mouse and human brains.

The concept of drift provides a measuring stick for age-associated change in omics data. Using drift as a measuring stick allows us to sort transcriptomes/proteomes/metabolomes into older and younger transcriptomes without the need for prior knowledge about the species and how long it lives. The only information necessary is a young reference. Thus, drift-analysis provides a measure to track the aging process within different molecular layers (RNA, Protein, Metabolome) and along the central dogma of molecular biology. As we show in the paper, drift-analysis further allowed us to detect age-associated change much earlier than that is possible by analyzing mortality.

Drift vs. biomarker:

We carefully used the word metric and avoided the word biomarker throughout the manuscript. We used the work “marker” once saying “it is not a mere marker.” The word “mere” was misplaced, as it implies it is something better rather than conceptually different. As we state above, drift is a metric similar to lifespan, which tracks physiological change with age, but instead of measuring at the level of the organism it measures aging at the molecular level (-omics data, transcriptome, proteome, metabolome). As rightly stated by the reviewers, a true biomarker should work on the basis of an individual. The only data we provide that drift is applicable to individuals are the human brain data (Figure 7). We have started to investigate the possibility of whether drift could be used as a biomarker for a single individual by analyzing several thousands of arrays of published datasets from worms, mice, rats, macaques, and humans. Many of these published data-sets use different platforms (microarrays, different sequencing platforms for RNA-seq) and thus prevent us from making definitive statements at the moment, but the emerging picture is this:

On the organismal level, including RNA of all tissues, drift precedes future mortality events. Drift is very easy to detect in worms. For specific tissues, drift is best detected in tissues that are as old as the organism itself like brain, hematopoietic stem cells or oocytes. At least in humans, short-lived cells such as blood (~3 days old) or skin fibroblasts do not show any drift. It may be that drift works particularly well in C. elegans because the animal is post-mitotic.

Furthermore, we find that transcriptional drift relative to regulated changes is greater in short than in long-lived animals. This would entirely make sense if drift is a sign of a degenerative process. At least, thus far, drift is of limited use as a biomarker, as it appears most pronounced in long-lived tissues, which are poor options for biopsies.

We have carefully amended the text to clearly reflect that drift is a metric and not a biomarker (subsection “Biological interpretation of transcriptional drift-variance”).

Usefulness of drift in analyzing transcriptomes: In the revised manuscript, we compare the results of standard gene expression analysis and how it is simplified dramatically by drift-analysis. There is a striking difference and a very convoluted and complicated picture of hundreds of functions that change with age and with mianserin. Subtracting all the changes caused by drift, leaves gene expression changes related to the xenobiotic response, innate immunity, stress and aging. Very consistently, these processes are regulated by serotonin and the likely primary response to mianserin. Murphy et.al, suggested a similar model, in that, daf-16, acts on aging by changing the expression of relatively few key physiological genes. The figure in 2G shows that changing the expression of a few key physiological genes by daf-16 as shown in the original paper attenuates drift of thousands of age-associated changes (see Results section for Figure 2G). Drift was suppressed in many of the same genes (58% overlap) between daf-2 and mianserin, consistent with chemical epistasis, showing that these two mechanisms overlap but are not identical (11% lifespan extension in daf-2 instead of 31%, N2). It will be interesting to see whether other genetic epistasis experiments can also be explained on the basis of overlapping and non-overlapping sets of genes, whose age-associated drift-variance is attenuated.

Some other uses for drift:

Drift can be used to compare tissue-specific aging between brains of different mouse strains. The senescence-accelerated mice (SAMP mice) for example show an accelerated senility and it is currently not clear what this is based on. As mentioned above, the concept allowed us also to detect aging in aging mouse brains based on proteomics and metabolomics. Thus drift, the loss of stoichiometry between molecular components is a phenomenon that describes age-associated changes along the molecular information paradigm (RNA-> Protein->metabolite). For example, in collaboration with the Shubert group at the Salk Institute, we were able to identify the pathway that a drug molecule affected to reduce the age-associated cognitive decline in SAMP mice. Biochemical analysis further confirmed the finding. Standard gene-expression analysis did not pick this up because of the thousands of changes that were ongoing due to aging. We have written R downloadable programs for everyone to conduct such analysis in the future.

We certainly acknowledge that drift is not perfect and that there are many outstanding questions. The conceptual insight is that by looking at changes among genes across thousands of cells and using a young reference, we can detect slow and continuous deviations from the young state. How often and to what degree these changes are erased by dramatic overall gene expression changes, and how often such changes occur is not known. In the presented manuscript, we have made a substantial effort to address many of the most basic questions including whether drift is attenuated by longevity, whether it is evolutionarily conserved and whether it compromises function. By revealing the period specific extension of lifespan extensions, which we now confirmed using other methods (mortality, restricted treatment, Figure 6B, C, D), we show that drift allowed us to detect a rather surprising way to extend lifespan that was previously missed.

Essential revisions: 1) The paper would be improved considerably if the speculations were toned down, and the data were allowed to speak for themselves. Most importantly, the ideas and hypotheses presented in the manuscript are not tested in a rigorous manner. The authors use predominantly descriptive data to support their own interpretation of the biology without asking whether they are also consistent with alternative interpretations.

In the revision, we have each time mentioned the most important alternative models we considered. It is not that we did not consider them before but that we did not mention them in the interest of brevity. We acknowledge that this practice must have given the impression that we approached this project with preconceived notions. This was by no means the case. At the start of this study, we conducted a standard analysis of the gene expression data (now included in Figure 1, Figure 1–source data 15 and Figure 1—figure supplement 1). We were concerned by the fact that the very complex picture that emerged allowed us to support any hypothesis simply picking some genes over others. Our data could have supported the statement that mianserin directly activates the oxidative stress response or could have supported the exact opposite statement dependent on the set of genes, we would have chosen to mention. If any situation “muddies the waters” it is this.

We present the drift model that accounts for all changes and does not require us to choose genes. Not only did this model account for the changes induced by mianserin but also for thousands of changes with age. The age-associated decline of the transcriptional machinery (more to that later) leads to loss of stoichiometry, and thus loss of co-expression patterns as seen in young adults. This method of explanation accounts for a large fraction of the observed changes, not requiring us to choose specific genes dependent on our favorite hypotheses. Consider that this explanation leads to a quantitative dose response curve across the entire transcriptome that exactly correlates with the associated longevity. This solution was by no means obvious and required a fair bit of computational and statistical development. By any account, we have gone out of our way to avoid bias. To highlight this and to avoid the impression that must have triggered the above comment we now start the paper with a standard analysis (Figure 1 and Figure 1–figure supplement 1).

For example, the authors claim that if their measure of drift variance increases with age it is a sign of loss of homeostasis and of an increase in aging-related loss of transcriptional control. However, because the authors are examining among-gene variance (more on that below), this observation is also consistent with a model in which gene expression changes with age in a strongly regulated manner.

The point raised by the reviewers is important because regulation is a problematic term in the aging field. In the previous version we used the term transcriptional regulation in a very narrow sense: transcriptional changes that modulate a cellular or physiological function in a way that is productive and beneficial for the organism’s development, reproduction or survival. Changes that lead to functional decline, sterility and death, in short, those changes observed with aging, are according to this definition aberrant, detrimental and not regulatory.

We agree that this view of transcriptional regulation in the field of aging is problematic as it automatically implies that aging, a process that leads to functional decline is not regulated. For example, a recent paper by the Morimoto group showed that activation of hsf-1 is actively blocked by the germline, and therefore a regulated response. Blocking hsf-1 activation is regulated, but the consequences are degenerative leading to inappropriate folding of proteins, aggregation and ultimately degeneration. The initial event is regulated; however, the consequences are not. In analogy, transcriptional-drift is the consequence of de-regulation in transcriptional control. The activation of transcription factors such as daf-16 regulate longevity by acting on subsets of genes to preserve transcriptional control. Consider Figure 2G. Even though daf-2 RNAi leads to the activation of daf-16 and an entire anti-aging program as shown previously, drift becomes smaller. Compared to the number of genes that change expression due to activation of daf-16 (drift should increase), the number of genes that change less due to age is much more. As with hsf-1, the activation of the daf-16 mediated anti-aging is subject to regulation, however, the consequences (drift) of not activating these transcription factors are probably degenerative.

What is the evidence for the existence of degenerative changes in aging transcriptomes? Multiple studies show that aging causes changes to the nuclear architecture, loss of histones, loss of histone modification as well as DNA damage (Misteli, Taylor, Brunet, Morimoto, Puh). In many cases, reversing these effects was found to extend lifespan showing that these changes are detrimental to survival. Thus, by the definition stated above, these changes are non-regulated as they are detrimental to cellular function and survival. Two very recent papers have shown that loss of histone methylation causes aberrant expression that increases with age exactly as seen with drift (PMID:26159996, 25838541).

While age-associated changes around the nucleus and chromatin are acknowledged and frequently cited, when it comes to analyzing transcriptomes from aging organisms, these findings are mostly ignored. Transcriptional data of aging organisms have been analyzed using the same principles applied for data from developing animals, despite these two having very different underlying biology. Thus far we have analyzed over 1000 published gene expression arrays with respect to drift. The results are mostly consistent with wide-spread degenerative changes. Since we could not think of a way to experimentally decide the issue of regulation versus deregulation we have re-written the paper in a way that avoids statements about regulation or de-regulation. However, regulated or not, increases in drift-variance are a deviation/loss of gene-expression patterns as observed in young adults.

Changes in the text:

We now included a supplementary figure (Figure 1–figure supplement 1) that shows 50 representative pie charts (out of 249) for GO annotations in which significant numbers of genes change in opposing directions with age to illustrate the dramatic change. We hope that the reviewers agree that for many of these pie charts it is rather difficult to make any statement about how their function changes with age.

We further added an experiment showing that reduced transcriptional drift associated with mianserin treatment is associated with an increased homeostatic capacity in the redox system (Figure 5D). ROS-mediated induction of redox genes in animals pretreated with mianserin at a young age and challenged with paraquat at older age is much higher than in untreated controls. These findings are consistent with the model that mianserin preserves homeostatic capacity by attenuating drift and increases in drift are a sign of impaired transcriptional control.

Some genes may increase/decrease expression with age to promote reproduction, for example, or to modulate adult-specific behaviors. Even if such gene expression was regulated with 100% precision (i.e., reproducibly identical among individuals) then the variance in expression among genes will increase with age. Slowing the aging process (i.e., reducing the slope of that increase) would also reduce the rate of increase in drift-variance. This would occur without any specific youthful phase and completely in the absence of any sort of aging-related loss of transcriptional control. In other words, a model that is conceptually the opposite of the one proposed by the authors is consistent with many aspects of their observed data. There is no attempt or framework to distinguish this (and other) alternative hypotheses. For example, models of homeostasis can be separated from models of defined, aging-related changes by also examining variance within genes.

We are not entirely sure we understand all the points the reviewers are making. We specifically acknowledged in the first version of the manuscript that we do not know whether drift is the consequence of regulated or unregulated changes right at the point when we introduce the concept: “To emphasize our limited understanding on whether these age-associated changes in transcription were caused by regulatory programs or a progressive loss of transcriptional control with age, or a combination of both, we will simply refer to these changes as transcriptional drift”.

This was a direct statement from the start that we considered both possibilities. As stated above we have now removed any reference to regulation from the revised manuscript and simply refer to them as changes and clearly lay out both possibilities in the discussion. As we explained above the term regulation is problematic because the active (and regulated) inhibition of protective programs such as DNA damage response or heat-shock response will lead to many non-regulated degenerative events. However, in the end, drift increases with age as co-expression and mRNA stoichiometry drift away from what is seen in young adults.

We also would like to emphasize that drift does not have to necessarily increase with the activation of a transcriptional program.

Example 1: Consider Figure 5B, D (N2) that shows the change in sod genes with age and upon induction by oxidative stress. In Figure 5D, in response to oxidative stress by paraquat all five sod’s are induced and expression increases (at least if the animals were treated with mianserin (light blue)). As the changes in Figure 5B go into the same direction, the effect on drift (their relative ratio to each other) will be minor. Now consider Figure 5D, showing how the same genes behave with age. Sod-1, -2, go down sod-3 does not change (not shown) and sod-4 and sod-5 go up. This will cause a major effect on drift.

Example 2: Consider Figure 6–figure supplement 1C that shows how proteasome genes change with age. Proteasome genes show very little drift (type II), but a coordinated down regulation with age (type I). There is no effect on drift (in water-treated animals) but a clear effect on the overall level of transcription.

Transcriptomes that consist of RNA of hundreds of adult worms that age without major environmental changes will “iron out” changes that are not happening in the majority of cells. If transcriptomes of adult animals would be highly dynamic, none of the aging studies conducted thus far could have found any effects due to aging as any short term effect on gene expression would overshadow events caused due to age. Thus the changes we see are those that persist and are occurring in large fractions of the cells. Transcriptomes of aging worms, such as the one we present, seem to be rather stable. We have controlled for the example of reproduction by including the analysis of the Murphy et al., 2003 data which used a sterile strain. This shows that different ways of sterilizing result in the same drift-phenomenon irrespective whether the animals make eggs or not. As mentioned above, the notion that drift must increase across the trancriptome with the start of any transcriptional program is directly contradicted by Figure 2G. Inhibition of daf-2 by RNAi leads to the activation of the transcription factor DAF-16, which is a transcription factor that induces a transcriptional program. Yet, induction of the transcriptional program causes a very clear reduction in overall drift across the entire transcriptome. Intuitively, one would expect the opposite as the reviewer states above, and it is a strength of the drift model that it is clearly able to explain an unexpected outcome.

As we state in the summary for concerns for point 13 and 14, there is no requirement for a youthful state for a period extension.

We now directly tested the hypothesis (Figure 3E) whether mianserin preserved homeostatic capacity (Figure 5D). The results show that mianserin prevents changes in redox genes with age. Mianserin-treated animals show less expression of redox-related genes compared to age-matched controls (Figure 3E). However, if we add paraquat, mianserin enhances redox genes expression and is higher than in age-matched control. Therefore, mianserin improves homeostatic capacity with age, as it preserves the ability of the animal to appropriately respond to outward stimuli.

The data are predominantly descriptive.

We agree that there are lots of descriptive data. All the data that drift increases with age in worms, mice and human brains are descriptive and show that drift is a wide-spread phenomenon. However, we have directly tested the hypothesis that the observed increases in drift are a sign of the physiological processes associated with aging. The following experiments are not descriptive:

Two different lifespan extending paradigms (mianserin and daf-2) attenuate drift (Figure 2).

Abrogating the lifespan-extending effect by adding mianserin too late (day 5) or adding daf-16RNAi to daf-2RNAi abrogate the effect on lifespan and on drift (Figure 2).

Mianserin dose response curves show a clear correlation between longevity and drift-variance across an entire transcriptome (Figure 2).

Removing ser-5 abrogates the effect of mianserin on drift (redox genes), stress resistance, and lifespan (Figure 4, 5).

Many of the experiments were repeated with 7 structurally different serotonin inhibitors all requiring ser-5. Therefore, the observed effects are not caused by some mysterious unknown side-effects of mianserin (Figure 4–figure supplement 1, Figure 5–figure supplement 1).

2) Consideration of alternative models is also lacking from other aspects of the manuscript. For example, the authors interpret the data in Figures 3C and 3D as implying that mianserin early in life is the key aspect of the manipulation that leads to enhanced stress resistance. While this interpretation is consistent with the observations, so is a more parsimonious one; that increased time on mianserin increases stress resistance regardless of the age at which it is given. (See also other concerns, below, on mianserin experiments).

Thank you for this comment. In the revised manuscript, we now lay out several alternative possibilities. If the data in the previous version were insufficient to discount one or the other possibility, we added additional data. The comment above points out that the duration of miaserin treatment could be the deciding factor. However, that this was not the case, as directly addressed in Figure 3C and D. Adding mianserin on day 1 testing resistance on day 5 increases stress resistance (Figure 3C, middle bar), adding Mianserin on day 5, and testing resistance on day 10 does not (Figure 3D, bar to the right). In both cases, there is a 5 day incubation but when the compound is added to day 5 adults, there is no significant effect on stress resistance. From the table 4, it can also be seen that survival in Figure 3C for day 5 and day 10 is nearly the same at 90% in both cases. The greater fold change on day 10 is due to the lower survival of the control animals due to aging.

3) Many studies in different species have described versions of the concept that parameters associated with fidelity of gene expression decline with age. These include evidence concerning proteostasis and stress response "collapse", as well as transcriptional changes, noise, and epigenetic alterations associated with age. Many of these changes occur during early adulthood in the worm. These findings are cited to an extent, but not comprehensively and not in a way that fully develops this idea. This is important because it is not clear whether transcriptional drift truly represents something new, or yet another parameter reflecting this regulatory decline. That doesn't mean the marker isn't useful, but it needs to be put into a more appropriate context in order to judge its significance.

We apologize for the fact that we did not cite some of the earlier work. We hope we have done a better job this time. It was by no means our intention to diminish anyone’s contribution. We agree that the general idea that aging causes a regulatory decline in transcription is not novel and has been shown many times over. The lifespan extension by overexpressing Sirt2 suggested very early on that aging impairs transcriptional regulation and chromatin. However, despite these early findings, transcriptomes of aging organisms have been mostly analyzed by the same principles as transcriptomes from developing animals, not taking into account the above mentioned findings that aging has a degenerative effect on transcriptional control. If gene expression fidelity is compromised in aging organisms, this will affect aging transcriptomes in ways different from development. While statistical methods improved to analyze transcriptomes, other than linking genetic and biochemical information to the names of genes, biologists have done hardly anything to account for differences in biology between development process and aging process when analyzing aging transcriptomes.

We have rewritten the entire discussion where we point out weaknesses and possible considerations.

4) The claim is that drift variance is a biomarker of aging, i.e., a measure that more accurately predicts "physiological age" or future lifespan better than chronological age. However, a population measure is used, which confounds several influences. True biomarkers of aging must be defined at the level of the individual, and they are ideally based on rates of change across ages (repeated measures) and are validated by establishing that they predict remaining lifespan better than chronological time itself. Even if we accept this as a biomarker, the human data are confusing, where transcriptional drift variance doesn't appear to exhibit significant differences across test subjects until the age of 60 (Figure 6C). Does this imply that humans are in their youthful state until 60? These data appear to undermine the notion that this measure is an evolutionary conserved bio-marker of aging.

Again, as mentioned in the summary, we avoided the word biomarker. The concept of a biomarker for aging implies that one can measure a subset of genes/processes across age in an organism and thus predict remaining lifespan/age for the entire organism. In other words, it assumes that aging is homogenous within the same organism. This is an assumption and is not necessarily true, or may be only true for a subset of tissues or genes. What we claim is that using the entire transcriptome of a whole organism, drift seems to accurately predict later death events as we show for C. elegans.

However, this result does not imply that any chosen subsystem/organ ages at the same rate. Reproductive organs, for example, seize functioning much earlier than brain function and therefore “age” faster. While there is some decline in cognitive reasoning in humans past the age 45, this becomes worse after 60 and is more pronounced in men than in women. The drift-plots of human frontal cortex, a region of the brain responsible for reasoning, reflect the relationship between drift and function rather accurately. As we could not find a second study that was so rigorously conducted to test transcriptional changes in other human organs with age, it is yet to be seen whether these correlations are applicable to other human organs. Owing to this reason, we did not mention about functional decline and drift in humans, so as not to overstate the case. Again, as mentioned above, drift seems to be most pronounced in tissues that are as old as the organism itself and is not seen in tissue with a high turn-over such as blood, which curtails its usefulness as a biomarker right there. However, one interesting application would be to ask whether different parts of the brain age to the same extent, and comparing drift in core pathways that are expressed everywhere such as sugar metabolism, mitochondria and actin skeleton and ask how this is different in long-lived mouse strains.

5) We do not understand the assertion that there exists a qualitatively distinct, youthful phase. If we accept drift variance as a biomarker of aging, all of the data appear to change relatively continuously throughout the measurement period. It is formally possible that if the authors' normalize gene expression to L2 data that age 1 day adults would have lots of "drift." In other words, the work is lacking specific criteria upon which to define this hypothetical new youth stage. The lack of a clear definition for "youth" leads to confusion and ambiguity. For example, the authors state: "Simply put, by chronological age of day 10, mianserin treated animals had yet to progress transcriptionally beyond the physiological age of day 3 [based on data in Figure 2]." However, they do not point out that mianserin treated individuals on day 10 have higher variance than they do on day 2 (even though they do have similar levels of variance seen in younger control populations), which implies that they have "gotten worse" over time. If we accept that they putatively remain in a youthful stage, then we must accept that they were hyper-youthful early on and that youth was subject to the same process of change in drift variance as aging. So how is this different from aging itself?

“Youth” was a poor choice of word on our part, as it is ambiguous in a way that we were not aware of. Young or early adulthood is more precise. Again as mentioned above, a period extension only requires a process that contributes to aging that has a restricted duration. The reviewer is correct in observing that the mianserin-treated animals got worse from day 3 to day 10. What mianserin does is, it decelerated the rate of age-associated physiological change during the first few days of adulthood. Yes, the mianserin-treated animals “got worse” from day 1 to day 10, but at a slower rate compared to untreated animals. At least according to Gompertz-types of analysis a lowering of the rate of physiological change is the equivalent of slowing aging. What is interesting and novel is that mianserin does not decelerates the rate of age-associated physiological change throughout the entire life as has been shown before for age-1 and other interventions (Johnson 1990), but does only during a specific period before the animals enter middle age and mortality sets in (middle age in its literal sense, day 10, half the age of 21 day lifespan).

To make an analogy, let’s consider a train travelling from point A to C. A train can arrive 7 hours too late at point C because it is driven slower throughout the entire track or because it was very slow initially but then proceeded at the normal speed. Which of the two scenarios is true can be determined by looking at milestones across the track. If the train had already a 7-hour delay when reaching point B, it means its speed from A to B was so low that it caused a 7-hour delay, but also that its speed from B to C was normal. Drift provides such milestones and applying the idea, by day 10, the mianserin-treated animals reach the day 3 milestone 7 days later than the control animals. On day 28, they reach the 21 day milestone (mean lifespan) still 7 days later than the control. There is a 7-day delay in aging till the end of the lifespan experiment and this delay can already be observed on day 10 of adulthood.

We now added a new Figure 6 including 2 new experiments addressing these issues (6B, C, D). We show (indirectly) that the rise in mortality levels in young adults is lower for mianserin-treated animals before day 12, but not after. Drift shows a 7-8 delay by day 10, mortality by day 12 (mortality on day 10 is not high enough to detect 1 day differences). Adding mianserin for 5 days or 10 days only is necessary and sufficient to extend lifespan.

6) Furthermore, additional insight into the youthful state could have been provided by including data beyond age 10 days. At 10 days old, more than 95% of the worms are still alive. Have authors measured what is the transcriptional drift at 50% of the survival? Or 90% of the survival? Does transcriptional drift increase linearly, or does it plateau at a high level later in life, as the authors seem to suggest. If transcriptional drift mostly happens in early life, can this be reliably used as a biomarker of aging?

We are not sure how we gave the impression that we think that drift plateaus. We never intended to. We added the analysis of two additional published dataset that shows that drift increases from day 10 to 15 to day 20. The question of linearity is a bit tricky to answer, as the drift-variance is a logarithmic scale. At least, we can say it continually increases till day 20. We think, however, the best use for drift is the ability it provides to analyze aging before the animals die.

7) Importantly, it seems like a stretch to conclude that mianserin specifically slows aging during youth, at least based upon the evidence here. As noted above, many parameters degenerate during early adulthood, but aging biomarkers become manifest later. Isn't it more likely that drift and other markers of gene expression changes reflect an early degeneration in control that will play out in its biological effects later, rather than a specific marker of "aging" in the young? To address this idea definitively, we would need to know whether other interventions have the same effect on transcriptional drift, or act on downstream or different parameters. Is mianserin unique, or is protecting the animal from this regulatory decline the most effective way to delay aging, and one that is seen in most contexts of long life?

We politely disagree with the “too much of a stretch” but we agree with the rest of the statement (“many parameters degenerate during early adulthood”). We wished we had had these precise words when we wrote the initial manuscript. Mianserin treatment prevents early degeneration occurring in young animals, lowering the age-associated mortality rate when the animals reach middle age. Thus, it is almost how the reviewer says it is. There is early degeneration that becomes apparent in mortality later. But, the only reason it becomes apparent later is the inability of mortality analysis to measure aging in young animals. The mortality rate is rising in young adults and mianserin is preventing the rise but the number of deaths is simply too low to reliably determine differences in mortality rates at the early adulthood. If it were possible to measure mortality, one would see that mianserin decelerated the mortality rate in young animals up to around day 10 to 12 and then stops doing so. However, drift analysis and some of the experiments we added reveal that. Without monitoring transcriptional drift, a period extension mechanism decelerating aging in young animals is invisible until mortality is high enough to be measured. However, by that time the period extension process is over and the only signature left behind is a parallel shift in mortality curves, which has been previously interpreted as non-aging. That interpretation is correct regarding many experiments (e.g. experiments involving radiation for example (PMID25750242). However as our data show, a parallel shift can also indicate that the slowing of the aging rate occurred at a time before mortality can be reliably measured. Therefore, “mianserin specifically slows aging during early adulthood” seems like a stretch because we and others have been unable to detect it thus far, before the development of the drift metric.

In addition to the mortality rate experiments, we confirmed the specific action by mianserin during day 1 to 5 by limiting the exposure of mianserin to young animals, which shows that this is necessary and sufficient to extend lifespan. Thanks to this review, we realized the possibility that parallel shifts in lifespan curves cannot only be explained by a proportional lowering of risks throughout life, but also by a specific slowing of age-associated physiological decline, specifically in young adults. Since parallel shifts in lifespan are quite frequent we would venture to suggest that mianserin is by no means unique. At the moment, however, using compounds to extend lifespan is the only technical means that allows switching longevity mechanisms “on” and “off” to distinguish period extensions from other possibilities on how to explain parallel shifts. (RNAi has no “off” switch).

We agree that we should look into this in all kinds of lifespan extension mechanisms, as we only show drift to occur in two different contexts. We are trying to find a cheaper way to measure drift without conducting three RNA-seqs for each condition. We also can say that the drift effect is not unique to transcriptome but is also present in the proteome and the metabolome and we are about to submit a paper about this effect in the human and mouse brain with our collaborators.

In summary between i) analyzing ~1000 published arrays, ii) investigating drift in transcriptomes, proteomes and metabolomes in different longevity mutants, species and organs, and iii) analyzing the different periods in which life can be extended, we believe that the concept of drift is rather stimulating with implications on many aging-related topics and datasets.

8) The worm is different in many ways biologically at day 1 compared to later days. Reproduction ceases day 4-6, and body size increases during adulthood. How might these affect "drift", or vice-versa? Does mianserin affect these parameters? How can claims be made about effects on aging early in life without considering this biology? It is either disingenuous or naïve to describe young adulthood in terms of a period of aging while ignoring the biological events that are occurring, particularly the cessation of reproduction. Thank you for pointing this out. We have considered the aspects of germline biology scientifically while designing our study, but did not mention it because our previously published results seemed to exclude the involvement of the germline. One reason to analyze the Murphy et al., 2003 data as well as data from non-reproductive tissues in mice and humans was to ensure that fertility is not the driving factor behind drift. We now remedied our lapse and provide extensive data that show that FUDR sterilization or fertility does not affect drift (Figure 2–figure supplement 2) and address the germline further in Figure 6G and 6H. We also mention in the text that the fact that mianserin extends lifespan of daf-16 but not of eat-2 (Petrascheck, 2007) made us discount a direct germline-related lifespan extension early on. To further establish this, we have now included data showing that mianserin does not increase proteasome activity as seen in glp-1 mutants and that mianserin does not increase the reproductive lifespan in contrast to tph-1 (Figure 6G and 6H). We hope we have now amended what we failed to do the first time around.

Some additional important points: 9) What are the genes and GO terms that are changed between mianserin and untreated animals? Is this transcriptional signature like daf-2, or like CR treatment? This would be good to know and discuss before using transcriptional drift analysis, which looks at the rate of those changes, since later some of these targets (?) are discussed in the redox potential experiments. This information would also help us understand what the underlying mechanisms of mianserin's delay of aging are. And how many of these expression differences are attributed to eggs rather than soma?

Thank you for pointing this out. At the outset of the project, we conducted all these analysis as stated above. We have now included them in the revised manuscript (Figure 1–figure supplement 1 and Figure 1–source data 15). This analysis however showed a very complex and convoluted picture that was dramatically simplified by accounting for drift. Because the initial analysis was rather disappointing to us, we did not include it in the first version. However, we see that it is necessary to justify the reasons why we dramatically deviated from standard methods of analyses. Using the Murphy et al., data we show a 58% overlap in genes whose age-associated changes are reversed in both, mianserin-treated as well as daf-2 RNAi treated animals (See Results section for Figure 2G). This overlap is consistent with the fact that mianserin extends lifespan of daf-2 mutants but only by ~11% rather than the ~31% seen in the parallel N2 experiment. We were unable to find published dietary restriction transcriptome data that monitored differences across different ages to conduct a similar comparison.

10) Most of these experiments in worms, with the exception of the published data on daf-2 and daf-16 RNAi (which use worms without sperm), use animals that are still fertile. Since that is the case, how can the authors know which transcripts are due to changes in the soma, which presumably are the ones they are interested in because of aging, or due to changes in the eggs? It seems that the authors could do some comparisons with the control worms from the sterile animals to address this point; otherwise, one set of experiments that uses mianserin-treated sterile animals would be expected.

This is a good point. Please see response to point 14. We have addressed this point in Figure 2–figure supplement 2. FUDR-treated eggs actually contain very little RNA compared to normal untreated eggs and the contamination of egg RNA is minor. Using various published datasets of egg RNA, neurons, and sterile strains we show that drift is hardly influenced by the presence of FUDR-treated eggs.

11) While the SER-5 data are clear, we did not fully understand why other receptors would not be needed for stress protection which they are still needed for the lifespan effect.

Please consider our response to point 9. Mianserin and daf-2 attenuate drift in overlapping sets of genes ~58%. Mianserin does extend lifespan of daf-2 mutants but not as much as in N2. As 58% of the genes are already attenuated by daf-2 alone mianserin only adds to the anti-aging affect by attenuating an additional 42%, thus causing an increase in lifespan in daf-2 animals that is a bit less than half what it does in N2(See results section for Figure 2G). The same scenario is true for serotonin receptors. Serotonin affects different responses by different receptors. Note that in both, ser-4 and ser-5 mutants, mianserin still has some residual effect on lifespan suggesting independent functions. We show that SER-5 is specifically required for mianserin to induce stress resistance and to attenuate drift in the redox system. In the revised manuscript, we further show that SER-3 nor SER-4 are neither required for stress resistance nor for attenuating drift in redox genes (Figure 4 and Figure 4–figure supplement 1). Our model suggests that this is because these receptors attenuate drift of different subsets of genes. Thus, we should be able to dissociate which receptor causes transcriptional drift for which cellular process. If our model in which repeated activation of a transcriptional program causes drift is correct, then each of these receptors required for lifespan effect will cause drift in specific subset of genes it activates, when stimulated by serotonin or octopamine. For now, we provide evidence for the correlation between drift attenuation and redox function preservation by Mianserin via SER-5.

12) Does daf-16 suppress mianserin effects or act in parallel?

Mianserin clearly extends lifespan of daf-16(mu86) animals as well as of daf-2(e1370) animals. The lifespan extension, however, is less than in wt animals. (+11% instead of 31%)(Petrascheck 2007). Interestingly, the set of genes whose drift is attenuated by mianserin and daf-2 with age overlap by 58% (see Results section for Figure 2G). Thus, the overlap of drift-attenuation fits exactly the partial lifespan extension we have reported previously. Similar to this, it will be interesting to learn whether genetic epistasis can be explained by the overlap of genes whose drift is reversed.

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    Figure 1—source data 1. RNA-seq gene expression data.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.004

    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.004
    Figure 1—source data 2. Gene ontologies changing in response to mianserin treatment.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.005

    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.005
    Figure 1—source data 3. Gene ontologies changing in response to age.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.006

    elife-08833-fig1-data3.xlsx (190.1KB, xlsx)
    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.006
    Figure 1—source data 4. Differentially expressed genes in response to age.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.007

    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.007
    Figure 1—source data 5. Differentially expressed genes in response to mianserin treatment.

    DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7554/eLife.08833.008

    DOI: 10.7554/eLife.08833.008

    Articles from eLife are provided here courtesy of eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd

    RESOURCES