Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27717308›Full record

SynthesisBMC evolutionary biology2016

The effect of dietary restriction on reproduction: a meta-analytic perspective.

Joshua P Moatt, Shinichi Nakagawa, Malgorzata Lagisz, Craig A Walling

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC evolutionary biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 73 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 'Hangry'Animal behaviour · 2021
    Article
  16. Caloric restriction in female reproduction: is it beneficial or detrimental?Reproductive biology and endocrinology : RB&E · 2021
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Joshua P MoattInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Ashworth Labs, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK. josh.moatt@ed.ac.uk.
Shinichi NakagawaEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Malgorzata LagiszEvolution & Ecology Research Centre and School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
Craig A WallingInstitute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Ashworth Labs, Kings Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JT, UK.
University of Edinburgh · GBGarvan Institute of Medical Research · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/J01446X/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDietary restriction (DR), a reduction in the amount of food or particular nutrients eaten, is the most consistent environmental manipulation to extend lifespan and protect against age related diseases. Current evolutionary theory explains this effect as a shift in the resolution of the trade-off between lifespan and reproduction. However, recent studies have questioned the role of reproduction in mediating the effect of DR on longevity and no study has quantitatively investigated the effect of DR on reproduction across species.

resultsHere we report a comprehensive comparative meta-analysis of the effect of DR on reproduction. In general, DR reduced reproduction across taxa, but several factors moderated this effect. The effect of DR on reproduction was greater in well-studied model species (yeast, nematode worms, fruit flies and rodents) than non-model species. This mirrors recent results for longevity and, for reproduction, seems to result from a faster rate of decline with decreasing resources in model species. Our results also suggested that not all reproductive traits are affected equally by DR. High and moderate cost reproductive traits suffered a significant reduction with DR, but low cost traits, such as ejaculate production, did not. Although the effect of DR on reproduction was stronger in females than males, this sex difference reduced to near zero when accounting for other co-factors such as the costliness of the reproductive trait. Thus, sex differences in the effect of DR on longevity may be due to a failure to expose males to as complete a range of the costs of reproduction as females.

conclusionsWe suggest that to better understand the generality of the effect of DR, future studies should attempt to address the cause of the apparent model species bias and ensure that individuals are exposed to as many of the costs of reproduction as possible. Furthermore, our meta-analytic approach reveals a general shortage of DR studies that record reproduction, particularly in males, as well as a lack of direct side-by-side comparisons of the effect of DR on males and females.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionCaloric RestrictionLongevityReproductionAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleSex CharacteristicsYeastsBreedingLife history trade-offMeta-analysisNutritionSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID27717308
PMCPMC5054627
OpenAlexW2528484196

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.