Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28637856›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2017

How to get the most bang for your buck: the evolution and physiology of nutrition-dependent resource allocation strategies.

Enoch Ng'oma, Anna M Perinchery, Elizabeth G King

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. The Hunger Games as the Key to Happily Ever After?The journals of gerontology. Series A, Biological sciences and medical sciences · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

3 authors.

Enoch Ng'omaDivision of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA ngomae@missouri.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6741-7922
Anna M PerincheryDivision of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6849-4495
Elizabeth G KingDivision of Biological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9393-4720

Funding

Coordinating nutrition and energy allocation: mechanisms and evolutionR01GM117135 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI-COLUMBIA · PI KING, ELIZABETH GRIEP · 2016 to 2020
$1.6M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM117135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

All organisms use resources to grow, survive and reproduce. The supply of these resources varies widely across landscapes and time, imposing ultimate constraints on the maximal trait values for allocation-related traits. In this review, we address three key questions fundamental to our understanding of the evolution of allocation strategies and their underlying mechanisms. First, we ask: how diverse are flexible resource allocation strategies among different organisms? We find there are many, varied, examples of flexible strategies that depend on nutrition. However, this diversity is often ignored in some of the best-known cases of resource allocation shifts, such as the commonly observed pattern of lifespan extension under nutrient limitation. A greater appreciation of the wide variety of flexible allocation strategies leads directly to our second major question: what conditions select for different plastic allocation strategies? Here, we highlight the need for additional models that explicitly consider the evolution of phenotypically plastic allocation strategies and empirical tests of the predictions of those models in natural populations. Finally, we consider the question: what are the underlying mechanisms determining resource allocation strategies? Although evolutionary biologists assume differential allocation of resources is a major factor limiting trait evolution, few proximate mechanisms are known that specifically support the model. We argue that an integrated framework can reconcile evolutionary models with proximate mechanisms that appear at first glance to be in conflict with these models. Overall, we encourage future studies to: (i) mimic ecological conditions in which those patterns evolve, and (ii) take advantage of the 'omic' opportunities to produce multi-level data and analytical models that effectively integrate across physiological and evolutionary theory.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionEcologyEcosystemFeeding BehaviorModels, BiologicalPhenotypeecological contextevolutionary theoryphenotypic plasticityproximate mechanismsresource allocationresource availability

Identifiers

PMID28637856
PMCPMC5489724

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.