• AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    Unless I missed something, the word “telomere” doesn’t occur in the article or its source paper—rather, it discusses the rate of DNA methylation.

    IMO, the key passage in the paper is this:

    However, any genetic regulation for a species may potentially be a secondary factor as there may be other environmental selective pressures. This may be the case with species which have lifespans post reproductive age and therefore, there may be non-genetic factors that may be more predictive of their maximum lifespan.

    I suspect that the methylation rate is actually tracking the end of the reproductive stage of the lifecycle, rather than the entire lifespan—it’s just that humans have an unusually long post-reproductive stage.

    • Talonflame (she/her)@lemmy.cafeOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      It’s saying 38 is the maximum lifespan of a human, determined by genetics, and the only reason we can live past 38 is due to unnatural interventions ie medicine

      • AbouBenAdhem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        It’s saying 38 is the maximum lifespan predicted by their model—but it also says their model has an R2 of 0.76, meaning it only predicts about 76% of the variation in the actual measured values. And then they discuss other factors that could account for the remaining 24% of the variation, including post-reproductive-age lifespan.