Submited on: 10 Aug 2011 01:21:38 PM GMT
Published on: 11 Aug 2011 02:29:45 PM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This is essentially a study of some epigenetic mechanisms involved in ageing. It is indeed an important subject and one likely to provide clues as to ways for manipulating ageing.

     

    However, in the Abstarct conclusion there should be some more details explaining how exactly the epigenetic theory could alter our views on ageing, and what the consequences of it would be.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    Yes. This is a new way of seing ageing, particularly as being distinct from other theories.  However, the claim that ageing is due to an inevitable increase in entropy is not, in my view, incompatible with other theories of ageing such as the stochastic damage theories, or even the programmed ageing ones


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    Yes. There is extesnive and useful literature.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    Yes. It would be helpful to expand on this approcah from different angles in subsequent papers or research. This will strengthen the author's position.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    NA


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    Not at this stage, but perhaps in separate papers.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    This is a subject that would be of benefit to any student of biological gerontology, although some of the approaches are open to criticism (see other  reviews of this paper)


  • Other Comments:

    No

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:

    Kyriazis M. Practical applications of chaos theory to the modulation of human ageing: nature prefers chaos to regularityBiogerontology 4: 75–90, 2003.

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:
    None
  • How to cite:  Kyriazis M .An Informative Paper But Not Without Controversies[Review of the article 'On The Origin of Ageing ' by Simons J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(12):WMCRW002381
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
On the origin of ageing
Posted by Prof. Mahadev Murthy on 29 Apr 2012 01:47:19 PM GMT

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? Yes
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    This is an interesting paper, which makes strong statements on ageing. If we are able to understand the physiological ageing, it would change the direction of how we approach ageing theories. There are however indications that the nuclear architecture might be involved in the ageing process. The data from this paper tends to support this theory.

     

     The epigenetic-based changes are beginning to emerge as significant factors in ageing. In addition, these changes also seem to address this issue from an evolutionary perspective. The aspect of heritability of certain genes is also credible despite the complexity associated with the biology ageing.  

     

    The findings support another way of looking ageing theories. Changes have been found in the proteasome function and structure although no clear conceptual theory has evolved for ageing. The authors make a strong case in support of their findings.

     

    It is a well-written paper and should be accepted. However, there are a few tpos/errors in the paper. They should be corrected.

     

  • Competing interests:
    no
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    Yes
  • References:
    Biomarker Validation for Aging: Lessons from mtDNA Heteroplasmy Analyses in Early Cancer Detection. Peter E. Barker and Mahadev Murthy. Biomarker Insights 2009:4 165–179. Acute Kidney Injury in Older Adults Sharon Anderson, Basil Eldadah, Jeffrey B. Halter, William R. Hazzard, Jonathan Himmelfarb, Frances McFarland Horne,Paul L. Kimmel, Bruce A. Molitoris, Mahadev Murthy, Ann M. O’Hare, Kenneth E. Schmader, and Kevin P. High. J Am Soc Nephrol 22: 28–38, 2011
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    I work in the area and I am interested in understanding the biology of ageing and in identifying gaps that would help us understand physiological ageing. This also helps us decide what we should support in terms of ageing research to advance intervention approaches.

  • How to cite:  Murthy M .On the origin of ageing[Review of the article 'On The Origin of Ageing ' by Simons J].WebmedCentral 2012;3(4):WMCRW001745
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 

1 Is the subject of the article within the scope of the subject category? Yes
2 Are the interpretations / conclusions sound and justified by the data? Yes
3 Is this a new and original contribution? Yes
4 Does this paper exemplify an awareness of other research on the topic? No
5 Are structure and length satisfactory? Yes
6 Can you suggest brief additions or amendments or an introductory statement that will increase the value of this paper for an international audience? No
7 Can you suggest any reductions in the paper, or deletions of parts? No
8 Is the quality of the diction satisfactory? Yes
9 Are the illustrations and tables necessary and acceptable? Yes
10 Are the references adequate and are they all necessary? Yes
11 Are the keywords and abstract or summary informative? Yes
  • Other Comments:

    More attention should be given to checking the correct citation of references (e.g. Vina J et al., 2007 or 1999?; Lapointe J, Hekimi S, 2009 or 2010?).

    Apart from these inaccuracies (which can be easily corrected), the A. maintains that “the cause of ageing is understood and ageing is caused by the failure of many maintenance mechanisms …”. This prejudicial conviction is contradicted by many known data (see Libertini G., Empirical evidence for various evolutionary hypotheses on species demonstrating increasing mortality with increasing chronological age in the wild, TheScientificWorld Journal, 2008, 8, 183-193): the persistence in supporting certain hypotheses in contrast with known facts can be explained by the predictions expressed in the fundamental work of Kuhn T, 1970 (see Milewski L., The evolution of ageing. Bioscience Horizons, 2010, 3, 77-84).

    However, in a theoretical context not yet proven and indeed contradicted by evidence, I consider the work interesting and worth exploring within a different theoretical paradigm.

  • Competing interests:
    No
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Please, see my personal page (www.r-site.org/ageing) and the site www.programmed-aging.org

  • How to cite:  Libertini G .Good work, but within a questionable paradigm[Review of the article 'On The Origin of Ageing ' by Simons J].WebmedCentral 2012;2(12):WMCRW001279
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse