Researchers published a study in Nature Communications that compares alternative splicing across 26 mammal species with maximum lifespans from 2.2 to 37 years (>16-fold differences). Alternative splicing is a process where one gene can make different mRNA and proteins by including or skipping segments. The team looked at six tissue types, including the brain, and found many splicing patterns linked to lifespan that are shared across species.
The brain showed twice as many lifespan-linked splicing events than other tissues. The researchers found that splicing predicts maximum lifespan better than simple differences in gene activity. They also found that RNA-binding proteins genetically control lifespan-linked splicing rather than it being a simple byproduct of aging.
Co-authors include Sika Zheng at the University of California, Riverside School of Medicine and Liang Chen at the University of Southern California. The National Institutes of Health funded the research.
Difficult words
- splicing — Joining parts of genes together.
- lifespan — Length of time a living thing lives.
- species — Group of similar living things.
- research — Gathering information or facts about something.study
- discover — Find out something new.discovered
- aging — Process of getting older.
- promote — Help something grow or succeed.
Tip: hover, focus or tap highlighted words in the article to see quick definitions while you read or listen.
Discussion questions
- Why do you think some mammals live longer than others?
- How can understanding splicing help us with health?
- What ways might promote healthy aging in the future?
Related articles
Tanzania fights rabies with mass dog vaccination
Tanzania is working to stop human rabies by vaccinating dogs, improving surveillance and keeping vaccines cold. High vaccine costs, remote villages and lack of electricity remain challenges, but local and international efforts are growing.
UNESCO report finds gaps in education data
A UNESCO report published on 27 April finds important gaps in education data from poorer countries. It reviewed primary and secondary data in 120 countries but under‑represented low‑income nations and found no science assessment data in low‑income countries.
