Reviewer #1 (Public Review):
Ruby et al. have investigated patterns of age-specific mortality in the exceptionally long-lived naked mole-rat (NMR), under captive conditions. The authors first visited this topic five years previously with an unprecedently large data set and concluded that naked mole-rats are 'non-aging': because analyses of their survival did not detect an increasing mortality hazard with age. This result has obvious applied interest in humans because of its implications for maintaining health into later life. One criticism directed at this previous work was that a limited number 'old-aged' individuals in their data set (individuals in what might be expected to be the latter half of the life course) reduced the power with which to detect an age-related increase in mortality - or to convincingly demonstrate its absence. The current study revisits this topic with a larger sample across the life course. The authors also provide additional analyses that explore various predictors of mortality, including breeding status, body weight and colony size, and now also make direct comparisons to mortality patterns in other species of African mole-rat from the Fukomys clade (which share many convergent social and life history features). I found the analyses of Fukomys mortality particularly illuminating. However, while these additional analyses provide some useful context and can generate interesting discussion points about ageing patterns in an extremely unusual species, the principal issue at hand whether the absence of Gompertzian mortality in NMR is a robust pattern.
In this respect, a major limitation of the current study is that only 11% of the animals (n = 755) had died at the point of its conclusion- the remaining 89% being right-censored (n = 6138). This means that, as in the previous analysis, there are still relatively small numbers of individuals that have died in the older age classes (see Fig 1 for the high level of right-censoring between 15-20 years and the low numbers of deaths after this point, also Supp 1 for the raw data): the part of the life course where one would predict mortality rates to increase from an evolutionary perspective. Thus, while the authors claim very generally that the "demographic data has doubled", this in no way reflects whether the new data is informative to the question at hand, which relies on an ability to estimate death rates in older individuals accurately. If one looks more closely at the numbers which do matter, then one can see that the number of deaths in the data set has shifted from 447 in the former treatment (Ruby et al. 2018) to 755 currently, but that the number of later-stage deaths remains somewhat modest (and that this is probably reflected in the large confidence intervals for the mortality hazards at this time). I therefore remain unconvinced that the current study can rule out an exponential increase in hazard in older individuals.
The authors have also not provided any statistical evidence that the mortality hazard changes with age (or not), instead relying on visual comparisons of aggregated data. This is a fundamental problem and demands a more thorough treatment that compares survival models with different shape profiles. If anything, it seems that the hazard rate is declining with age - see Figures 1B & 2C, and while this may strengthen the authors argument if supported statistically, I would still wonder whether the higher mortality in early life - say 6 months to 3 years of age - is a consequence of the costs of early life development and that this is not a useful baseline against which to compare 'adult' mortality. It would also not overcome the data limitations identified above.
An additional concern is that the paper is selective in its presentation of previous work, with the authors focussing on results which support their main interpretations and glossing over those that don't. For example, the study refers to the fact that NMRs are resistant to various age-related diseases and do not show many age-related declines in physiology. Yet, while this argument of negligible senescence might hold generally, the literature contains various reports of later life declines in NMR physiology (Andziak et al. 2006; Edrey et al., 2011). Referring to work from your own group, Braude et al. (2021) write "several typical mammalian age-related lesions of muscles, bone, heart, liver, and eye, including sarcopenia, osteoarthritis, a decline in articular cartilage thickness of the condyles, lipofuscin accumulation in several organs, eye cataracts, and kidney fibrosis have been described in naked mole-rats older than 26 years (Edrey et al., 2011)". A more balanced treatment of physiology in extremely old individuals would prove constructive.
Another way in which the study fails to fully represent the literature is with respect to the divergence in ageing rates between breeders and non-breeders. This pattern has proved seductive for various mole-rat researchers because of its similarities to social insects and the suggestion that it is reproduction itself which delays ageing. While this is a clear possibility with some empirical support, it is important to also consider the question from the other way: which is to ask why non-breeders die at higher rates than breeders. For other cooperative breeders such as meerkats, the answer is clear: dominant, breeding individuals evict subordinates and once evicted from the group, the chances that these individuals will survive plummets (e.g. Cram et al. 2028). Is it possible that a similar form of dominance control might contribute the shorter life span of non-breeders in captivity? You reference Toor et al. (2020) elsewhere and this is relevant here again.<br /> Captivity also prevents non-breeders from dispersing when they would otherwise ordinarily do so (Braude 2000): is it possible that this also affects their mortality in captivity? Perhaps not being able to disperse induces chronic stress (see for example the discussion in Novikov et al. 2015). The idea that breeders show a lower intrinsic rate of aging is attractive, but many factors could contribute to this and alternatives should be considered unless they can be strongly refuted.
Lastly, it would be very beneficial to have more information on how individuals become breeders in the captive population/s. For the purposes of the analyses, individuals have been categorised as a breeder or a non-breeder based on whether they bred or not at some point in their life (i.e., they are a "breeder" for their whole life for the purposes of the Kaplan Meier curves and the estimation of mortality hazards). I think it is therefore important to rule out the possibility that only high-quality individuals become breeders and that this is what drives the contrast in breeder and non-breeder mortality. In short, is it the case that most breeders are created through the random pairing of a male and a female? Or do new breeders inherit the position once the old queen dies? The latter could lead to breeders being of generally higher quality, which might affect their mortality hazard independently of status.
Overall, I think that the authors can confidently conclude that any onset of actuarial senescence is heavily delayed in naked mole-rats, but the main conclusion that naked mole-rats "defy Gompertzian mortality" is based on inadequate evidence. It seems very possible that the inability to detect an increasing mortality hazard in such a long-lived species arises from data limitations. The central finding of the study should therefore be viewed very critically.
Refs:<br /> Anziak et al. (2006) Aging Cell 5:463-471.<br /> Braude et al. (2021) Biological Reviews 96: 376-293.<br /> Cram et al. (2018) Current Biology 28: 1-6.<br /> Edrey et al. (2011) ILAR Journal 52:41-53.<br /> Novikov et al. (2015) Biogerontology 16: 723-732.<br /> Toor et al. (2020) Animal Behaviour 168: 45-58.