, Discussion

chondria, « , caused | | by |] / ROS i mee PME SES} induced 1 oem r*™ I| mtDNA 1 “pee eee. mutations, i , is é 5 al | major ¢ ‘contributor t ‘to t ) the « > cellular BE AENEAN MARENdeterioration that eon =underlies the ageing process seeewg Deen a(Brand, ’((() Kowald and Kirkwood, ’(((>(cid:28) Consistent ' t with 1 1 this 1 NEESs theory 1 ris t s the \eee >» vast I meet number « r of 1 eg <Mf reports 1 “Mesin t \ the | > literature i —e=—Didentifying NN PO MSincreases | in 3 } mtDNA « _ deletions me yesand 1 | mutations ; occurring | ape, with ; Lage | -in | various | ; human t eek JOO| tissues (Biagini | et j -al., +;;:) Brierley | et i cal., +;;:) Liu | et i a =-al., +;;:(cid:10)) “ot”Liu | et i -al., +;;:(cid:31)) 1(cid:25) et cal., +;;;) OER RID DA- Michikawa « ceMeyLet i ootal., +;;;) pO OOD ED AA; Kopsidas « aneset i 7stal., 7 ’(((>(cid:28) ae. The | o_o!: possibility | ’ that « AATt certain i OOD| inherited aaa AomtDNA | ——eee™ wegpolymorphisms - aA AD/may » 7 aan reepredispose | “™ eeney aecertain | eM pe Ae peeindividuals | to | be: “J sees/ more | resistant to.  age- related « Fe pee yo| diseases : we pees; and | OE III| promote | J PereeeePeee- longevity 1 is i > an ¢ | attractive | CO!ncept, | , supported | | by | three 1 — SON‘recent studies | in French, . Zee_ Japanese : ~~and | oN rey °| Italian | | centenarians | TNE EES, Ivanova | et al., +;;:) seeTanaka | et cal., +;;:)  RENEE AI; Benedictis | et -al., +;;;>(cid:28) In) | this | | study ° we OR EA ES- assessed the - eg haa   _Aa—————e———| mtDNA | poly- aN anmorphism i in: la. ’3*4 } bp 1 me EN) region aa,. of t vee a”F the § > genome ( <(cid:17)(cid:3)+4;(:0+3%%+> ) in < .an | \ Irish 1 aged | ee| population Necompared | | to | a! aN SP| younger « oecontrol | oh REIN Ee| group.

created lat \ total ¢ | of ¢ *3 distinct | t genetic | ce Ne Pe ae> haplotypes ' we pees within 1 \ the | > Irish | | population. ” . This | s high | level of « f diversity | / was § ; somewhat oS EEt surprising « pee’ Peo, considering t the 1 EN EE EOErelatively | PMP eee eee REhomogenous 1 DEO; nature ¢ > of t f the Trish « Pees J TT eae} community. | Iti bis of | “eee eee"interest | art to 1 “oe) note 1  that « weeof t “oe‘the | 4+ EEE EME J OIhaplotypes 1 SONot | Oe NE| present | in | | both ¢ | age groups,  ee yehigher ‘number <’(> / were found in the aged eee pe  Tsamples. ~~ Oe™ Poeecompared to the | aE EEScontrol oressamples | <++>(cid:30) _ indicating ;  ay Ysslight | increase ins mee Se} mtDNA » EO_ variation with | “Eeepage. | “onsidering | the eeehigh | ree NMA ASD| number | pg aneof pe ONE IEvariables | <*3 NE) haplotypes) ‘ )and 1 | their | low : frequencies | _“S*in — em| Most « cases, | neity | Was

)*+* . Ross ¢ yet ¢ tal. / , / Experimental ( | Gerontology - /0 123345 4404644(cid:30)7

“ae eTgroups pee eSfailed to identify “Teeany el isignificant associations. La ees SFOPhylogenetic analysis cae “eshowever oerere aidentified ++ groups | <@(cid:9)(cid:15) +A++> Toof | ‘related | haplotypes | NOencompassing | all. *3 haplotypes. Of t f these « ~~ AS Bt> eleven | MMP AM| groups, t Oe, three ¢ i ee- displayed 1 NE ET| notable | Spe I Pee- frequency « NDEI D TE ONE IIEdifferences | “Oo eee; between t 1 the t pee> two z peey age groups | (Table : %>(cid:28) nerGrp | % was | eee pee ye| observed at ;  Nee_ decreased | ON OL OES| frequency ° within | the ; aged | “Sue “on| samples <,=> pe eeecompared | (seto. ebthe | control | samples <+%=> -and | | Grp : ieee,| Was | wy Neeonly | EEE IIE ESobserved onin | the | eeeaged Aimycohort « t of § “ee‘samples ( <%=>(cid:28) Int . the « eee> Case ( eee+ of | we Naef Grp ++ A—(all OE| hap +> al —_—ee| marked 1 J Veeese| increase \ > Was ¢ ser Sor; observed int \ the - aged | meee| females ( <+3=> ) compared t | to 1 ee E) the { sos enn ns» female « aap ae- controls ( <%=>(cid:28) . However, _ after t ‘the | level of ee So eee- significance is. we EM IST ™adjusted weetfor reethe ++ comparisons made, eA EM Teeusing mney OeBonferroni’s | correction <’ < ((cid:28)((*3>(cid:30) these | meee- frequency « differences ' —————————r; would | | lose a>their : EEsignificance | : (Table : %>(cid:28) . Never- aetheless, t EID, these 1 fy Sew ae- findings 1 eer; merit 1 ee DE III EIEN| re-examination i in é a | larger : study « “oerand | See RR NX| provide AAs \ basis | se ans for | ‘future work.