The chronologic age classically used in demography is often unable to give useful information about which exact stage in development or aging processes has reached an organism. Hence, we propose here to explain in some applications for what reason the chronologic age fails in explaining totally the observed state of an organism, which leads to propose a new notion, the biological age. This biological age is essentially determined by the number of divisions before the Hayflick’s limit the tissue or mitochondrion (...) in a critical organ (in the sense where its loss causes the death of the whole organism) has already used for its development and adult phases. We give a precise definition of the biological age of an organ based on the Hayflick’s limit of its cells and we introduce a desynchronization index (the cell entropy) for some critical tissues or membranes, which are mainly skin, intestinal endothelium, alveoli epithelium and mitochondrial inner membrane. In these actively metabolising interface tissues or membranes, there is a rapid turnover of cells, of their cytoplasmic constituents such as proteins, and of membrane lipids. The boundaries corresponding to these tissues, cells or membranes have vital functions of interface with the environment (protection, homeothermy, nutrition and respiration) and have a rapid turnover (the total cell renewal time is in mice equal to 3 weeks for the skin, 1.5 day for the intestine, 4 months for the alveolae and 11 days for mitochondrial inner membrane) conditioning their biological age. The biological age of a tissue is made of two major components: (1) first, its embryonic age based on the distance (in number of divisions) between the birth date of its first differentiated cell and the time until it reaches its final boundary at the end of its development and (2) second, its adult age whose complement until its death is just the lapse of time made of the sum of remaining cell cycle durations authorized by its Hayflick’s limit. From this definition, we calculate the global biological lifespan of an organism and revisit notions like demographic survival curves, duration and synchrony of cell cycles, living boundaries from proto-cells to organs, and embryonic and adult phases duration. (shrink)

We address three fundamental questions: What does it mean for an entity to be living? What is the role of inter-organismic collaboration in evolution? What is a biological individual? Our central argument is that life arises when lineage-forming entities collaborate in metabolism. By conceiving of metabolism as a collaborative process performed by functional wholes, which are associations of a variety of lineage-forming entities, we avoid the standard tension between reproduction and metabolism in discussions of life – a tension particularly evident (...) in discussions of whether viruses are alive. Our perspective assumes no sharp distinction between life and non-life, and does not equate life exclusively with cellular or organismal status. We reach this conclusion through an analysis of the capabilities of a spectrum of biological entities, in which we include the pivotal case of viruses as well as prions, plasmids, organelles, intracellular and extracellular symbionts, unicellular and multicellular life-forms. The usual criterion for classifying many of the entities of our continuum as non-living is autonomy. This emphasis on autonomy is problematic, however, because even paradigmatic biological individuals, such as large animals, are dependent on symbiotic associations with many other organisms. These composite individuals constitute the metabolic wholes on which selection acts. Finally, our account treats cooperation and competition not as polar opposites but as points on a continuum of collaboration. We suggest that competitive relations are a transitional state, with multi-lineage metabolic wholes eventually outcompeting selfish competitors, and that this process sometimes leads to the emergence of new types or levels of wholes. Our view of life as a continuum of variably structured collaborative systems leaves open the possibility that a variety of forms of organized matter – from chemical systems to ecosystems – might be usefully understood as living entities. (shrink)

The origin of homochirality in molecules characterizing living systems has remained a mystery since Pasteur's recognition of the problem some 150 years ago.2-5 Most theories also assume that homochirality emerged in one class of molecules (e.g. ribose) from which it was enriched in other molecules (e.g. amino acids) as well.2-5 I propose a novel, experimentally testable hypothesis describing a process by which selective chirality in amino acids and ribonucleotides emerged simultaneously and hand-in-hand with the origin and directionality of the genetic (...) code within a system of interactions involving amino acids, peptides, nucleotide bases, their sugars and polynucleotides. BioEssays 29:689–698, 2007. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. (shrink)