Response to Gluckman et al. and Bateson: predictive adaptive responses

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

In my first article on human developmental plasticity, I argued that both mother and offspring gain adaptively from their metabolic interactions during early life [ 1 Wells J.C. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis: thrifty offspring or thrifty mother?. J. Theor. Biol. 2003; 221: 143-161 Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar ]. ‘The offspring gains by being buffered against environmental fluctuations during the most sensitive period of development’, allowing coherent adaptation to its nutritional supply, whereas the mother gains by being able to manipulate the size of each offspring to match her capacity to provision them [ 1 Wells J.C. The thrifty phenotype hypothesis: thrifty offspring or thrifty mother?. J. Theor. Biol. 2003; 221: 143-161 Crossref PubMed Scopus (155) Google Scholar ]. I subsequently discussed how the developing offspring passes through a series of nutritional ‘niches’ – of pregnancy, lactation and behavioural provisioning [ 2 Wells J.C. The thrifty phenotype as an adaptive maternal effect. Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 2007; 82: 143-172 Crossref PubMed Scopus (190) Google Scholar ]. Importantly, physiological plasticity is largely restricted to the first two such niches, hence offspring adaptation occurs largely while being buffered from direct ecological stresses by maternal metabolism. These articles introduced a life-history perspective to human developmental plasticity, and this perspective addressed parent–offspring trade-offs, because earlier work had focused on adaptations of the offspring alone [ 3 Hales C.N. Barker D.J.P. Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus: the thrifty phenotype hypothesis. Diabetologia. 1992; 35: 595-601 Crossref PubMed Scopus (2438) Google Scholar ].