4.6 Review

Slow aging in mammals-Lessons from African mole-rats and bats

Journal

SEMINARS IN CELL & DEVELOPMENTAL BIOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue -, Pages 154-163

Publisher

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2017.07.006

Keywords

Aging; Senescence; Mole-rats; Bathyergidae; Bats; Chiroptera; Oxidative stress; Molecular homeostasis; Proteasome; Autophagy; Hormones

Funding

  1. German Research Foundation (DFG) [DA 992/3-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Traditionally, the main mammalian models used in aging research have been mice and rats, i.e. short-lived species that obviously lack effective maintenance mechanisms to keep their soma in a functional state for prolonged periods of time. It is doubtful that life-extending mechanisms identified only in such short-lived species adequately reflect the diversity of longevity pathways that have naturally evolved in mammals, or that they have much relevance for long-lived species such as humans. Therefore, some complementary, long-lived mammalian models have been introduced to aging research in the past 15-20 years, particularly naked mole-rats (and to a lesser extent also other mole-rats) and bats. Here, I summarize and compare the most important results regarding various aspects of aging - oxidative stress, molecular homeostasis and repair, and endocrinology - that have been obtained from studies using these new mammalian models of high longevity. I argue that the inclusion of these models was an important step forward, because it drew researchers' attention to certain oversimplifications of existing aging theories and to several features that appear to be universal components of enhanced longevity in mammals. However, even among mammals with high longevity, considerable variation exists with respect to other candidate mechanisms that also must be taken into account if inadequate generalizations are to be avoided. (C) 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available