4.5 Article

Advancing age is associated with gene expression changes resembling mTOR inhibition: Evidence from two human populations

期刊

MECHANISMS OF AGEING AND DEVELOPMENT
卷 133, 期 8, 页码 556-562

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.mad.2012.07.003

关键词

Aging; Aging mechanisms; mTOR; Human population

资金

  1. Intramural Research Program
  2. National Institute on Aging
  3. U.S. National Institutes of Health
  4. US National Institute on Aging Intramural Research Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interventions which inhibit TOR activity (including rapamycin and caloric restriction) lead to downstream gene expression changes and increased lifespan in laboratory models. However, the role of mTOR signaling in human aging is unclear. We tested the expression of mTOR-related transcripts in two independent study cohorts; the InCHIANTI population study of aging and the San Antonio Family Heart Study (SAFHS). Expression of 27/56 (InCHIANTI) and 19/44 (SAFHS) genes were associated with age after correction for multiple testing. 8 genes were robustly associated with age in both cohorts. Genes involved in insulin signaling (PTEN, PI3K, PDK1), ribosomal biogenesis (S6K), lipid metabolism (SREBF1), cellular apoptosis (SGK1), angiogenesis (VEGFB), insulin production and sensitivity (FOXO), cellular stress response (HIF1A) and cytoskeletal remodeling (PKC) were inversely correlated with age, whereas genes relating to inhibition of ribosomal components (4EBP1) and inflammatory mediators (STAT3) were positively associated with age in one or both datasets. We conclude that the expression of mTOR-related transcripts is associated with advancing age in humans. Changes seen are broadly similar to mTOR inhibition interventions associated with increased lifespan in animals. Work is needed to establish whether these changes are predictive of human longevity and whether further mTOR inhibition would be beneficial in older people. (c) 2012 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据