4.4 Article

Health and longevity studies in C. elegans: the healthy worm database reveals strengths, weaknesses and gaps of test compound-based studies

期刊

BIOGERONTOLOGY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 215-236

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10522-021-09913-2

关键词

Database; C; elegans; Aging; Compounds; Phenotypes; Healthspan

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The database collected data on health-related compound studies in the aging model Caenorhabditis elegans, providing insights into healthy aging research based on a frequently used model organism. Despite some weaknesses discussed, it serves as an anchor for the search for compounds affecting health.
Several biogerontology databases exist that focus on genetic or gene expression data linked to health as well as survival, subsequent to compound treatments or genetic manipulations in animal models. However, none of these has yet collected experimental results of compound-related health changes. Since quality of life is often regarded as more valuable than length of life, we aim to fill this gap with the Healthy Worm Database (). Literature describing health-related compound studies in the aging model Caenorhabditis elegans was screened, and data for 440 compounds collected. The database considers 189 publications describing 89 different phenotypes measured in 2995 different conditions. Besides enabling a targeted search for promising compounds for further investigations, this database also offers insights into the research field of studies on healthy aging based on a frequently used model organism. Some weaknesses of C. elegans-based aging studies, like underrepresented phenotypes, especially concerning cognitive functions, as well as the convenience-based use of young worms as the starting point for compound treatment or phenotype measurement are discussed. In conclusion, the database provides an anchor for the search for compounds affecting health, with a link to public databases, and it further highlights some potential shortcomings in current aging research.

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

4.4
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