4.7 Article

Attachment across the lifespan: Examining the intersection of pair bonding neurobiology and healthy aging

期刊

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2023.105339

关键词

Pair bonding; Aging; Prairie voles; Social attachment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increasing evidence suggests that intact social bonds are protective against age-related morbidity, while bond disruption and social isolation increase the risk for age-related diseases. This review explores the potential areas of focus emerging from data in humans and other species, as well as evidence from prairie voles, to understand the link between attachment and healthy aging. The development of molecular genetic tools in monogamous species may help bridge the mechanistic gaps and provide insights into human health and aging.
Increasing evidence suggests that intact social bonds are protective against age-related morbidity, while bond disruption and social isolation increase the risk for multiple age-related diseases. Social attachments, the enduring, selective bonds formed between individuals, are thus essential to human health. Socially monogamous species like the prairie vole (M. ochrogaster) form long-term pair bonds, allowing us to investigate the mechanisms underlying attachment and the poorly understood connection between social bonds and health. In this review, we explore several potential areas of focus emerging from data in humans and other species associating attachment and healthy aging, and evidence from prairie voles that may clarify this link. We examine gaps in our understanding of social cognition and pair bond behavior. Finally, we discuss physiologic pathways related to pair bonding that promote resilience to the processes of aging and age-related disease. Advances in the development of molecular genetic tools in monogamous species will allow us to bridge the mechanistic gaps presented and identify conserved research and therapeutic targets relevant to human health and aging.

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

4.7
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