4.4 Review

Molecular damage in aging

期刊

NATURE AGING
卷 1, 期 12, 页码 1096-1106

出版社

SPRINGERNATURE
DOI: 10.1038/s43587-021-00150-3

关键词

-

资金

  1. Longevity Consortium
  2. National Institute of Aging
  3. National Institutes of Health (NIH) [AG021332]
  4. NSF [MCB-1714569]
  5. Life Extension Foundation
  6. Elizabeth and Thomas Plott Chair in Gerontology
  7. NIH [AG064223, AG067782, AG065403, AG047200, HL121023, AG032498]
  8. NIA [U19AG023122]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This Review discusses the concept of molecular damage in aging, from theoretical models to experimental approaches, highlighting the central role of damage accumulation in the aging process. It emphasizes the importance of measuring multiple types of damage and the development of omics approaches to study the role of molecular damage in aging.
In this Review, the authors discuss the concept of molecular damage in aging, from theoretical models to experimental approaches and how to test interventions targeting aging that reduce its burden. Cellular metabolism and environmental interactions generate molecular damage affecting all levels of biological organization. Accumulation of this damage over time is thought to have a central role in the aging process. Insufficient attention has been paid to the role of molecular damage in aging-related phenotypes, particularly in humans, in part because of the difficulty in measuring its various forms. Recently, omics approaches have been developed that begin to address this challenge, because they can assess a sizable proportion of age-related damage at the level of small molecules, proteins, RNA, DNA, organelles and cells. This Review describes the concept of molecular damage in aging and discusses its diverse aspects from theoretical models to experimental approaches. Measurement of multiple types of damage enables studies of the role of damage in aging and lays a foundation for testing interventions that reduce the burden of molecular damage, thereby targeting 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

4.4
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