English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The delay of aging and healthy life extension is a primary concern of modern gerontological research. Based on theoretical assumptions and empirical findings, a number of bioactive agents have been proposed as promising “anti-aging” (geroprotective) preparations (de Magalhaes et al., 2012; Kennedy and Pennypacker, 2014). Usually, the substance is considered to have aging-modulating activity if its efficiency can be confirmed both in vitro and in vivo. In the first step of screening, a hypothetical geroprotective compound (e.g., antioxidant known to play a key role in ROS scavenging) is examined in in vitro models. If its effectiveness is confirmed, then its aging-modulating properties are studied in experimental in vivo models. In the case where supplementation of experimental animals with this agent causes life extension, it advertised as anti-aging drug. A logic discrepancy, however, can be generated between these two steps. Indeed, even if some substance is highly effective in in vitro model due to influencing a specific age-related pathway, its life-extending effects in animal models might be caused by unspecific (hormetic) mechanisms.

Aging-modulating treatments: from reductionism to a system-oriented perspective