Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35232226›Full record

ReviewProceedings. Biological sciences2022

Cellular senescence, rejuvenation and potential immortality.

A Rupert Sheldrake

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Entropy and Human Aging.Aging cell · 2025
    Article
  3. Review
  4. Quiescence Multiverse.Biomolecules · 2025
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Mechanisms during Osteogenic Differentiation in Human Dental Follicle Cells.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

A Rupert SheldrakeSchumacher College, Totnes, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8814-4014
Schumacher College · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ageing, death, and potential immortality lie at the heart of biology, but two seemingly incompatible paradigms coexist in different research communities and have done since the nineteenth century. The universal senescence paradigm sees senescence as inevitable in all cells. Damage accumulates. The potential immortality paradigm sees some cells as potentially immortal, especially unicellular organisms, germ cells and cancerous cells. Recent research with animal cells, yeasts and bacteria show that damaged cell constituents do in fact build up, but can be diluted by growth and cell division, especially by asymmetric cell division. By contrast, mammalian embryonic stem cells and many cancerous and 'immortalized' cell lines divide symmetrically, and yet replicate indefinitely. How do they acquire their potential immortality? I suggest they are rejuvenated by excreting damaged cell constituents in extracellular vesicles. If so, our understanding of cellular senescence, rejuvenation and potential immortality could be brought together in a new synthesis, which I call the cellular rejuvenation hypothesis: damaged cell constituents build up in all cells, but cells can be rejuvenated either by growth and cell division or, in 'immortal' cell lines, by excreting damaged cell constituents. In electronic supplementary material, appendix, I outline nine ways in which this hypothesis could be tested.

Indexed as

Cellular SenescenceRejuvenationAgingAnimalsCell DivisionMammalsasymmetric cell divisioncancer cellscellular rejuvenationcellular senescencedamaged cell constituentsstem cells

Identifiers

PMID35232226
PMCPMC8889192
OpenAlexW4214878487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.