ArticleBiogerontology2025
Reproduction and preference to macronutrients have different relations to biological or chronological age in Drosophila.
Article in Biogerontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Varied factors and interventions were shown to extend the lifespan. An understanding of the mechanisms behind the beneficial effects might extend our understanding of how interventions work. However, in most studies, groups are compared at distinct time points representing chronological age. This setup does not take into account that organisms of the same chronological age are different biologically. In other words, they have a different biological age that reflects varied physiological traits. We have compared reproduction and consumption of specific macronutrients for flies in according quartiles (Q) of chronological and biological age. Quartiles of chronological age were obtained by dividing the total lifespan of the cohort into 4 parts. Quartiles of biological age were estimated as time points of 75, 50, 25 and 0% survival of the cohort. We found that the decline in carbohydrate or protein consumption was stronger in the case of chronological rather than biological age. However, flies of biological or chronological quartile 4 consumed virtually the same amounts of macronutrients. The decline in reproduction was significantly reduced in relation to biological age. Thus, the decline was about 38-68% when within chronological quartiles 2 and 1 but only 4-31% for biological ones. The reproductive capacity was reduced by 86-93% in flies of chronological Q4 as compared to a 60-77% decrease for those of biological. Starting from quartile 2 biologically aged flies laid significantly higher number of eggs than flies of the same chronological quartile. Our results point out the significant difference in flies of the same biological and chronological quartile and raise the question about the suitability of comparison traits of organisms with different lifespans same chronological age.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40418386What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.