In one paragraphArticle in Biogerontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from itWhat 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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
13 authors.
Mikhail V ShaposhnikovLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation. shaposhnikov@ib.komisc.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4625-6488 Liubov A KovalLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0153-0981 Nadezhda V ZemskayaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8746-0020 Eugenia V SchegolevaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6090-8254 Tatyana V BabakLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3131-2520 Ekaterina N ProshkinaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4558-1796 Denis A GolubevLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0570-8211 Natalya R PakshinaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2076-0755 Natalia S TimushevaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3326-055X Elena Y PlatonovaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4632-2385 Anastasia A GorbunovaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4610-8821 Daria V MikhailovaLaboratory of Geroprotective and Radioprotective Technologies, Institute of Biology of Komi Science Centre of the Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 28 Kommunisticheskaya St., 167982, Syktyvkar, Russian Federation.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8505-1135 Alexey MoskalevPetrovsky Russian Research Centre of Surgery, Institute of Biology of Aging and Healthy Longevity Medicine With Preventive Medicine Clinic, 101990, Moscow, Russian Federation. amoskalev@med.ru.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3248-1633 Funding
Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation 125013101228-2
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
Aging is influenced by both genetic and environmental factors, yet comparative studies across species with different natural lifespans remain limited. We examined how reduced ambient temperature (18 °C vs 25 °C) and constant darkness, compared with a 12 h light/12 h dark cycle (DD vs LD), affect lifespan, age-related physiological traits, and gene expression in three Drosophila species with contrasting natural lifespans and climatic adaptations (tropical, short‑lived D. kikkawai, tropical, intermediate‑lived D. melanogaster, and temperate, long‑lived D. virilis). Low temperature extended lifespan in all three species, with the largest relative gains occurring in the shortest‑lived D. kikkawai males, yet the longest absolute lifespans were consistently attained by the long‑lived D. virilis. Constant darkness moderately increased lifespan at 25 °C, particularly in males, but its combination with low temperature became antagonistic in D. virilis, revealing that the interaction between photoperiod and temperature depends on both baseline longevity and sex. Longer lifespan correlated with lower metabolic rate, greater body mass, and sustained late‑life activity. Gene expression analyses in D. melanogaster revealed that low temperature induced a youthful metabolic and immune profile, whereas DD often counteracted these changes. Our findings do not support a simple inverse or direct relationship between baseline longevity and geroprotective efficacy. Instead, these results suggest that the responses to low temperature and darkness are species‑ and sex‑specific and reflect each species' evolutionary and ecological background.
Indexed as
AgingCold TemperatureDarknessDrosophilaLongevityAnimalsDrosophila melanogasterFemaleMalePhotoperiodSpecies SpecificityConstant darknessDrosophilaEnvironmental geroprotective interventionsLifespanLow temperature
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390