ArticleBiogerontology2026
Tissue-specific aging clocks map structured aging-modulatory drug-score patterns across 49 human tissue and cell-line categories.
Article 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.
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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aging clocks are typically trained on pooled multi-tissue data, implicitly assuming that aging is uniform across organs. Here we challenge this assumption by constructing 49 transcriptomic clocks across 47 tissue types and 2 cell-line categories from GTEx v8 (948 unique donors contributing to the retained clock categories) using donor-grouped cross-validation. Clocks achieved a median Pearson r of 0.543 (best: artery aorta, r = 0.855). We identified 10,253 unique clock genes, of which 69.2% appeared in only one tissue; however, null simulation confirmed that this low overlap is the expected consequence of sparse elastic-net selection rather than biological tissue-specificity. We then projected 3,926 LINCS L1000 compound-name entries onto each clock to build a drug × category age-reversal matrix. At a permissive threshold (|score|> 1.0), 94.2% of drugs showed mixed score directions (positive in some categories and negative in others). This permissive mixed-direction proportion was descriptive and did not itself exceed shuffled expectations. Under a more stringent exploratory criterion requiring |score|> 2.0 in at least three categories in each direction, 2.8% of compound entries showed pronounced bidirectional divergence, compared with approximately 0.1% under the shuffled null. Compound rankings remained stable when analysis was restricted to the 34 clocks with r ≥ 0.5 (Spearman ρ = 0.897 versus the full analysis). A Jaccard-based enrichment statistic yielded highly concordant compound rankings (median per-category Spearman ρ = 0.961), indicating that results were not artifacts of the enrichment method. After Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction across all 192,374 drug-category pairs, only 0.79% reached FDR < 0.05, indicating that individual drug-category calls require caution. Rapamycin showed net pro-aging transcriptional signatures in our system; we explicitly emphasize that transcriptome-based scores and organismal lifespan are distinct endpoints. DepMap CRISPR analysis was repeated after GTEx-based standardization across 13 matched categories, although individual gene-level results were limited. Four statistical robustness tests confirmed model stability. These findings describe category-associated drug-score patterns and provide a tissue-aware resource for generating hypotheses about drug responses, while cautioning against over-interpretation of individual drug-category predictions without experimental validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42771094What 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.