Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42871573›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in molecular biosciences2026

Telomeric autophagy in human health, aging, and diseases.

Xingyao Li, Xili Wu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in molecular biosciences, 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 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Xingyao LiDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Xili WuDepartment of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Telomeres are repetitive DNA sequences that cap chromosome ends and protect genomic stability. The term "telomeric autophagy" has been applied to the relationship between telomere dysfunction and autophagy, but it has been used to describe two processes that are not equivalent, and much of the confusion in this literature follows from conflating them. The first is the induction of autophagy by dysfunctional telomeres. This is established: during replicative crisis, telomeric damage generates cytosolic chromatin fragments that activate cGAS-STING signalling and engage the autophagy machinery, an induction specific to telomeric damage and not produced by intrachromosomal breaks, and one that has been independently reproduced in cells maintaining telomeres through alternative lengthening. The second is the selective autophagic degradation of telomeric chromatin itself. For this we were unable to identify direct evidence: no receptor bridging telomeric chromatin to ATG8-family proteins has been described, telomeric cargo has not been recovered from autolysosomes, and no compound acts selectively on the process. This review therefore separates the two throughout, grades the evidence for each claim it makes, and applies the same grading to the disease literature, where cancer emerges as the only setting in which telomeric and autophagic endpoints have been measured in the same system. Its aim is to establish what is known with confidence, what rests on inference, and what would have to be shown for telomere-selective autophagy to be regarded as a pathway. Telomeric autophagy; telomere; aging; cellular senescence; autophagy; cancer; neurodegenerative diseases.

Indexed as

agingautophagydiseasestelomerestelomeric autophagy

Identifiers

PMID42871573
PMCPMC13658900

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.