Back

Systems-level patterns in biological processes are changed under prolongevity interventions and across biological age

Watanabe, K.; Wilmanski, T.; Baloni, P.; Robinson, M.; Garcia, G. G.; Hoopmann, M. R.; Midha, M. K.; Baxter, D. H.; Maes, M.; Morrone, S. R.; Crebs, K. M.; Kapil, C.; Kusebauch, U.; Wiedrick, J.; Lapidus, J.; Lovejoy, J. C.; Magis, A. T.; Lausted, C.; Roach, J. C.; Glusman, G.; Schork, N. J.; Orwoll, E. S.; Price, N. D.; Hood, L.; Miller, R. A.; Moritz, R. L.; Rappaport, N.

2022-07-12 geriatric medicine
10.1101/2022.07.11.22277435 medRxiv
Show abstract

Aging manifests as progressive deterioration in cellular and systemic homeostasis, requiring systems-level perspectives to understand the gradual molecular dysregulation of underlying biological processes. Here, we report systems-level changes in the molecular regulation of biological processes under multiple lifespan-extending interventions in mice and across age in humans. In mouse cohorts, Differential Rank Conservation (DIRAC) analyses of liver proteomics and transcriptomics show that mechanistically distinct prolongevity interventions tighten the regulation of aging-related biological modules, including fatty acid metabolism and inflammation processes. An integrated analysis of liver transcriptomics with mouse genome-scale metabolic model supports the shifts in fatty acid metabolism. Additionally, the difference in DIRAC patterns between proteins and transcripts suggests biological modules which may be tightly regulated via cap-independent translation. In a human cohort spanning the majority of the adult lifespan, DIRAC analyses of blood proteomics and metabolomics demonstrate that regulation of biological modules does not monotonically loosen with age; instead, the regulatory patterns shift according to both chronological and biological ages. Our findings highlight the power of systems-level approaches to identifying and characterizing the biological processes involved in aging and longevity.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.