Back

Old worms, new tricks: dynamical instability explains late-life rejuvenation in C. elegans

Latumalea, D.; Moliere, A.; Fedichev, P. O.; Ewald, C.; Gruber, J.

2026-05-05 biochemistry
10.64898/2026.05.01.722260 bioRxiv
Show abstract

How is it possible to double the lifespan of an organism already close to death? Many biological theories of aging fail to explain this phenomenon. At the Physics of Aging workshop, we presented and discussed late-life lifespan extension in Caenorhabditis elegans to illustrate how a simple stochastic dynamical systems model can account for dramatic geriatric interventions. We build on a Langevin-type instability framework in which aging is a manifestation of dynamical instability-a scenario where stochastic fluctuations amplify over time, driving the system toward a failure thresh-old at which death occurs as a first-passage event. The instability rate (equivalently, the inverse of the mortality-rate doubling time) quantifies the speed of this divergence: a larger means faster exponential growth of z, a steeper Gompertz slope, and a shorter lifespan. The failure threshold zmax{approx} /g, where g is the strength of nonlinear feedback, marks the point beyond which the system diverges irreversibly--physiologically, the saturation of metabolic and regulatory capacity. Within this dynamical-systems framework, auxin-induced degradation of the insulin/IGF-1 receptor DAF-2 in very old animals is naturally interpreted as a late shift in stability parameters that nearly doubles remaining lifespan without resetting accumulated structural damage. This interpretation reconciles the persistence of many senescent pathologies with restored proteostasis and stress resilience, and it shows that targeting the dynamical instability of the regulatory network-rather than reversing damage--can strongly reshape survival trajectories in unstable animals. More broadly, our work exemplifies how physics-inspired low-dimensional stochastic models can capture key features of aging, and we hope it will inspire more collaborations between biologists and physicists to work on late-life interventions.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 4%
12.5%
2
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 3%
10.6%
3
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 8%
8.5%
4
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 32%
4.9%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 22%
4.9%
6
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 9%
4.9%
7
Physical Review Letters
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.9%
50% of probability mass above
8
Bulletin of Mathematical Biology
84 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.0%
9
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.6%
10
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.9%
11
Aging Cell
144 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.8%
12
Cell Systems
167 papers in training set
Top 5%
2.5%
13
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 9%
2.1%
14
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 47%
2.1%
15
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B
51 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
16
Science
429 papers in training set
Top 14%
1.7%
17
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.5%
18
Mathematical Biosciences
42 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.5%
19
PNAS Nexus
147 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.4%
20
Physical Review X
23 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
21
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 25%
1.0%
22
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 16%
0.9%
23
Biophysical Journal
545 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
24
Communications Biology
886 papers in training set
Top 18%
0.9%
25
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
26
npj Aging
15 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.8%
27
Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience
53 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
28
Cancers
200 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
Journal of Cell Biology
333 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
30
Nature
575 papers in training set
Top 17%
0.7%