Back

AGES for Ageing: Evaluating the auxin-inducible gene expression system for use in Drosophila ageing studies

McGilvary, T.; Gupta, K.; Dobson, A. J.; Woodling, N.

2026-05-29 genetics
10.64898/2026.05.28.728476 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Our research is only as good as our tools allow it to be. The fruit fly Drosophila has been a fundamental discovery platform in uncovering evolutionarily conserved biological underpinnings of ageing, due in large part to an ever-expanding functional genetic toolbox which permits fine-tuneable and cell-type-specific modulation of gene expression with relative ease. However, many existing gene expression systems present limitations for studying fly ageing, including off-target effects for inducing agents that allow temporal control. More recently-generated tools such as the auxin-based gene expression system (AGES) therefore present opportunities as potential alternatives in our methodological repertoire for ageing research. Here we have evaluated the AGES system in a variety of contexts in Drosophila ageing. We find that AGES can effectively induce transgene expression across a range of ages, albeit with tissue-specific efficiency. However, we also observe several phenotypes from auxin feeding, even in non-AGES genotypes, that may confound studies focused on ageing research, including reduced body mass and reduced survival under starvation and oxidative stress conditions. We also observe phenotypes from activating the AGES machinery, including shortened lifespan, that could present challenges for using AGES in longevity-based studies. Nevertheless, we find that AGES can be used to recapitulate at least some effects of well-established pro-longevity interventions - for instance reduced fecundity from expression of a dominant-negative form of the insulin receptor - reinforcing the value of AGES in certain domains. Taken together, our results underscore the need for caution and comprehensive controls in ageing studies that rely on functional genetics, regardless of the chosen genetic toolset.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Aging Cell
144 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
14.1%
2
Aging
69 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
12.3%
3
Disease Models & Mechanisms
119 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
8.3%
4
PLOS Genetics
756 papers in training set
Top 2%
8.1%
5
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 20%
6.2%
6
G3 Genes|Genomes|Genetics
351 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 23%
3.9%
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 42%
3.0%
9
GeroScience
97 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.6%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 12%
2.6%
11
PLOS Biology
408 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.9%
12
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 12%
1.9%
13
Nature Aging
51 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.8%
14
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 53%
1.7%
15
Open Biology
95 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
1.5%
16
Genetics
225 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.3%
17
Nucleic Acids Research
1128 papers in training set
Top 13%
1.3%
18
The Journals of Gerontology: Series A
25 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.3%
19
Cell Reports
1338 papers in training set
Top 31%
0.9%
20
Life Science Alliance
263 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
21
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2130 papers in training set
Top 45%
0.7%
22
Neurobiology of Aging
95 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
23
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
24
Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences
341 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
25
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.7%
26
Cell Genomics
162 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology
218 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.6%
28
GENETICS
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%