New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

‘Universal’ aging clocks offer new clues to longevity

A new study could help identify promising treatments to extend the human lifespan, researchers say

Conceptual paper illustration of human hands and DNA in a lab.

Eugene Mymrin/Getty Images

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Universal” biological signatures of aging shared across different mammalian species—including humans—could offer new clues to identifying longevity and antiaging treatments or interventions, a new study finds.

Age isn’t just the number of candles on a cake. That’s a representation of your chronological age, while your “biological age” is a measure of how your body’s various tissues and cells are holding up over time—and the two don’t necessarily match. Instead your biological age may be higher or lower than your chronological age for several reasons, such as your lifestyle choices, a chronic disease if you have one, your genes, and more. Researchers use molecular “clocks” to estimate biological age, such as by looking at changes to our DNA. But some of these biomarkers don’t help explain why aging is occurring.

In the new study, published on Wednesday in the journal Nature, researchers analyzed more than 11,000 “transcriptomes”—collections of RNA transcripts that show which genes are being turned on or off in any given cell or tissue at any given time—across various tissues in mice, rats, monkeys and humans.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


What they found was that biological hallmarks of aging in different tissues appear to be highly conserved, meaning they are shared across species, says Alexander Tyshkovskiy, the paper’s lead author and a researcher at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School. “The same genes are associated with aging in, for example, liver and heart in rats and humans,” he says.

The hallmarks of aging carried across individual cell types, too, such as liver or blood cells. “Even though the cells have very different functions, very different origin, they still share the same aging-related biomarkers,” Tyshkovskiy adds.

The researchers call this type of aging one’s “transcriptomic age.” Both humans and animals with chronic diseases had a higher transcriptomic age, the researchers found, suggesting it reflects higher levels of cellular damage. And using a large dataset from the U.K. Biobank, the team found that proteins associated with some universal biomarkers also appear to correlate with disease and mortality.*

Overall, the results suggest that aging seems to be a “very systemic process” that affects different tissues, cell types and species in similar ways, Tyshkovskiy says.

The study is a “major advance,” says David Sinclair, a professor at the department of genetics at Harvard Medical School, who has long studied longevity. Sinclair was not involved with the study.

“[The authors] developed transcriptomic clocks that don’t just estimate age; they measure the progressive loss of cellular function and predict biological decline and mortality risk across mammals,” Sinclair says. The findings could help researchers understand “the underlying process of aging itself, not just the passage of time.”

Tyshkovskiy and his colleagues hope the results will one day lead to potential treatments to slow aging in humans. To that end, the team has developed an online tool called “Transcriptomic Age Calculator Online,” or TACO, to enable other researchers to predict the age of tissue samples using RNA data they may have already collected. For instance, if a researcher has collected tissue from one animal model that was treated with a drug and from another that was not treated, the scientist can measure changes in the biological age between the samples “regardless of the tissue [and] regardless of the species,” says Vadim Gladyshev, the study’s senior author and a professor of medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School.

The project could help narrow down possible longevity treatments. “Currently in humans, we don’t have a single intervention that extends lifespan,” Gladyshev says. “We think, using these tools, we could identify candidates that can be tested in the future, and maybe some of them will extend lifespan. That is the hope.”

*Editor’s Note (5/28/26): This sentence was edited after posting to correct the description of proteins associated with some universal biomarkers.

Jackie Flynn Mogensen is a breaking news reporter at Scientific American. Before joining SciAm, she was a science reporter at Mother Jones, where she received a National Academies Eric and Wendy Schmidt Award for Excellence in Science Communications in 2024. Mogensen holds a master’s degree in environmental communication and a bachelor’s degree in earth sciences from Stanford University. She is based in New York City.

More by Jackie Flynn Mogensen

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe