Senolytics under scrutiny in the quest to slow aging

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02740-7

I agree with the author in essence on this.

Summary via O3

Summary of “Senolytics under scrutiny in the quest to slow aging” (Nature Biotechnology, 2025)

  • Why the excitement?
    With global populations aging, drugs that delay biological aging promise vast health and financial benefits. Because senescent cells accumulate with age and secrete pro-inflammatory SASP factors, selectively killing them with “senolytics” has become one of the most hyped strategies in longevity biotechnology. A 2016 mouse study showing ~25 % lifespan extension after genetic ablation of p16-positive cells turbo-charged interest in finding drug equivalents.

  • Flagship trials have stumbled.
    Unity Biotechnology repurposed anti-cancer agents as senolytics (UBX0101 for osteoarthritis; UBX1325 for diabetic macular edema). Both compounds failed to beat standard care in phase-2 trials, casting doubt on whether current senolytics truly confer clinical benefit.

  • Mixed results in mice.
    Early reports of modest lifespan gains (e.g., 11 % with fisetin) have not held up in larger, more rigorous Interventions Testing Program studies, which found no survival benefit or senescent-cell reduction with long-term fisetin dosing.

  • Key scientific hurdles:

    1. Specificity – Many senolytics are blunt anti-cancer drugs that can harm healthy cells (e.g., BCL-xL inhibitors are platelet-toxic).
    2. Defining the target – “Senescent cell” is a heterogeneous category lacking universal biomarkers; different tissues harbor distinct SASP profiles.
    3. Physiological roles – Senescent cells aid wound healing, development and metabolic regulation; their wholesale removal can worsen outcomes (e.g., barrier disruption, liver injury, β-cell function).
  • Diversifying tactics.
    Start-ups are broadening the toolkit beyond cell-killing small molecules to CAR-T and antibody therapies, antisense oligos, gene therapies, and “senoblockers” that mute harmful SASP signals without eradicating the cells (Table 1 of the paper lists more than a dozen such companies).

  • Bottom line.
    The author concludes that, while clearing specific senescent-cell populations might still treat certain inflammatory or fibrotic diseases, present-generation senolytics have not delivered a convincing path to broadly slow or reverse human aging. Robust longevity benefits, safety, and clear biomarkers remain unresolved, so enthusiasm should be tempered with rigorous long-term studies.

4 Likes

This well expressed view on a previously expressed problem is a textbook example of the problems attendant to an immature emerging construct. Our understanding of the specific benefits and risks of the antioxidant class, for example, is further along but we still lack precise understanding of how the risk/reward equation plays out, even in the aggregate much less in specialized cases. These kinds of empirical sciences would progress faster, with perhaps fewer diversions into dead ends, if its advocates understood the philosophy of science a bit better.