The Search for a Pill That Can Help Dogs—and Humans—Live Longer (Wired Magazine)

Hi, Rapa Community! Sharing an interesting article.


Loyal, the company mentioned in the article, is based in San Francisco:

They have a good blog on their website, for anyone interested in dog longevity:

1 Like

Thanks for the tip–I’ll check out their site and their blog.

Anybody know what their test products are?

No - they’ve been surprisingly quiet on their molecules and targets…

I’m sure at some point Celine will announce it and we’ll find out on her twitter feed:

This is the presentation Celine gave at the Longevity Conference last December, they’ve just put it online. Perhaps of interest to people:

I covered the presentation in this post: The Longevity Summit, News & Update - #9 by RapAdmin

They’ve started their second clinical trial for another dog longevity drug


More info:

1 Like

If there actually is a drug that works for dogs to improve their lifespan and it’s going mainstream I think it will feel like we will have reached a new level. It might be the ChatGPT moment of longevity and healthspan.

That is Celine’s goal. There is much less controversy (and general belief that its a good thing) around the idea of extending the lives of pets / dogs. Its definitely the wedge in the door that could open things up for the longevity biotech industry.

1 Like

What lifespan improvement are they expecting? I’d say anything above 20% would feel very impressive to me.

1 Like

That is a good question. I don’t actually know. If you look at the IGF-1 data on the Snell and Ames dwarf mice (very low levels of IGF1 and GH) they see upwards of 40% to 50% lifespan improvement. But that is lifelong inhibition of IGF1 and GH. In dogs, starting later in life, I would estimate maybe 5% to 10% but I’m not sure.

It also depends on how you measure it. Are you talking about increase in remaining lifespan, or increase in total lifespan. I suspect that Loyal will market whatever increase they get, as a percent of remaining lifespan (thus it will appear as a larger percent), so that could get them over the 20% that looks substantial and would lead headlines.

And it will vary obviously by when they start dosing the animals - in year 1, or year 3 of a large dog (with a 6 to 10 year lifespan typically?). I’m not sure what their recruitment criteria are:

Related: IGF-1 inhibitors and lifespan extension?


Problem with that it will be like a balloon that fizzles out as some few prominent twitter profiles say the result isn’t as impressive as was marketed I think.

I do think 20% of total lifespan. So if a dog lived for 10 years they would live for 12 with this drug - then it would probably go viral I think. It’s fine I think if the result could be extrapolated, but I am just going by feeling. Meaning if a dog were expected to live 20% longer over total lifespan if started earlier, then it’s fine to market however.

I don’t know… I remember press covering this Kaeberlein/Bitto paper on a rapamycin study that used the “% of remaining life” as the measuring stick, and it didn’t get much pushback. I suspect the press, and most people, would just read the headline and get excited… and its not just the life extension, it will delay cancer (which is the key issue with many larger dogs).

Here we show that 3 months of rapamycin treatment is sufficient to increase life expectancy by up to 60% and improve measures of healthspan in middle-aged mice.

Even the AI search engines have picked up that one study, one of the rare ones that calculated lifespan increase based on the years of lifespan left, and puts it at the top of the heap:

See this link:

1 Like