Study Reveals Turning Point When Your Body's Aging Accelerates
Now, a new study has identified a turning point at which that acceleration typically takes place: at around age 50.
After this time, the trajectory at which your tissues and organs age is steeper than the decades preceding, according to a study of proteins in human bodies across a wide range of adult ages – and your veins are among the fastest to decline.
"Based on aging-associated protein changes, we developed tissue-specific proteomic age clocks and characterized organ-level aging trajectories. Temporal analysis revealed an aging inflection around age 50, with blood vessels being a tissue that ages early and is markedly susceptible to aging," writes a team led by scientists from the Chinese Academy of Sciences.
"Together, our findings lay the groundwork for a systems-level understanding of human aging through the lens of proteins."
Related: Study Finds Humans Age Faster at 2 Sharp Peaks – Here's When
Humans have a remarkably long lifespan compared to most other mammals, but it comes at some costs. One is a decline in organ function, leading to a rise in risk of chronic disease as the years mount up.
We don't have a very good understanding of the patterns of aging in individual organs, so the researchers investigated how proteins in different tissues change over time. They collected tissue samples from a total of 76 organ donors between the ages of 14 and 68 who had died of accidental traumatic brain injury.
These samples covered seven of the body's systems: cardiovascular (heart and aorta), digestive (liver, pancreas, and intestine), immune (spleen and lymph node), endocrine (adrenal gland and white adipose), respiratory (lung), integumentary (skin), and musculoskeletal (muscle). They also took blood samples.
The team constructed a catalogue of the proteins found in these systems, taking careful note of how their levels changed as the ages of the donors increased. The researchers compared their findings to a database of diseases and their associated genes, and found that expressions of 48 disease-related proteins increased with age.
These included cardiovascular conditions, tissue fibrosis, fatty liver disease, and liver-related tumors.
The most stark changes occurred between the ages of 45 and 55, the researchers found. It's at this point that many tissues undergo substantial proteomic remodeling, with the most marked changes occurring in the aorta – demonstrating a strong susceptibility to aging. The pancreas and spleen also showed sustained change.
To test their findings, the researchers isolated a protein associated with aging in the aortas of mice, and injected it into young mice to observe the results. Test animals treated with the protein had reduced physical performance, decreased grip strength, lower endurance, and lower balance and coordination compared to non-treated mice. They also had prominent markers of vascular aging.
Previous work by other researchers showed another two peaks in aging, at around 44, and again at around 60. The new result suggests that human aging is a complicated, step-wise process involving different systems. Working out how aging is going to affect specific parts of the body at specific times could help develop medical interventions to make the process easier.
"Our study is poised to construct a comprehensive multi-tissue proteomic atlas spanning 50 years of the entire human aging process, elucidating the mechanisms behind proteostasis imbalance in aged organs and revealing both universal and tissue-specific aging patterns," the researchers write.
"These insights may facilitate the development of targeted interventions for aging and age-related diseases, paving the way to improve the health of older adults."
The research has been published in Cell.
Related News
Putting Makeup on Children Could Risk Their Health, Study Shows
New Kind of Dental Floss Could Replace Vaccine Needles, Study Finds
World's Most Common Pain Relief Drug May Induce Risky Behavior, Research Suggests
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate Republican questions new Intel CEO's ties to China
Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) on Tuesday pressed the chair of Intel's board about its CEO's ties to China, voicing concerns about the integrity of the semiconductor firm and U.S. national security. In a letter to Intel board chair Frank Yeary, Cotton pointed to recent reporting on Lip-Bu Tan's investments in hundreds of Chinese tech firms, at least eight of which have ties to the Chinese military, according to Reuters. Tan was tapped to lead Intel in March, after former CEO Pat Gelsinger stepped down last December following a 'challenging year' for the company. Before joining Intel, Tan was CEO of Cadence Design Systems — another point of concern raised by Cotton. The software company produces electronic design automation (EDA) technology, which is used to design chips. It agreed to plead guilty and pay $140 million last month for violating export controls by selling the technology to a Chinese military university. 'Intel is required to be a responsible steward of American taxpayer dollars and to comply with applicable security regulations,' Cotton wrote, noting Intel's nearly $8 billion grant under the CHIPS and Science Act. 'Mr. Tan's associations raise questions about Intel's ability to fulfill these obligations,' he added. Cotton asked Yeary what measures Intel has taken to address concerns about Cadence's activities, which occurred during Tan's tenure, and whether it has required him to divest from China-linked semiconductor firms or other 'concerning entities.' The Arkansas Republican also questioned whether Tan has disclosed his China investments and ties to the U.S. government given Intel's involvement in a Pentagon program to build chips for defense and intelligence needs.
Wall Street Journal
24 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Battle of the Big Bang' Review: A Question of Origins
In the 1920s, scientists discovered that the universe was not static in size, as had previously been assumed, but was expanding in all directions. Galaxies were rushing away from one another as the very space between them was stretching. It was tempting, therefore, to imagine running the film backward into the past. The expansion, it seemed, must have started somewhere: at an infinitely hot, infinitely small and infinitely dense point from which everything exploded some 13.8 billion years ago. This origin became known as the big bang, and that infinitely small point at which it all began was called a singularity: a place where all the known laws of physics break down. Time was purportedly created only at the moment of banging, so it made no sense to ask what came before the big bang, just as it makes no sense to ask what is north of the North Pole. Why it happened at all remained an awkward question, but the existence of such an inscrutable singularity at the birth of all things became the mainstream view. It might be surprising, then, to learn that few experts in the field hold this view anymore. The traditional picture of the big bang is actually two separate ideas, explain Niayesh Afshordi and Phil Halper in 'Battle of the Big Bang: The New Tales of Our Cosmic Origins.' Researchers continue to endorse the hot big bang, the idea of a primordial explosion of energy, but most do not think it goes back to 'a state of infinite density where time stands still and the answers to all our origin questions meet their demise.' Mr. Afshordi is a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Canada; Mr. Halper is a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and the creator of the YouTube series 'Before the Big Bang.' Their excellent book promises to map the 'quiet revolution' of 21st-century cosmology and introduce us to the revolutionaries. In very different ways, these rebels are all addressing questions left unanswered by the old theory. One is the origin-of-structure problem: The big bang ought to have spread energy homogeneously throughout space, but we observe clumps of galaxies with vast spaces between them, and measurements of the cosmic microwave background—the fossil radiation from when the universe was only 380,000 years old—reveal an unpredictable pattern of warm and cold spots. Nor have we ever seen an inflaton, a hypothetical particle that is supposed to have driven a period of enormous growth in the size of the early universe.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
CBS host frets Trump admin plans for moon base could usher in new 'age of colonialism' in space
CBS News host Vladimir Duthiers questioned the Trump administration's plan to establish a base on the moon and drew parallels to Earth's history of colonialism. On "CBS Mornings Plus" on Wednesday, Duthiers and co-host Adriana Diaz discussed the White House calling for more human space exploration and administration plans to build a nuclear reactor on the moon to precede an eventual U.S. lunar base with astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Diaz asked if it was "inevitable that we're going to have to go to the moon and try to colonize the Moon?" Tyson said that the United States is being "reactive" in a race to the moon with China, and stated, to the laughter of the panel, that he does not want to "live on the moon." But Duthiers questioned if colonizing the moon was a good idea. "We know how the age of colonialism worked on this planet," the host said. "Should we be trying to colonize and saying that there's a keep-out zone that no other countries can participate in having?" Tyson replied by pointing out that it would be difficult to colonize an area that does not have people. "Well, the — the real problem with the colonization history in Western civilization is that there were people already there," Tyson said. Duthiers and Diaz agreed, and Tyson added that "there are no moon beings that were displaced as far as we know." Tyson later criticized administration plans to decrease funding to NASA. "What's not on brand is to cut science programs, not only in NASA, but across the board, and then say, we want to excel in this one spot," Tyson said. "Well, in the 1960s, science was a major investment profile of the United States," he continued. "And by the way, it's not on brand even for Republicans, because Republican administrations since the Second World War have had a higher annual increase, average annual increase, in the science budget than even the Democrats." "So Trump's decision to cut science is not on brand for even being a Republican," Tyson added.
