Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Senescent cells, senolytics and tissue repair: the devil may be in the dosing

There is tremendous interest in the development of drugs that target senescent cells (‘senolytic’ drugs) to treat a range of age-related morbidities. However, studies in mice that demonstrate impaired tissue repair following clearance of senescent cells raise questions about the potential risks of senolytic therapies. Closer examination of the available studies reveals the hopeful possibility of a ‘therapeutic window’ in which these risks can be minimized.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Schematic of postulated effects of continuous versus intermittent senolytic treatment on tissue repair.

References

  1. Khosla, S., Farr, J. N., Tchkonia, T. & Kirkland, J. L. Nat. Rev. Endocrinol. 16, 263–275 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Raffaele, M. & Vinciguerra, M. Lancet Healthy Longev. 3, e67–e77 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hickson, L. J. et al. EBioMed. 47, 446–456 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Justice, J. N. et al. EBioMed. 40, 554–563 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kowald, A., Passos, J. F. & Kirkwood, T. B. L. Aging Cell 19, e13270 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Demaria, M. et al. Dev. Cell 31, 722–733 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Reyes, N. S. et al. Science 378, 192–201 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Grosse, L. et al. Cell Metab. 32, 87–99 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Yun, M. H., Davaapil, H. & Brockes, J. P. eLife 4, e05505 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Hewitt, G. et al. Nat. Commun. 3, 708 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Saul, D. et al. eLife 10, e69958 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu, J. et al. J. Clin. Invest. 132, e148073 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Schafer, M. J. et al. Nat. Commun. 8, 14532 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Ritschka, B. et al. Genes Dev. 31, 172–183 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Farr, J. N. et al. Nat. Med. 23, 1072–1079 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

S.K. is supported by grants P01 AG062413, R01 AG076515 and U54 AG079754.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sundeep Khosla.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares has no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Aging thanks Eiji Hara and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Khosla, S. Senescent cells, senolytics and tissue repair: the devil may be in the dosing. Nat Aging 3, 139–141 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-023-00365-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s43587-023-00365-6

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing