Cited by 134Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsTelomeres, Telomerase, and SenescenceAging and Gerontology Research

The hoverfly and the wasp: A critique of the hallmarks of aging as a paradigm

Open access
Gems, David, de Magalhães, João Pedro·2021·Ageing Research Reviews

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

With the goal of representing common denominators of aging in different organisms López-Otín et al. in 2013 described nine hallmarks of aging. Since then, this representation has become a major reference point for the biogerontology field. The template for the hallmarks of aging account originated from landmark papers by Hanahan and Weinberg (2000, 2011) defining first six and later ten hallmarks of cancer. Here we assess the strengths and weaknesses of the hallmarks of aging account. As a checklist of diverse major foci of current aging research, it has provided a useful shared overview for biogerontology during a time of transition in the field. It also seems useful in applied biogerontology, to identify interventions (e.g. drugs) that impact multiple symptomatic features of aging. However, while the hallmarks of cancer provide a paradigmatic account of the causes of cancer with profound explanatory power, the hallmarks of aging do not. A worry is that as a non-paradigm the hallmarks of aging have obscured the urgent need to define a genuine paradigm, one that can provide a useful basis for understanding the mechanistic causes of the diverse aging pathologies. We argue that biogerontology must look and move beyond the hallmarks to understand the process of aging.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.arr.2021.101407

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gems, D., & de Magalhães, J. P.
Affiliations
University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Gems, David
Venue
Ageing Research Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-09
Volume
70
Pages
101407
ISSN
1568-1637 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3177774907
Cited by
134
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 5
FWCI
2.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Ageing Research Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • Preprints.org (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust (208375/Z/17/Z)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/R014949/1, 098565/Z/12/Z, 215574/Z/19/Z)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Telomeres, Telomerase, and Senescence
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Aging and Gerontology Research
Keywords
hallmarks of aging, cancer hallmarks, biogerontology, paradigm shift, aging interventions
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Geriatrics, Humans, Neoplasms, Wasps

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review