Cited by 1,145Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model OrganismsDietary Effects on HealthSirtuins and Resveratrol in Medicine

Impact of caloric restriction on health and survival in rhesus monkeys from the NIA study

Open access
Mattison, Julie A., Roth, George S., Beasley, T. Mark, Tilmont, Edward M., Handy, April M., Herbert, Richard L., Longo, Dan L., Allison, David B. +7 more·2012·Nature

Abstract

Calorie restriction (CR), a reduction of 10–40% in intake of a nutritious diet, is often reported as the most robust non-genetic mechanism to extend lifespan and healthspan. CR is frequently used as a tool to understand mechanisms behind ageing and age-associated diseases. In addition to and independently of increasing lifespan, CR has been reported to delay or prevent the occurrence of many chronic diseases in a variety of animals. Beneficial effects of CR on outcomes such as immune function, motor coordination and resistance to sarcopenia in rhesus monkeys have recently been reported. We report here that a CR regimen implemented in young and older age rhesus monkeys at the National Institute on Aging (NIA) has not improved survival outcomes. Our findings contrast with an ongoing study at the Wisconsin National Primate Research Center (WNPRC), which reported improved survival associated with 30% CR initiated in adult rhesus monkeys (7–14 years) and a preliminary report with a small number of CR monkeys. Over the years, both NIA and WNPRC have extensively documented beneficial health effects of CR in these two apparently parallel studies. The implications of the WNPRC findings were important as they extended CR findings beyond the laboratory rodent and to a long-lived primate. Our study suggests a separation between health effects, morbidity and mortality, and similar to what has been shown in rodents, study design, husbandry and diet composition may strongly affect the life-prolonging effect of CR in a long-lived nonhuman primate.

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 · 10.1038/nature11432

Cites

45 of 45 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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Dietary restriction has been the most effective strategy to demonstrate an increase in lifespan across a whole range of investigated species, including nonhuman primates.

    “dietary restriction has been the most effective strategy to demonstrate an increase in lifespan across a whole range of investigated species, including nonhuman primates”

    From The Microbiota-Gut-Brain Axis (2019) · cites this paper as Mattison et al., 2012

    The Abstract (page not provided) describes calorie restriction as a robust lifespan-extending intervention across a variety of species and reports improved survival in one rhesus-monkey study. But it also says the NIA study found no significant survival benefit; the Young-onset CR section (page not provided) likewise contrasts the two monkey studies. The claim overstates how consistently lifespan extension has been demonstrated in nonhuman primates. (LLM, conf=0.89)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Two studies have addressed the effects of CR on non-human primates, but with different outcomes: one observed prolonged life while the other did not.

    “Two studies have addressed the effects of CR on non-human primates, but with different outcomes. One study observed prolonged life (Colman et al., 2009) while the other did not (Mattison et al., 2012).”

    From The Search for Antiaging Interventions: From Elixirs to Fasting Regimens (2014) · cites this paper as Mattison et al., 2012

  • The healthier ad libitum diet in the NIA study allowed for longer lifespan in control animals without conferring additional benefit from CR.

    “In contrast, the healthier ad libitum diet in the NIA study (Mattison et al., 2012) allowed for longer lifespan in control animals without conferring additional benefit from CR.”

    From The Search for Antiaging Interventions: From Elixirs to Fasting Regimens (2014) · cites this paper as Mattison et al., 2012

  • Both studies point to the fact that CR increases healthspan in monkeys by reducing the risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.

    “However, both studies point to the fact that CR increases healthspan in monkeys by reducing the risk for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer.”

    From The Search for Antiaging Interventions: From Elixirs to Fasting Regimens (2014) · cites this paper as Mattison et al., 2012

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
Mattison, J. A., Roth, G. S., Beasley, T. M., Tilmont, E. M., Handy, A. M., Herbert, R. L., Longo, D. L., Allison, D. B., Young, J. E., Bryant, M., Barnard, D., Ward, W. F., Qi, W., Ingram, D. K., & de Cabo, R.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • Pennington Biomedical Research Center (US)
Corresponding author
  • Mattison, Julie A.
  • Ingram, Donald K.
Venue
Nature
Published
2012-08-29
Volume
489
Issue
7415
Pages
318-321
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
OpenAlex
W2053493267
Cited by
1,145
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 103 · 2020: 79 · 2019: 66 · 2018: 88 · 2017: 105 · 2016: 86 · 2015: 124 · 2014: 119 · 2013: 140 · 2012: 26
FWCI
42.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Aging (ZIAAG000371)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (P30DK056336)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Aging › Genetics, Aging, and Longevity in Model Organisms
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Dietary Effects on Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Geriatrics and Gerontology › Sirtuins and Resveratrol in Medicine
Keywords
caloric restriction, rhesus monkeys, lifespan extension, survival, healthspan, aging, age-related diseases, metabolic profile, non-human primates, diet composition
MeSH terms
Aging, Animals, Blood Glucose, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cholesterol, Female, Health, Humans, Longevity, Macaca mulatta, Male, Monkey Diseases, Neoplasms, Triglycerides, United States, Incidence, Survival Rate, Age of Onset, Models, Animal, Caloric Restriction, Uncertainty, Kaplan-Meier Estimate, National Institute on Aging (U.S.)

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