3 ms·

It is unlikely that the aging mechanisms differ in an essential way between mice and humans. [citation needed]

• adrian_b 4y ago
  A citation is needed for the contrary statement. Aging has appeared hundreds of millions of years ago in the ancestors of all multicellular animals and it manifests in the same way in most of them. There is no known reason for aging in a way to be replaced by aging in some other way, like e.g. respiration through gills may be replaced by respiration through lungs, especially when we discuss some closely related mammals which have not diverged significantly in their way of life. There are a few animal groups where more significant alterations in aging appears to have occurred, e.g. which have an unusually long lifespan, but whatever has changed seems to be restricted to those small groups. There are no great divisions between animals where you could say that one group has a modified aging, like they might have a modified digestive system, enabling them to use a different food. So until a contrary proof, the most plausible supposition is that aging happens in the same way in all multicellular animals, with minor differences, caused e.g. by more efficient cellular repair mechanisms in some of them, or by a "programmed death", i.e. suicide, which happens in many animals after reproduction, or in some colonial animals before a season when there will not be food for all of them.
  • Tagbert 4y ago
    Yes, and the closer the evolutionary relationship, the closer you would expect the biochemistry to be. A result in yeast might not apply at all. a result in fish might be something worth investigating. A result in mice has a good likelihood of applying to humans. A money study would be a close match.