Key points from article :
A new preprint by Parish et al., posted on bioRxiv, takes a critical look at the DrugAge database — a catalogue of substances tested in animals for their potential to extend lifespan. The authors examined the quality of these studies and found that results from simple organisms like worms and flies often fail to translate to mammals, with a weak correlation between the two. This suggests that while invertebrate studies are convenient and inexpensive, they may not be reliable indicators for human aging.
In mammals such as mice and rats, reported lifespan gains are modest, generally in the range of 10–20%. Some compounds stood out, including vitamin C, royal jelly, taurine, rapamycin, and melatonin, each showing varying degrees of promise depending on study design and dosage. However, inconsistencies across experiments—such as unexplained differences in reported benefits—highlight the challenges of interpreting these results. Interestingly, some once-hyped substances like NMN, NR, CoQ10, and alpha-lipoic acid showed no measurable lifespan benefits in rodents.
The review emphasizes that most of these interventions work by nudging biology within its natural flexibility, rather than fundamentally altering the aging process. In rodents, lifespan seems adjustable by about ±20%, while in humans this window is likely narrower—perhaps adding at most an extra decade of life. Still, certain compounds such as rapamycin, berberine, NAC, melatonin, and selegiline remain favorites among longevity researchers for their combination of lifespan and healthspan benefits.
Ultimately, Parish and colleagues stress that supplements and drugs are only part of the picture. The strongest evidence for extending healthy life still lies in lifestyle factors: diet, exercise, and fasting. While pharmacological interventions may add modest gains, the real frontier lies in uncovering ways to push beyond the body’s built-in aging program.
