Evaluating the beneficial effects of dietary restrictions: A framework for precision nutrigeroscience
Wilson KA., Chamoli M., Hilsabeck TA., Pandey M., Bansal S., Chawla G.
Narrative Review, published in Cell Metab (2021) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Cell Metab (2021)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 34555343
- PMCID
- PMC8845500
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.cmet.2021.08.018
- Citations
- 46
Abstract (original English)
Dietary restriction (DR) has long been viewed as the most robust nongenetic means to extend lifespan and healthspan. Many aging-associated mechanisms are nutrient responsive, but despite the ubiquitous functions of these pathways, the benefits of DR often vary among individuals and even among tissues within an individual, challenging the aging research field. Furthermore, it is often assumed that lifespan interventions like DR will also extend healthspan, which is thus often ignored in aging studies. In this review, we provide an overview of DR as an intervention and discuss the mechanisms by which it affects lifespan and various healthspan measures. We also review studies that demonstrate exceptions to the standing paradigm of DR being beneficial, thus raising new questions that future studies must address. We detail critical factors for the proposed field of precision nutrigeroscience, which would utilize individualized treatments and predict outcomes using biomarkers based on genotype, sex, tissue, and age.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.