Thread by @CharlesMBrenner

this is a massive peer review failure that allowed David to say things completely unsupported by evidence. some lowlights:

https://twitter.com/davidasinclair/status/1491917521410134018

in the 2nd paragraph, he claims that the possibility that ageing is simply caused by genetic factors can be ruled out, citing ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… the article shows that human lifespan was extended in the 20th century by public health measures (we all know this)

the same article cites Rose on _genetic factors that extend lifespan_ (note: they are not single genes & they were obtained by selecting for old flies to mate) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28555803/

David cites a paper claiming that fat-specific knockout of the insulin receptor are long lived (ref 27 in David's review). He seems unaware that such mice are not well and are not long lived pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27246738/

When he gets to sirtuins, he fails to mention that sir2 deletion mutants have a longer chronological lifespan
cell.com/fulltext/S0092…

He skips fly & worm sirt1, which have perfectly good mitochondria & then cites 3 papers he says show that SIRT1 stimulates mitochondrial biogenesis but doesn't cite papers that show that sirt1 KO mice respire fine & have a normal lifespan ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

There's a long paragraph on resveratrol & SRT1720 as pharmacological activators of SIRT1 that was not effectively peer reviewed. Essentially every statement has evidence against it

David makes the _reasonable suggestion_ that mitochondria uncouplers could be used to help burn fuel in overweight conditions but doesn't mention that sirt1 deletion mice overexpress UCP2 ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

oops, that means that loss of sirt1 would drive uncoupling not activation of SIRT1 would drive uncoupling

I know that everyone is busy but this particular review article is truly plumbing the depths of misinformation