everything we’ve been told about aging may be wrong
scientists just discovered that the “biological clock” tracking your aging isn’t actually controlling it, it’s just reporting the damage.
the real driver of aging are permanent dna mutations
1/
scientists just discovered that the “biological clock” tracking your aging isn’t actually controlling it, it’s just reporting the damage.
the real driver of aging are permanent dna mutations
1/
for years, researchers have treated epigenetic clocks (DNA methylation patterns that correlate with age) as a fundamental driver of aging itself.
the assumption: reset the clock, reset aging.
but what if the clock is just a byproduct of dna damage?
2/
the assumption: reset the clock, reset aging.
but what if the clock is just a byproduct of dna damage?
2/
researchers at UC san diego analyzed genome and methylation data from 9,300 people.
what they found: somatic dna mutations (tiny, irreversible changes in your genome) map directly to methylation changes
one mutation doesn’t just affect one site. it remodels entire dna regions
3/
what they found: somatic dna mutations (tiny, irreversible changes in your genome) map directly to methylation changes
one mutation doesn’t just affect one site. it remodels entire dna regions
3/
in simple terms: DNA damage doesn’t just degrade the genome, it rewires the epigenome.
the study found that:
- single DNA mutations triggered methylation shifts across 10,000+ base pairs
- mutation-based aging predictions matched epigenetic clocks
meaning, the epigenetic clock is just keeping score of mutation-driven damage.
4/
the study found that:
- single DNA mutations triggered methylation shifts across 10,000+ base pairs
- mutation-based aging predictions matched epigenetic clocks
meaning, the epigenetic clock is just keeping score of mutation-driven damage.
4/
this kills the idea that methylation changes cause aging.
instead, it suggests methylation shifts are reactive. they happen because of underlying DNA mutations.
the deeper cause? genomic instability.
5/
instead, it suggests methylation shifts are reactive. they happen because of underlying DNA mutations.
the deeper cause? genomic instability.
5/
this is a big deal
most anti-aging strategies that focus on epigenetic reprogramming assume that rolling back methylation restores youth
but if methylation is just a symptom of mutation-driven aging, then wiping the marks clean is like treating a fever without curing the infection
6/
most anti-aging strategies that focus on epigenetic reprogramming assume that rolling back methylation restores youth
but if methylation is just a symptom of mutation-driven aging, then wiping the marks clean is like treating a fever without curing the infection
6/
if DNA mutations are the real driver of aging, what can actually be done?
unlike methylation, mutations are permanent. you can’t just “reset” them.
so the real battle isn’t reprogramming methylation but preventing mutations in the first place.
7/
unlike methylation, mutations are permanent. you can’t just “reset” them.
so the real battle isn’t reprogramming methylation but preventing mutations in the first place.
7/
this shifts the entire longevity game:
- instead of “rejuvenation” via epigenetic reprogramming (yamanaka factors, methylation resets...)
- focus should be on DNA repair, mutation prevention, and genome stabilization
because once the DNA damage is done, you’re just painting over cracks in the foundation.
8/
- instead of “rejuvenation” via epigenetic reprogramming (yamanaka factors, methylation resets...)
- focus should be on DNA repair, mutation prevention, and genome stabilization
because once the DNA damage is done, you’re just painting over cracks in the foundation.
8/
this also explains why some people age faster than others.
both epigenetic clocks and mutation clocks predicted which individuals were aging unusually fast.
why? because they were tracking the same thing: the damage load accumulating in their dna.
9/
both epigenetic clocks and mutation clocks predicted which individuals were aging unusually fast.
why? because they were tracking the same thing: the damage load accumulating in their dna.
9/
so what’s next?
aging research needs a hard pivot toward:
- boosting dna repair mechanisms
- preventing mutagenic damage (radiation, oxidative stress, metabolic byproducts)
- possibly editing mutations directly (crispr-based interventions?)
otherwise, we’re just playing with surface-level aesthetics.
10/
aging research needs a hard pivot toward:
- boosting dna repair mechanisms
- preventing mutagenic damage (radiation, oxidative stress, metabolic byproducts)
- possibly editing mutations directly (crispr-based interventions?)
otherwise, we’re just playing with surface-level aesthetics.
10/
this study doesn’t kill the idea of epigenetic reprogramming, but it reframes the approach:
you can reset methylation, but if the DNA itself is full of damage, you’re not reversing aging, you’re just masking the symptoms.
so the question is: are we focusing on the right layer of the problem?
aging isn’t just a clock. it’s an accumulation of errors.
11/
you can reset methylation, but if the DNA itself is full of damage, you’re not reversing aging, you’re just masking the symptoms.
so the question is: are we focusing on the right layer of the problem?
aging isn’t just a clock. it’s an accumulation of errors.
11/
if you want to extend lifespan, the real question isn’t how do we rewind the epigenetic clock?
it’s how do we stop the damage from happening in the first place?
that’s where the next big breakthrough will be.
12/
it’s how do we stop the damage from happening in the first place?
that’s where the next big breakthrough will be.
12/
@bryan_johnson
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
