Back to all available

Decoding aging clocks from a metabolomic perspective

biochemistry
cell-biology
geriatrics
metabolic-sciences

Abstract

Biological age quantifies functional decline beyond chronological aging; however, current epigenetic clocks exhibit limitations in resolving dynamic metabolic fluctuations and tissue-specific aging trajectories. Metabolomics emerges as a pivotal solution, representing the endpoint cascade of biological events shaped by multifactorial interactions that capture real-time physiological status. This review delineates aging clocks through a metabolomic lens and proposes an executable research workflow comprising data preprocessing, feature selection, model construction, and model application. Furthermore, we design a three-phase causal strategy structured as global screening, local verification, and dynamic validation. This integrated methodology aims to enhance the predictive accuracy of aging clocks while strengthening the biological plausibility and causal inference potential of metabolite-derived aging biomarkers. Additionally, we evaluate the translational prospects and applied value of metabolomic aging clocks, providing actionable guidance for extending human healthspan and advancing prevention and treatment strategies for aging-related pathologies.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].