Defining aging: Past, present, and possible future
https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0137-0952-16-80-3-8
Abstract
Various views on the “correct” definition of aging are analyzed. It is emphasized that a huge number of such definitions have emerged in recent decades, and several million scientific publications devoted to this topic can be found online. At the same time, most gerontologists based their definitions on the premise that aging (with various modifications) is a set of age-related changes in the body that lead to an increased probability of death. However, as numerous new data emerged in gerontological research, many specialists began to question the suitability of this “classical” definition. This was due, among other things, to the identified impact of long-term chronic diseases such as HIV or COVID-19 on age-related mortality dynamics, to the dramatic changes in recent decades in the understanding of cellular aging and the relationship between aging and various age-related diseases, as well as to the correct methodology for determining biological age. The apparent lack of progress in fundamental gerontology to date and the emergence of a large number of studies in which the presence / absence of aging in the studied organisms was in no way linked to the obtaining survival curves also played a significant role. The evolution of approaches to defining aging is discussed, as well as potential future modifications to this definition.
About the Author
A. N. KhokhlovRussian Federation
1–12 Leninskie gory, Moscow, 119234
References
1. Khokhlov A.N. Reflections of a pessimistic gerontologist or why we still do not live 1000 years. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2021;76(4):239–243.
2. Khokhlov A.N. The renewed ‘Advances in Gerontology’ 2025: Results, prospects, changing strategy. Adv. Gerontol. 2025;15(2):43–45.
3. Khokhlov A.N. From Carrel to Hayflick and back, or what we got from the 100-year cytogerontological studies. Biophysics. 2010;55(5):859–864.
4. Khokhlov A.N. Does aging need its own program, or is the program of development quite sufficient for it? Stationary cell cultures as a tool to search for anti-aging factors. Curr. Aging Sci. 2013;6(1):14–20.
5. Khokhlov A.N. Basics of biology of aging for MSU non-biologists. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2023;78(2):111–114.
6. Khokhlov A.N. Gerontology in the 21st century: From failures to advances. Hopefully. Adv. Gerontol. 2023;13(1):1–3.
7. Khokhlov A.N. Why freshwater hydra does not get Alzheimer’s disease. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2023;78(3):198–204.
8. Khokhlov A.N., Klebanov A.A., Morgunova G.V. On choosing control objects in experimental gerontological research. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2018;73(2):59–62.
9. Khokhlov A.N. and Morgunova G.V. Should we consider water and antibiotics to be geroprotectors? Adv. Gerontol. 2023;13(4):202–205.
10. Khokhlov A.N. Antioxidants: Good, bad, or ineffective in terms of aging and lifespan? It depends. Adv. Gerontol. 2024;14(4):171–174.
11. Descartes R. Règles pour la direction de l’esprit. Vrin, 1970. 146 p.
12. Анисимов В.Н. Старение и ассоциированные с возрастом болезни. Клин. геронтол. 2005;11(1):42–49.
13. Strehler B.L. Time, cells and aging. NY: Acad. Press, 1962. 270 pp.
14. Comfort A. Ageing: The biology of senescence. NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964. 365 pp.
15. Lamb M.J. Biology of ageing. Glasgow: Blackie, 1977. 184 pp.
16. Rose M. Evolutionary biology of aging. NY: Oxford Univ. Press, 1991. 221 pp.
17. Finch C.E. Senescence, longevity, and the genome. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press, 1990. 922 pp.
18. Hayflick L. How and why we age. NY: Ballantine Books, 1994. 377 pp.
19. Holliday R. Aging: The paradox of life. Why We Age. Springer Science and Business Media, 2007. 134 pp.
20. Harman D. Free radical theory of aging: an update. Increasing the functional life span. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 2006;1067(1):10–21.
21. Austad S.N. Rebuttal to Bredesen: ‘The nonexistent aging program: how does it work?’. Aging Cell. 2004;3(5):253–254.
22. Austad S.N. Diverse aging rates in metazoans: targets for functional genomics. Mech. Ageing Dev. 2005;126(1):43–49.
23. Flatt T. A new definition of aging? Front. Genet. 2012;3:148.
24. Lemoine M. Defining aging. Biol. Philos. 2020;35(5):46.
25. Hayflick L. The future of ageing. Nature. 2000;408(6809):267–269.
26. Rose M.R, Flatt T., Graves J.L., Greer L.F., Martinez D.E., Matos M., Mueller L.D., Shmookler Reis R.J., Shahrestani P. What is aging? Front. Genet. 2012;3:134.
27. López-Otín C., Blasco M.A., Partridge L., Serrano M., Kroemer G. The hallmarks of aging. Cell. 2013;153(6):1194–1217.
28. Mori M.A. Aging: a new perspective on an old issue. An. Acad. Bras. Cienc. 2020; 92(2):e20200437.
29. Gladyshev V.N. The ground zero of organismal life and aging. Trends Mol. Med. 2021;27(1):11–19.
30. Khokhlov A.N. On the cholesterol theory of aging2022. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2022;77(4):292–296.
31. Khokhlov A.N. Evolution of the term “cellular senescence” and its impact on the current cytogerontological research. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2013;68(4):158–161.
32. Morgunova G.V., Khokhlov A.N. Signs of similarities and differences in cellular models of aging: A scoping review. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2022;77(3):139–146.
33. Khokhlov A.N. Stationary cell cultures as a tool for gerontological studies. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 1992;663:475–476.
34. Khokhlov A.N. Cell kinetic approaches to the search for anti-aging drugs: Thirty years after. Moscow Univ. Biol. Sci. Bull. 2018;73(4):185–190.
35. Demaria M. Rethinking healthcare through aging biology. Aging (Albany NY). 2025;17(5):1077–1079.
Review
For citations:
Khokhlov A.N. Defining aging: Past, present, and possible future. Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta. Seriya 16. Biologiya. 2025;80(3):206-211. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.55959/MSU0137-0952-16-80-3-8


























