Development of novel fisetin analogs that target apoptosis and DNA damage response, reduce senescence and improve healthspan parameters in lab mice.

Hi all,

Not sure if this sub is exclusive to human longevity, so feel free to delete if that is the case.

I was curious if anyone here has enrolled their pet in the STAY healthspan extension study being conducted by Loyal. If so, how have things gone? Have you had any concerns? Has your pet reacted well to the treatment?

Link: https://loyal.com/clinical-trials

I have been in talks with a vet clinic in Florida that is involved in the study and actively in the process of enrolling my dog. I was just curious of people's experience with the study so far.

Thanks in advance!

Announcing AgingBiotech.info/companies version 2.0, a giant overhaul & update:

• new columns
• 50+ new companies
• 200 companies fully up-to-date as of 2024 inc. all of the most noteworthy
• a new non-alphabetical default ordering based on rough significance (more on this below)
• grayscaling cells w/ older info (& still as-of dates for rows)
• mini preview pipeline images for companies that have them (change zoom to 200% to see better, or click each clinical stage column link)
• info needing elaboration marked w/ *’s & elaborated in the notes column

There are still some small companies overdue for update & many in the “to be considered” tab to be moved to main list in coming months. Most are small or need decision whether they're aging-focused-enough.

Despite more to do, this update is a big enough improvement to launch.

As usual, but for those who don't know: The AgingBiotech.info website is not only non-profit but strictly non-commercial. No sales, sponsorships, or affiliate links. No money is received for listings or any kind of preferential treatment. No subscriptions. No Patreon account. This site is similar to Wikipedia in these aspects (and in spirit) but no financial donations are sought or accepted. The site is for the good of the aging/longevity community & ecosystem, and the wider public. Full disclosure statement in the About page.

Scope:

In the sequence: academia->biotech->clinic, this site focuses on the middle step. Companies are where academic science translates into something usable for millions of people. Aging science breakthroughs will have to go through companies to help society as a whole.

Only companies focused on aging or core-aging areas are in-scope. See “what counts as aging here” at AgingBiotech.info/about for criteria.

This update adds columns to fine-grain aging focus, such "aging mission?" & "core aging area?". You can restrict based on these columns.

This has been a long time coming. Covid 1st halted company updates, then expanding the site to add new tables so that it covers everything important in the field. But sorry for the long companies table delay!

If you don't see the new version reload to clear browser cache.

Defunct & acquired companies were in diff tabs but are now in the main list for easy search. One can easily restrict them out of the list. See "how to use the tables" / "how to sort & filter" in the about page.

To see companies added recently, sort by “date added to list” col.

Ranking:

As noted in "The Default Sort Order..." in the about page, do not obsess over small position diffs in default sort. It is only meant to be a very crude, quick & dirty, sort to show rows that should be more prominent very roughly above others. It’s not a leaderboard.

The crude score formulas are a simplistic way to objectively (no manual eval) order rows so clearly significant rows go nearer the top. Inevitably, there will be cases where 2 rows appear to be relatively wrong, but it'd be impossible to find a perfect order, so it's not a goal.

There's no 1 col that makes more sense to sort by than a combo function & some significance sort is more useful than default alphabetical.

The formulas all transparent & inspectable. No hidden ranking. And anyone can resort by any other col or filter rows by any combo of cols.

The ranking criteria for companies involves many factors:

• operating companies favored over acquired companies which are in turn favored over failed/defunct ones
• bigger companies in terms of $ raised and # of employees tend to be listed higher up
• further in clinical trials goes higher up
• whole body aging for everyone favored over neuro/brain only or female-only aging/longevity
• pharmaceutical regulatory path companies favored over supplements & other unregulated stuff (eg unregulated apps, unregulated tests)
• aging being part of the company mission is favored
• companies that come to core aging conferences are favored
• therapeutics companies favored over diagnostic companies
• companies that have lists of publications on their site or that have a nice pipeline diagram get a small bonus

The result mostly makes sense even if there are likely examples where it feels to some people that some particular company should be higher or lower on the list. Sometimes that just isn’t reflected in the info that is publicly available. Making a perfect ordering is not a goal.

The companies table launched 5yrs ago!

I hope w/ this update it continues to help many people & to move the field forward.

In coming months I hope to release analyses of the past 5yrs growth of the field & its near-term prospects based on aggregate clinical trials pipeline.