[What will happen to molecular cell biomarkers of aging in case we cancel its program (of course, if it does exist)?]

Currently, gerontologists, evaluating the effectiveness of various impacts on the aging process, as a rule, use a variety of molecular cell biomarkers of aging. This provides much more rapid results than in the case of the survival curve obtaining. However, in many cases the usefulness of these biomarkers of aging is grounded in works devoted to what is called cellular/cell senescence. Unfortunately, the evolution of the term in recent years has led to the loss, to a large extent, of its original meaning, that is the changes of the cells during their replicative senescence ("on Hayflick's grounds"), similar to the changes of cells in the aging organism. At present, most of the work in this area is related to the induction of the relevant changes in the cells (usually transformed) by various DNA damaging factors. Such an approach, although is very important to define a strategy to fight cancer, but, yet again, takes us away from the study of the real mechanisms of organismal aging. In addition, there are reasons to believe that the biomarkers of aging, proposed by these studies (and in particular, the most popular of them--the activity of senescence-associated beta-galactosidase), are related, as a rule, to the proliferative status of the cells, which in the whole body is generally determined by proper implementing the program of development and differentiation, leading to the emergence of tissues and organs composed of postmitotic or very slowly proliferating cells. Therefore, the possible disabling the aging program, apparently, will not lead to any changes in the age dynamics of those biomarkers of aging. This conclusion brings us back to the need for obtaining the survival curves of experimental animals or humans as the only true (although the most time- and money-consuming) approach to evaluating the effectiveness of the modification of the aging process.