Author
Listed:
- Carina Bergmann
- Lisa M Häsler
- Marius Lambert
- Stephan A Kaeser
- Stephanie A Schultz
- Barbara Riond
- Marco Weiss
- Martina Balz
- Tobias Knauf-Witzens
- Mathias Jucker
Abstract
Blood levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) increase with age in healthy humans and have been shown to predict all-cause human mortality. To determine whether this relationship is conserved across species, we analyzed NfL in the blood of various animals. We observed age-related increases in NfL levels comparable to those seen in humans in mice, cats, dogs and horses. Longitudinal analysis of NfL trajectories in aged mice demonstrated that a faster rate of NfL increase predicts mortality. When comparing baseline NfL levels across 13 species, we found that those with lower baseline NfL levels tended to have longer lifespans; however, the collinearity between body size and life span complicates the interpretation of this finding. NfL was also robustly detected in blood of 39 additional mammalian species, as well as a few reptiles and birds, consistent with a conserved amino acid sequence of the NfL fragment in blood. Given the growing interest in NfL as a biomarker for neurological health and mortality in humans, our findings suggest that NfL may serve as a cross-species blood biomarker for assessing aging interventions and predicting mortality.Blood levels of neurofilament light chain (NfL) increase with age in healthy humans and can predict all-cause human mortality, but is this true across species? This study shows that NfL age-related blood levels are comparable across mice, cats, dogs and horses, and may serve as a cross-species biomarker for assessing aging interventions and mortality prediction.
Suggested Citation
Carina Bergmann & Lisa M Häsler & Marius Lambert & Stephan A Kaeser & Stephanie A Schultz & Barbara Riond & Marco Weiss & Martina Balz & Tobias Knauf-Witzens & Mathias Jucker, 2026.
"Neurofilament light chain may serve as a cross-species blood biomarker to assess aging and predict mortality,"
PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 24(2), pages 1-12, February.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003606
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3003606
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3003606. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.