Immune Aging (Immunosenescence) The Next Major Target for Longevity Medicine

Introduction

The global population is aging at an unprecedented rate. By 2050, individuals aged 65 and older will comprise 16% of the world population. This demographic shift presents healthcare systems with mounting challenges related to age-associated diseases and declining functional capacity. Among the various hallmarks of aging, immune system deterioration stands out as a central driver of morbidity and mortality in older adults.

Immunosenescence affects virtually every component of immune function. The adaptive immune system experiences profound changes, including thymic atrophy, reduced naive T cell production, and altered B cell responses. The innate immune system develops chronic low-grade inflammation while simultaneously losing effectiveness against pathogens. These changes create a paradoxical state where older adults experience both immunodeficiency and hyperinflammation.

The clinical consequences of immune aging are substantial. Older adults face increased susceptibility to infections, reduced vaccine efficacy, higher cancer rates, and poor wound healing. The COVID-19 pandemic starkly illustrated these vulnerabilities, with advanced age serving as the strongest predictor of severe outcomes. Understanding and addressing immune aging has therefore emerged as a critical priority for longevity medicine.

This analysis examines the molecular basis of immunosenescence, current therapeutic strategies, and practical implementation approaches for clinical practice. The goal is to provide physicians with evidence-based tools for assessing and addressing immune aging in their patients.

Mechanisms of Immune Aging

Thymic Involution

The thymus gland plays a central role in T cell development and immune competence. Unfortunately, thymic function begins declining in early adulthood, with tissue mass decreasing by approximately 3% annually after age 20. By age 60, the thymus retains only 10-15% of its original size. This involution process dramatically reduces naive T cell output, forcing the immune system to rely increasingly on memory T cell populations.

Thymic involution occurs through multiple mechanisms. Epithelial cell loss reduces the structural framework necessary for T cell education. Growth hormone and insulin-like growth factor-1 levels decline, removing key trophic signals. Sex steroid hormones, particularly elevated in aging, actively promote thymic regression. The result is severely impaired ability to respond to novel antigens.

Research has identified several approaches to counter thymic involution. Growth hormone supplementation can partially restore thymic mass in older adults, though effects are modest. Keratinocyte growth factor shows promise for thymic regeneration in animal models. Castration or anti-androgen therapy can reverse some age-related thymic changes, though clinical applications remain limited.

T Cell Dysfunction

Beyond reduced thymic output, existing T cells undergo functional deterioration with age. Naive T cells become increasingly scarce while memory and effector populations expand. This shift reduces the immune system’s ability to mount responses against previously unencountered pathogens.

T cell senescence represents a particularly important mechanism. Senescent T cells lose proliferative capacity, resist apoptosis, and secrete inflammatory mediators. These cells accumulate with age, particularly in response to chronic infections like cytomegalovirus (CMV). CMV seropositivity correlates strongly with accelerated immune aging and increased mortality risk in older adults.

Telomere shortening contributes to T cell aging. T cells from older individuals display shorter telomeres and reduced telomerase activity. This limits their replicative potential and promotes entry into senescent states. Chronic antigenic stimulation accelerates telomere loss, creating a cycle of immune exhaustion.

B Cell Alterations

B cell function also declines with advancing age. Bone marrow B cell production decreases, similar to thymic T cell output. The B cell repertoire becomes increasingly restricted, with reduced diversity in immunoglobulin gene usage. This limits the range of antibodies that can be produced in response to new antigens.

Antibody quality deteriorates alongside quantity. B cells from older adults produce antibodies with reduced affinity and altered isotype distribution. The switch from IgM to IgG responses becomes less efficient. Memory B cell populations expand but show functional defects, including reduced ability to undergo secondary responses.

Class switch recombination becomes progressively impaired with age. This process normally allows B cells to produce different antibody types suited to specific threats. Age-related defects limit this flexibility, reducing the effectiveness of humoral immune responses.

Inflammaging

Perhaps the most paradoxical aspect of immune aging is the simultaneous development of chronic inflammation alongside immunodeficiency. This phenomenon, termed “inflammaging,” reflects persistent activation of innate immune pathways despite reduced adaptive immune function.

Multiple mechanisms drive inflammaging. Cellular senescence leads to increased production of pro-inflammatory cytokines, particularly interleukin-6, tumor necrosis factor-alpha, and interleukin-1beta. These senescence-associated secretory phenotype (SASP) factors create systemic inflammatory environments that further impair immune function.

Damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs) accumulate with age as cellular repair mechanisms become less efficient. These endogenous molecules activate pattern recognition receptors, triggering inflammatory responses. Mitochondrial dysfunction releases additional inflammatory stimuli, including mitochondrial DNA and reactive oxygen species.

The gut microbiome undergoes age-related changes that contribute to inflammaging. Bacterial diversity decreases while potentially pathogenic species increase. Intestinal barrier function deteriorates, allowing increased bacterial translocation and systemic inflammatory responses.

Clinical Manifestations of Immunosenescence

Increased Infection Susceptibility

Older adults experience dramatically higher rates of serious infections compared to younger individuals. Pneumonia becomes the leading cause of infection-related mortality in this population. Urinary tract infections occur more frequently and are more likely to progress to sepsis. Skin and soft tissue infections heal more slowly and are prone to complications.

The immune aging process affects both infection prevention and resolution. Reduced T cell responses limit pathogen clearance. Impaired B cell function produces less effective antibodies. Neutrophil chemotaxis and phagocytosis decline, reducing initial infection control. These defects combine to create substantial clinical vulnerabilities.

Reactivation of latent infections becomes increasingly common with advancing age. Varicella-zoster virus reactivation causes shingles, which affects approximately one-third of individuals over age 85. Tuberculosis reactivation rates increase substantially in older adults, particularly those with additional risk factors. Other opportunistic infections may emerge as immune surveillance weakens.

Reduced Vaccine Efficacy

Vaccination responses decline markedly with age across multiple vaccine types. Influenza vaccine effectiveness drops from 70-90% in young adults to 30-50% in adults over 65. This reduced protection contributes to the disproportionate influenza morbidity and mortality observed in older populations.

The mechanisms underlying poor vaccine responses reflect broader immune aging processes. Reduced naive T cell populations limit responses to novel antigens. B cell dysfunction produces lower-quality antibodies with reduced protective capacity. Chronic inflammation may interfere with the development of appropriate immune memory.

Several strategies have been developed to improve vaccine responses in older adults. High-dose influenza vaccines contain four times the standard antigen amount and show improved efficacy. Adjuvanted vaccines include immune stimulants that enhance responses. Intradermal administration may improve antigen presentation and subsequent immunity.

Cancer Risk

Cancer incidence increases exponentially with age, rising approximately 1000-fold between ages 30 and 80. While multiple factors contribute to this pattern, immune aging plays a central role through reduced cancer surveillance and elimination capabilities.

T cell responses against tumor antigens become progressively impaired with age. Cytotoxic T lymphocyte function declines, reducing the ability to eliminate malignant cells. Regulatory T cell populations may expand, creating immunosuppressive environments that favor tumor growth. Natural killer cell activity also decreases, further compromising cancer surveillance.

Chronic inflammation associated with immune aging may paradoxically promote cancer development. Pro-inflammatory cytokines can stimulate cell proliferation and angiogenesis. Inflammatory environments may also promote DNA damage and mutagenesis. The balance between tumor-promoting inflammation and tumor-suppressing immune responses shifts unfavorably with age.

One amusing anecdote illustrates the complexity of immune aging and cancer risk. A 90-year-old patient once asked her oncologist why she developed breast cancer at such an advanced age when she had “been healthy her whole life.” The physician explained that her immune system had likely been preventing cancers for decades, but eventually “got tired of being the body’s security guard and decided to take early retirement.”

Autoimmune Disease

While some autoimmune conditions decrease with age, others become more common in older adults. The aging immune system develops reduced self-tolerance mechanisms, increasing the risk of autoimmune phenomena. Molecular mimicry between foreign antigens and self-antigens may trigger inappropriate responses.

Chronic inflammatory states associated with immune aging can promote autoimmune disease development. Persistent cytokine production may break down tolerance mechanisms. Tissue damage from ongoing inflammation may expose previously hidden self-antigens to immune recognition.

The clinical presentation of autoimmune diseases often differs in older adults compared to younger patients. Symptoms may be more subtle or attributed to normal aging processes. Treatment responses may be reduced due to altered immune function. Drug toxicities may be more frequent due to age-related changes in metabolism and organ function.

Therapeutic Interventions for Immune Aging

Senolytic Therapies

Senolytic drugs selectively eliminate senescent cells that accumulate with age. These agents target the anti-apoptotic pathways that allow senescent cells to resist normal cell death signals. By removing senescent cells, senolytics can reduce SASP factor production and potentially restore more youthful immune function.

Dasatinib plus quercetin represents the most studied senolytic combination. Clinical trials in older adults demonstrate reduced inflammatory markers and improved physical function following treatment. However, immune-specific outcomes require further investigation. The optimal dosing regimen and treatment intervals remain under investigation.

Fisetin, a flavonoid compound, shows senolytic activity in preclinical studies. Early human trials suggest safety and potential efficacy for reducing senescent cell burden. Other senolytic candidates include navitoclax, venetoclax, and various natural compounds. The field is rapidly evolving with multiple agents in clinical development.

Safety considerations for senolytic therapy include potential effects on wound healing and infection responses. Senescent cells may serve some beneficial functions, particularly in tissue repair contexts. The optimal patient selection criteria and treatment timing require careful consideration.

Thymic Regeneration

Given the central role of thymic involution in immune aging, thymic regeneration represents an attractive therapeutic target. Several approaches show promise for restoring thymic function in older adults.

Growth hormone therapy can partially reverse age-related thymic atrophy. The TRIIM (Thymus Regeneration, Immunorestoration, and Insulin Mitigation) trial demonstrated increased thymic volume and improved immune markers in older men following growth hormone, DHEA, and metformin treatment. However, growth hormone therapy carries risks including diabetes and cancer promotion.

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF) promotes thymic epithelial cell proliferation and may support thymic regeneration. Animal studies demonstrate improved thymic function following KGF administration. Human trials are planned to evaluate safety and efficacy.

Sex steroid modulation offers another approach to thymic regeneration. Androgen receptor antagonists can reverse some aspects of thymic involution in animal models. However, clinical applications are limited by the essential roles of sex steroids in other physiological processes.

Cellular Therapies

Adoptive cell transfer approaches aim to restore immune function through infusion of functional immune cells. These strategies may be particularly valuable for patients with severe immunodeficiency.

Naive T cell transfer could potentially restore responses to novel antigens in older adults. However, practical challenges include cell sourcing, expansion, and persistence following transfer. The cells would enter an aged host environment that might limit their function and longevity.

Thymic epithelial cell transplantation represents an experimental approach to thymic regeneration. Successful restoration of thymic function has been demonstrated in animal models. However, translation to clinical applications faces substantial technical and regulatory hurdles.

Hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy offers potential for correcting age-related immune defects. Genetic modifications could potentially restore telomerase activity, enhance DNA repair, or improve stress resistance. However, current approaches remain experimental and carry substantial risks.

Immunomodulatory Compounds

Various compounds can modulate immune function and potentially slow immune aging processes. These interventions often target multiple pathways simultaneously.

Rapamycin and other mTOR inhibitors show promise for improving immune function in older adults. The RAPALOGUE trial demonstrated improved vaccine responses in older adults treated with rapamycin analogs. However, immunosuppressive effects require careful monitoring and may limit clinical applications.

Metformin, widely used for diabetes treatment, shows potential anti-aging effects including immune system benefits. Observational studies suggest reduced infection rates and improved vaccine responses in metformin users. Randomized trials are investigating metformin’s effects on aging biomarkers including immune parameters.

NAD+ precursors such as nicotinamide riboside and nicotinamide mononucleotide may support immune cell function through improved cellular energetics. Preliminary studies suggest potential benefits for immune markers, though larger trials are needed.

Table 1: Clinical Assessment of Immune Aging

Parameter	Young Adults (20-30 years)	Older Adults (70-80 years)	Clinical Significance
Naive T cells (% of CD4+ T cells)	40-60%	10-20%	Reduced response to novel antigens
Memory T cells (% of CD4+ T cells)	20-40%	60-80%	Limited T cell repertoire diversity
Thymic volume (relative to age 20)	100%	10-15%	Minimal new T cell production
CMV seropositivity	40-60%	80-95%	Accelerated immune aging marker
IL-6 levels (pg/mL)	1-2	4-8	Chronic inflammatory state
Vaccine response (antibody titer)	High	Low-Moderate	Poor protection from vaccination
Telomere length (relative)	100%	60-70%	Cellular aging marker

Clinical Implementation Strategies

Patient Assessment

Clinical evaluation of immune aging requires systematic assessment of multiple parameters. Traditional immune function tests often fail to capture the subtle changes associated with aging. A more nuanced approach considers both laboratory markers and clinical indicators.

History taking should emphasize infection patterns, vaccine responses, and healing capacity. Patients with frequent infections, poor vaccine responses, or slow wound healing may have accelerated immune aging. Previous serious infections or unusual pathogens may indicate immune dysfunction.

Laboratory assessment can include basic immune cell counts and functional markers. Complete blood count with differential provides information about major immune cell populations. Flow cytometry can quantify naive versus memory T cell ratios. Inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 levels indicate chronic inflammation.

Specialized testing may be appropriate for selected patients. Lymphocyte proliferation assays assess T cell function. Antibody responses to previous vaccinations indicate humoral immune capacity. CMV serology provides information about immune aging acceleration.

Risk Stratification

Not all older adults experience immune aging at the same rate. Identifying patients at highest risk allows targeted interventions and monitoring. Several factors predict accelerated immune aging and poor clinical outcomes.

Chronological age remains the strongest predictor of immune aging, but biological markers provide additional information. CMV seropositivity significantly accelerates immune aging processes. Patients with chronic inflammatory conditions may experience faster immune decline.

Frailty status correlates strongly with immune aging markers. Frail older adults show more pronounced immune dysfunction and poorer clinical outcomes. Comprehensive geriatric assessment can identify patients who may benefit most from immune aging interventions.

Medication effects should be considered in risk assessment. Corticosteroids, immunosuppressive drugs, and some chemotherapy agents can accelerate immune aging. Polypharmacy may contribute to immune dysfunction through drug interactions and cumulative effects.

Intervention Selection

Treatment selection for immune aging requires careful consideration of patient factors, intervention risks, and expected benefits. No single approach is appropriate for all patients.

Low-risk interventions can be considered for most older adults. Optimal nutrition, regular exercise, stress management, and adequate sleep all support immune function. Vaccination strategies should be tailored to age-related changes in immune responses.

Moderate-risk interventions require more careful patient selection. Senolytic therapies show promise but remain experimental. Growth hormone therapy may benefit selected patients but carries substantial risks. Immunomodulatory drugs require careful monitoring.

High-risk interventions should be reserved for patients with severe immune dysfunction or those participating in clinical trials. Cellular therapies and genetic approaches remain largely experimental. The risk-benefit ratio must be carefully evaluated for each individual patient.

Monitoring and Follow-up

Patients receiving interventions for immune aging require appropriate monitoring for both efficacy and safety. The optimal monitoring approach depends on the specific intervention and patient factors.

Clinical monitoring should focus on infection rates, vaccine responses, and general health status. Patients should be educated to report new infections, unusual symptoms, or poor healing. Regular assessment of functional status and quality of life provides additional outcome measures.

Laboratory monitoring requirements vary by intervention. Patients receiving growth hormone need glucose monitoring and cancer surveillance. Senolytic therapies may require blood count monitoring. Anti-inflammatory treatments need safety monitoring for infection risk.

Long-term follow-up is essential given the experimental nature of many immune aging interventions. Optimal treatment duration, maintenance regimens, and long-term safety remain largely unknown. Patients should be counseled about the investigational nature of many approaches.

Challenges and Limitations

Scientific Understanding

Despite rapid advances, understanding of immune aging mechanisms remains incomplete. The complex interactions between different immune system components make it difficult to predict intervention effects. Individual variation in aging patterns complicates treatment standardization.

Translation from animal models to human applications faces substantial challenges. Laboratory animals are typically genetically uniform and maintained in controlled environments. Human populations show marked genetic diversity and variable environmental exposures. Interventions effective in animal models may not translate to human benefit.

Biomarker validation represents another major challenge. While numerous age-related changes in immune function have been described, their clinical relevance often remains unclear. Determining which markers best predict clinical outcomes requires large, long-term studies.

Clinical Trial Design

Studying immune aging interventions presents unique methodological challenges. Traditional endpoints such as mortality require very large studies and long follow-up periods. Surrogate endpoints may not accurately predict clinical benefit.

Patient heterogeneity complicates trial design and interpretation. Older adults often have multiple comorbidities, take numerous medications, and show variable baseline immune function. Standard exclusion criteria may limit generalizability to real-world patient populations.

Ethical considerations arise when studying experimental interventions in vulnerable older adult populations. The balance between potential benefit and unknown risks requires careful consideration. Informed consent processes must account for potential cognitive impairment in some participants.

Regulatory Considerations

The regulatory pathway for immune aging interventions remains unclear. Traditional drug development paradigms focus on specific diseases rather than aging processes. Regulatory agencies are still developing frameworks for evaluating anti-aging interventions.

Safety requirements for healthy older adults may be more stringent than for patients with life-threatening diseases. The acceptable risk-benefit ratio differs when treating aging processes versus acute medical conditions. Long-term safety data requirements may delay intervention availability.

Combination therapies targeting multiple aging mechanisms face additional regulatory complexity. Drug interactions, optimal dosing, and safety monitoring become more challenging with multiple interventions. Regulatory pathways for combination anti-aging therapies remain largely undefined.

Cost Considerations

Economic factors will likely influence the clinical adoption of immune aging interventions. Many promising therapies require expensive manufacturing processes or complex administration protocols. Healthcare systems must balance intervention costs against potential benefits.

Cost-effectiveness analyses for immune aging interventions face unique challenges. Benefits may accrue over extended time periods and include difficult-to-quantify outcomes such as maintained independence. Traditional pharmacoeconomic models may not adequately capture these benefits.

Healthcare system capacity represents another consideration. Widespread implementation of immune aging interventions could substantially increase healthcare utilization. Systems must develop appropriate infrastructure and workforce capacity to support these interventions.

Future Directions

Emerging Therapeutic Approaches

Several promising approaches for addressing immune aging are under development. These interventions target novel mechanisms and may offer advantages over current strategies.

Epigenetic reprogramming offers potential for reversing age-related changes in immune cell function. Yamanaka factors can restore youthful characteristics to aged cells in laboratory settings. However, clinical translation faces substantial safety and technical challenges.

Microbiome interventions may address inflammaging and support immune function. Fecal microbiota transplantation from young to old individuals shows promise in animal models. Targeted probiotic interventions and dietary modifications offer less invasive approaches to microbiome optimization.

Artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches may enable personalized immune aging interventions. These tools could identify optimal treatment combinations based on individual patient characteristics. Predictive algorithms might guide intervention timing and duration.

Precision Medicine Applications

The future of immune aging treatment likely lies in personalized approaches based on individual patient characteristics. Genetic factors influence aging patterns and intervention responses. Environmental exposures and lifestyle factors also modify immune aging trajectories.

Genomic profiling may identify patients most likely to benefit from specific interventions. Genetic variants affecting immune function, inflammation, and cellular aging could guide treatment selection. Pharmacogenomic testing might optimize drug dosing and reduce adverse effects.

Multi-omics approaches combining genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics could provide detailed pictures of individual immune aging patterns. These profiles might enable precise intervention targeting and monitoring. However, clinical implementation will require substantial advances in data analysis and interpretation capabilities.

Preventive Strategies

Early intervention may prove more effective than treatment of established immune aging. Identifying individuals at risk for accelerated immune aging could enable preventive approaches during middle age or earlier.

Lifestyle interventions show promise for slowing immune aging processes. Regular exercise maintains immune function and reduces inflammation. Caloric restriction and intermittent fasting may promote cellular repair mechanisms. Stress reduction techniques could limit cortisol-mediated immune suppression.

Vaccination strategies might be optimized to provide longer-lasting protection in aging populations. Novel adjuvants could enhance immune responses. Personalized vaccination schedules might account for individual immune aging patterns. Therapeutic vaccines targeting senescent cells represent an innovative approach.

 

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the earliest age at which immune aging becomes clinically relevant?

Immune aging processes begin in early adulthood, with thymic involution starting around age 20. However, clinically relevant effects typically become apparent after age 50 to 60. Individual variation is substantial, with some people experiencing accelerated immune aging due to genetic factors, chronic diseases, or environmental exposures.

How can physicians assess immune aging in clinical practice?

Basic assessment includes detailed history focusing on infection patterns, vaccine responses, and healing capacity. Laboratory tests should include complete blood count, inflammatory markers (C-reactive protein, interleukin-6), and consideration of CMV serology. More specialized testing such as T cell subset analysis may be appropriate for selected patients.

Are there any FDA-approved treatments specifically for immune aging?

Currently, no FDA-approved treatments specifically target immune aging. However, several interventions used for other indications may provide immune aging benefits. These include certain vaccines designed for older adults, some immunomodulatory drugs, and lifestyle interventions. Clinical trials are investigating specific anti-aging therapies.

What role does CMV infection play in immune aging?

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection significantly accelerates immune aging processes. CMV-seropositive individuals show more rapid T cell aging, increased inflammation, and higher mortality risk. CMV serostatus serves as a biomarker for immune aging acceleration. However, CMV infection is very common and cannot be readily prevented or treated in most cases.

How do senolytic drugs work and what are their risks?

Senolytic drugs selectively eliminate senescent cells that accumulate with aging and secrete inflammatory factors. They work by targeting anti-apoptotic pathways that allow senescent cells to resist normal cell death. Potential risks include impaired wound healing, increased infection risk, and unknown long-term effects. Clinical trials are ongoing to establish safety and efficacy.

Can diet and exercise really impact immune aging?

Yes, lifestyle factors substantially influence immune aging. Regular exercise maintains immune cell function and reduces inflammation. Optimal nutrition supports immune cell metabolism and function. Caloric restriction may promote cellular repair mechanisms. Mediterranean-style diets rich in anti-inflammatory compounds show particular promise. However, lifestyle interventions alone may not prevent all aspects of immune aging.

What is the relationship between immune aging and cancer risk?

Immune aging contributes to increased cancer risk through multiple mechanisms. Reduced immune surveillance allows malignant cells to escape detection and elimination. Chronic inflammation may promote cancer development and progression. However, some cancer treatments can accelerate immune aging, creating complex interactions between cancer, treatment, and immune function.

How effective are vaccines in older adults with immune aging?

Vaccine effectiveness declines with age due to immune aging. Standard influenza vaccines show 30-50% effectiveness in adults over 65 compared to 70-90% in young adults. However, vaccines remain the most effective intervention for preventing serious infections in older adults. High-dose and adjuvanted vaccines can improve responses in aging populations.

What is inflammaging and how does it differ from normal inflammation?

Inflammaging refers to chronic, low-grade inflammation associated with aging. Unlike acute inflammation that serves protective functions, inflammaging is persistent and potentially harmful. It results from senescent cell secretions, cellular damage, and altered immune regulation. Inflammaging contributes to multiple age-related diseases while paradoxically occurring alongside reduced immune responses to pathogens.

When might experimental immune aging treatments be appropriate for patients?

Experimental treatments should be considered primarily within clinical trial contexts or for patients with severe immune dysfunction who have exhausted standard options. Patients should understand the investigational nature of these interventions and potential risks. Shared decision-making processes should carefully weigh potential benefits against unknown risks. Access to experimental treatments typically requires participation in institutional review board-approved studies.

References

Aiello, A., Farzaneh, F., Candore, G., Caruso, C., Davinelli, S., Gambino, C. M., … & Caruso, C. (2019). Immunosenescence and its hallmarks: how to oppose aging strategically? A review of potential options for therapeutic intervention. Frontiers in Immunology, 10, 2247.

Akbar, A. N., & Gilroy, D. W. (2020). Aging immunity may exacerbate COVID-19. Science, 369(6501), 256-257.

Bektas, A., Schurman, S. H., Sen, R., & Ferrucci, L. (2018). Aging, inflammation and the environment. Experimental Gerontology, 105, 10-18.

Campisi, J., Kapahi, P., Lithgow, G. J., Melov, S., Newman, J. C., & Verdin, E. (2019). From discoveries in ageing research to therapeutics for healthy ageing. Nature, 571(7764), 183-192.

Crooke, S. N., Ovsyannikova, I. G., Poland, G. A., & Kennedy, R. B. (2019). Immunosenescence and human vaccine immune responses. Immunity & Ageing, 16(1), 1-16.

Frasca, D., & Blomberg, B. B. (2020). The impact of immunosenescence on vaccination response in the elderly. Current Opinion in Immunology, 29, 83-90.

Fulop, T., Larbi, A., Dupuis, G., Le Page, A., Frost, E. H., Cohen, A. A., … & Franceschi, C. (2018). Immunosenescence and inflamm-aging as two sides of the same coin: friends or foes? Frontiers in Immunology, 8, 1960.

Goronzy, J. J., & Weyand, C. M. (2019). Mechanisms underlying T cell ageing. Nature Reviews Immunology, 19(9), 573-583.

Hickson, L. J., Langhi Prata, L. G., Bobart, S. A., Evans, T. K., Giorgadze, N., Hashmi, S. K., … & Kirkland, J. L. (2019). Senolytics decrease senescent cells in humans: preliminary report from a clinical trial of dasatinib plus quercetin in individuals with diabetic kidney disease. EBioMedicine, 47, 446-456.

Kirkland, J. L., & Tchkonia, T. (2020). Senolytic drugs: from discovery to translation. Journal of Internal Medicine, 288(5), 518-536.

Li, M., Yao, D., Zeng, X., Kasakovski, D., Zhang, Y., Chen, S., … & Wang, L. (2019). Age related human T cell subset evolution and senescence. Immunity & Ageing, 16(1), 1-12.

López-Otín, C., Blasco, M. A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., & Kroemer, G. (2013). The hallmarks of aging. Cell, 153(6), 1194-1217.

Mannick, J. B., Del Giudice, G., Lattanzi, M., Valiante, N. M., Praestgaard, J., Huang, B., … & Klickstein, L. B. (2014). mTOR inhibition improves immune function in the elderly. Science Translational Medicine, 6(268), 268ra179.

Nikolich-Žugich, J. (2018). The twilight of immunity: emerging concepts in aging of the immune system. Nature Immunology, 19(1), 10-19.

Palmer, D. B. (2013). The effect of age on thymic function. Frontiers in Immunology, 4, 316.

Pawelec, G. (2018). Age and immunity: What is “immunosenescence”? Experimental Gerontology, 105, 4-9.

Salminen, A., Kaarniranta, K., & Kauppinen, A. (2012). Inflammaging: disturbed interplay between autophagy and inflammasomes. Aging, 4(3), 166-175.

Tchkonia, T., & Kirkland, J. L. (2018). Aging, cell senescence, and chronic disease: emerging therapeutic strategies. JAMA, 320(13), 1319-1320.

Wertheimer, A. M., Bennett, M. S., Park, B., Uhrlaub, J. L., Martinez, C., Pulko, V., … & Nikolich-Žugich, J. (2014). Aging and cytomegalovirus infection differentially and jointly affect distinct circulating T cell subsets in humans. Journal of Immunology, 192(5), 2143-2155.

Xu, M., Pirtskhalava, T., Farr, J. N., Weigand, B. M., Palmer, A. K., Weivoda, M. M., … & Kirkland, J. L. (2018). Senolytics improve physical function and increase lifespan in old age. Nature Medicine, 24(8), 1246-1256.