The thorny path linking cellular senescence to organismal aging.

Half a century is fast approaching since Hayflick and colleagues formally described the limited ability of normal human cells to proliferate in culture (Hayflick and Moorhead, 1961). This finding – that normal somatic cells, in contrast to cancer cells, cannot divide indefinitely – challenged the prevailing idea that cells from mortal multicellular organisms were intrinsically ‘immortal’ (Carrell, 1912). It also spawned two hypotheses, essential elements of which persist today. The first held that the restricted proliferation of normal cells, now termed cellular senescence, suppresses cancer (Hayflick, 1965; Sager, 1991; Campisi, 2001). The second hypothesis, as explained in the article by Lorenzini et al., suggested that the limited proliferation of cells in culture recapitulated aspects of organismal aging (Hayflick, 1965; Martin, 1993). How well have these hypotheses weathered the ensuing decades? Before answering this question, we first consider current insights into the causes and consequences of cellular senescence. Like Lorenzini et al., we limit our discussion to mammals. We also focus on fibroblasts, the cell type studied by Lorenzini et al., but consider other types as well. We suggest that replicative capacity in culture is not a straightforward assessment, and that it correlates poorly with both longevity and body mass. We speculate this is due to the malleable and variable nature of replicative capacity, which renders it an indirect metric of qualitative and quantitative differences among cells to undergo senescence, a response that directly alters cellular phenotype and might indirectly alter tissue structure and function.