Jonathan’s DNA offers a clue to longevity, not proof of a human treatment

A study announced on October 7 analyzed DNA and gene-regulating marks in Jonathan, a tortoise estimated to be about 194 years old.

The findings describe tissue from one tortoise; they do not establish the cause of his longevity or a treatment that extends human life.

How the age estimate was established

Jonathan is thought to have hatched around 1832. A photograph showing him already fully grown in 1882 helps underpin that estimate. The figure of 194 years should therefore be distinguished from an age established by a precise birth certificate. His remarkably long life on St Helena motivates the research, but the age estimate itself does not demonstrate the effect of any particular genetic feature.

A cheek sample rather than a blood draw

The research institution says a blood draw was not permitted because of concerns for Jonathan’s health, so a small sample came from inside his cheek. Researchers examined DNA sequences and chemical marks attached to DNA. These marks help regulate gene activity and differ from changes to the sequence itself. The sampling site matters: the condition of one tissue cannot automatically stand for aging throughout an animal’s body.

A clue involving cellular energy production

The team reported relatively orderly patterns of marks in regulatory regions of genes involved in mitochondria, the structures responsible for cellular energy production. That provides a hypothesis for further work on longevity and energy supply. It does not mean all of Jonathan’s DNA is youthful. An outside researcher interviewed by Live Science cautioned that interpreting aging through disorder in these marks, and differences among tissues, still require scrutiny.

What follow-up studies need to test

Researchers need to establish whether the pattern appears in other tissues and more long-lived animals, and whether changing it alters aging itself. The institution also called for additional sampling and validation. Access restrictions prevented a complete reading of the original paper during this check, so this account stays within the agreement between institutional reporting and independent coverage. No human clinical benefit was established here, and the finding does not justify recommending drugs or health products.

Primary source and independent checks

Primary source and official explanation: Vanderbilt Health

Paper reference; full-text access restricted: Science Advances

Independent reporting check: Live Science

Read in other languages

한국어 · English · Español · 日本語 · Tiếng Việt