An Interview with a Principal Investigator at Calico

Calico is Google's venture into aging research. It has, in general, been a disappointment to the community - though I suspect that this is a matter of unrealistic expectations as to the path that any new, large deployment of capital is likely to follow. Rather than taking on any of the approaches to rejuvenation that might plausibly produce sizable gains in life span, such as those of the SENS portfolio, Calico has focused on very staid, long-standing metabolic manipulations derived from the study of calorie restriction and growth hormone loss of function mutants. These lines of research are highly unlikely to produce sizable gains in health and longevity in humans, as the calorie restriction response and disruption of growth hormone metabolism are known to produce only modest gains in our species. Calico, like the Ellison Medical Foundation that preceded it, has in essence become a small arm of the National Institute on Aging, characterized by conducting fundamental rather than translational research, and in areas of the field that won't do much for human health and life span at the end of the day.

What area of aging and age-related diseases has Calico's biggest focus at the moment?

Our top-level goal is to develop interventions that delay aging, but to test such interventions, we have to be able to measure aging. This is easier said than done - the gold standard, lifespan, takes a long time and is relatively information-poor. There are molecular and cellular changes that occur with age, but it's not always clear which are the most relevant readouts. We'd like to measure aspects of physiological decline, but current healthspan assays take a lot of time and effort, and even then tend to be pretty noisy. To address those limitations, we've spent a lot of time developing innovative tools and novel analyses for quantifying physiological decline in mouse models. We emphasize automated, longitudinal monitoring and multi-dimensional time-series analysis.

On the intervention side, one area of focus for my lab is IGF signaling. This was a pretty straightforward choice - reduced IGF signaling is the most validated anti-aging intervention known (slows aging from worms to mammals, with the largest effect sizes ever reported). There are challenges with targeting this pathway, of course - dose-limiting toxicity, endocrine feedback, lack of biomarkers, just to name a few - but we think we've identified a viable therapeutic strategy.

What emerging discoveries and techniques is Calico utilising?

I'm excited about using outbred mice for intervention testing. We're clearly not the first people to think of this, but we've embraced the concept. Outbred mice are somewhat more resource-intensive than inbred mice because they have more variability, but we think they're worth it. As we're all painfully aware, many published results fail to replicate. I think that a big fraction of what's being called irreproducibility is actually a lack of generalizability. In other words, the results might repeat under the exact same conditions, but alter those conditions just a little and it's a different answer. For mouse studies, strain background is an important condition, and we worry about results from a single, homozygous-at-all-loci genotypes not being generalizable. Outbred mice help us avoid this

What do you think is the best way to quantify longitudinal decline - are there key biomarkers that you're addressing?

Aging manifests at all levels of biological organization (i.e. molecules, cells, tissues, organs, organ-systems, and whole organisms), and measuring aging at each level has pros and cons. Molecular and cellular data provide mechanistic insight and can point to new therapeutic targets, but it can be hard to know if effects are truly relevant to the organism (e.g. does delaying mutation accumulation delay decline in organ function)? Organ-level and physiological data provide health relevance, but it can be hard to tease out mechanism - good for testing putative targets, less good for target discovery. My lab focuses on developing tools for measuring organism-level decline because we think the state of the art is lacking and robustly testing putative targets is rate-limiting in the field.



it is unfortunate that they are focusing on low yield topics. At least they are conditioning the investors that anti-aging is a real topic. In fact might be as real as level 5 self-driving cars in the sense that both first generations and self-driving cars will arrive to the general public at the same time...

Posted by: cuberat at September 9th, 2020 4:26 PM

This is certainly the most boring Q&A I've read in the last decade. Are we sure Calico isn't just an tax evasion tool for Alphabet?

Posted by: Jones at September 10th, 2020 11:59 AM

If they are working on delaying aging, how can that not be very useful (Longevity Dividend) as part of the overall attack, albeit different than sens?

Development of reliable biomarkers also seems extraordinarily important--unless we're saying Horvath's clock is the best we can do, and/or they are unimpressed by it for some unknown (to me) reason?

"irreproducibility" has been an embarrassment to science itself, from my non-science perspective...people feeling good about the efforts and subsequent results of tax-payer and private investments in people, materials and non-human animal farms, which are truly providing reliable results, can only help the health of the anti-aging field, i would think.

Unless we are really convinced of course that Ellison's and Calico's efforts will be even's far better than them spending money on better web-ad's hard to believe (admittedly I don't want to believe) that the A-list names they have as employees are truly uninformed of better info, and joined Calico knowing they have a weak underlying theory upon which all their efforts are based...? Oh how I wish there were face-to-face debates about this stuff...


Posted by: Eugene at September 12th, 2020 10:34 AM

@Reason the PI being interviewed did his Phd and postdoc in Juidth Campisi's lab. So he has spent a decade on wet lab research on cellular senescence, one of your fav topics for translation. Why do you think you are a better judge of the translational potential ?
Theory is easy in biology but to do things we need effective tools which we do not have.
As much as some people want things to happen in a decade or two, things will take time, as fighting aging is an interdisciplinary effort and needs development of knowledge and technology of many different fields

Posted by: Akash N at October 19th, 2020 7:30 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.