One donor. Conflicting clock estimates.
The Morphological, Behavioral, and Transcriptomic Life Cycle of Anthrobots
Evidence record
Source reviewed 2026-10-22 · Publication date retained
- Original publication
- 2025-06-06 · First online publication; issue date is 2025-08-21.
- DOI
- 10.1002/advs.202409330
- Authors
- Gizem Gumuskaya, Nikolai Davey, Pranjal Srivastava, Andrew Bender, Léo Pio-Lopez, Douglas Hazel, Michael Levin
- Evidence class
- Published experiment — human-derived cells in vitro
- Source access
- Wiley main text/Figure 5 inspected. Supporting DOCX located but inaccessible: web tool could not retrieve it and direct publisher request returned 403. PMC mirror returned a browser check. Clock methods remain partially unverified.
- Model
- Airway-cell-derived Anthrobots across their life cycle; methylation-clock comparison.
- Donors / population
- Count: 1. Donor age: 21 years. Clock experiment. Verified in Figure 5 and main text.
- Experimental units
- Figure 5 n values 12, 6, 3, 3 are reported counts, not donors. Exact biological/technical replicate hierarchy unknown. Approximately 1,000 bots at day 10 and 600 at day 25 are also reported, not independent donors.
- Controls
- Passage-1 primary cells and same-source air–liquid-interface airway tissue comparator.
- Endpoints
- Methylation clock estimates, morphology, motility, transcription and structural recovery.
- Finding in scope
- Clock estimates differed by configuration/time in one donor.
- Limitations
- Single-donor result; younger clock estimates do not prove durable rejuvenation, restored function or bioelectric causation. Composition, handling and configuration are potential confounders requiring tests.
- Next test
- Reconcile source discrepancy, obtain supplement and sample hierarchy, then assess donor-level replication with matched handling/time and 2D/3D comparators plus prespecified function, identity, viability and durability outcomes.
- Human clinical evidence
- None established by this study.
Reported aggregates, unresolved methods.
| Condition | Clock estimate (years) | Reported n |
|---|---|---|
| Passage-1 baseline | 23.7 | 12 |
| Anthrobot day 10 | 19.1 | 6 |
| Anthrobot day 25 | 20.0 | 3 |
| Air–liquid interface | 25.7 | 3 |
Figure 5 reports 23.7 → 19.1 years. The main text instead describes 25 → 18.7 and approximately 25%. These are conflicting source statements, not interchangeable estimates. Reported n values are not donor counts.
Clock algorithms/version, preprocessing and biological/technical replicate hierarchy remain UNKNOWN: the supporting document could not be retrieved. A younger clock estimate does not establish durable rejuvenation or bioelectric causation.
Supporting document (retrieval blocked in this review). No algorithm or preprocessing has been inferred from the paper’s reference list.
Translate evidence into a question.
This is external research. It is not a Karam result, clinical service or claim of an available intervention.
Inspect the single-donor Anthrobot case, its conflicting source values and the next evidence gate.
Open the worked case