CommunityBloodwork & Biomarkers

Scientists remove “zombie” cells and reverse liver damage in mice

10 replies6 peopleApr 17, 2026☆ Follow
Summary

how do senolytics compare to senomorphics like GLP-1 agonists for clearing senescent cells and treating fatty liver disease

The thread discusses a mouse study showing removal of age- and cholesterol-related zombie immune cells reduced liver size and body weight. Participants note GLP-1 drugs act as senomorphics that suppress inflammation without clearing cells, while true senolytics like D+Q or fisetin aim to eliminate them. Some prefer outright removal over modulation, but others question selectivity and outcomes. Specific compounds show varying effects by sex or delivery method.

What this discussion establishesWhere people disagree

whether killing senescent cells outright is superior to merely suppressing their inflammatory output, and whether current senolytics are selective enough to avoid harming healthy cells

Still open

whether mice would have fared better on a senomorphic instead of a senolytic, and long-term cancer or selectivity risks in humans

Nothing here is advice.

10 replies · 6 people
BrightMeadow26archiveopening postApr 17

I came across an interesting piece the other day on clearing these rogue zombie immune cells to fix liver problems in older mice. The cells build up over time especially with high cholesterol and trigger inflammation throughout tissues. Removing them shrank enlarged livers and cut body weight in animals on fatty diets. The work used navitoclax in some cases but I would not suggest that compound, though other senolytic options exist.

ClearBeacon24archiveApr 17
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26 (opening post)

GLP-1 drugs already cut liver fat and inflammation in similar ways. The article is still worth a look.

BrightMeadow26archiveApr 17
↳ replying to @ClearBeacon24

You have part of it; GLP-1s seem to act as senomorphics yet they do not function as actual senolytics.

BrightSignal52archiveApr 17

Mazdutide stands out for fatty liver because it appears to focus on liver fats in particular.

QuietFenwick11archiveApr 17
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26

That holds, though I am still checking whether today's senolytics really beat senomorphics. The present ones destroy too many cell types and most users would likely do better with the milder approach.

BrightMeadow26archiveApr 18
↳ replying to @QuietFenwick11

I would rather remove the source of trouble than just calm it down. The study used senolytics and the mice got better, so I doubt the same result would appear with quercetin alone though it might. After more reading I saw GLP-1 RAs raise BCL2 levels, a protein that blocks cell self-destruction, which works against senolysis and could interfere with agents like D+Q. It is a side note but several cancers also use higher BCL2, yet the broad anti-inflammatory action of GLP-1s may offset that risk. Here is a table an AI made.

QuietFenwick11archiveApr 18
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26

That assumes the treatment only removed the intended cells. The mice did improve but we still do not know if a senomorphic would have produced a stronger result.

BrightMeadow26archiveApr 19
↳ replying to @QuietFenwick11

You are correct that we cannot know from existing data, yet I expect advantages from clearance. Other work already points the same way. FOXO4-DRI shows the best selectivity by hitting only cells with active p53-FOXO4 complexes. Fisetin gives the strongest oral senolytic effect on lifespan. D+Q produces different results in males versus females when started early. Quercetin by itself improves healthspan but adds no longevity gain. GLP-1 RAs work as senomorphics by lowering SASP without removing the senescent cells.

ClearBeacon24archiveApr 19
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26

Have you used FOXO4-DRI yourself? I have been looking into trying it.

KeenHarbour58archiveApr 19
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26

That gives a fine reason to eat more strawberries, which I put in my oats each morning. Searching PubMed for fisetin will lead to plenty of solid reading.

KeenPebble33archiveApr 23
↳ replying to @BrightMeadow26

BCL-2 family expression does not directly cause cancer because these are not true oncogenes. They do not drive cell division or new vessel growth but simply help cells survive, which is not always harmful. Once cells already carry oncogenic changes, however, extra BCL-2 clearly links to worse results.

Add your experience

If you have tried it, this topic is still open. Sign in to reply — it takes a minute.

Scientists remove “zombie” cells and reverse liver damage in mice · ZyraTrack Community