Tier 2 — strong

SIRT6 in DNA Repair, Metabolism, and Ageing

Lombard DB, Schwer B, Alt FW, Mostoslavsky R
Journal of Internal Medicine 2008 Volume 263, issue 2, pages 128–141

Bibliography

PubMed
PMID 18226091
PubMed Central
PMC2486832
Funding
Howard Hughes Medical Institute; Ellison Medical Foundation Senior Scholar Award (to FWA); Leukemia and Lymphoma Society Special Fellow award (to DBL).
Competing interests
No conflict of interest was declared.

Study snapshot

DesignNarrative review of the SIRT6 and sirtuin family literature.
ModelReview scope: sirtuin family biochemistry and lifespan biology across yeast, worms, flies, and mammals; SIRT6-null mouse phenotype and its BER defect; comparison to Cockayne syndrome and other progeroid syndromes; insulin/IGF1-like signalling (IIS) pathway; caloric restriction.
SampleApproximately 175 primary references synthesised.
InterventionNot applicable — literature synthesis.
DurationNot applicable — literature synthesis.
EndpointsSirtuin family enzymatic activities and evolutionary conservation; SIRT6-knockout mouse phenotype and lifespan; DNA repair pathways (BER, NER, DSB) and their roles in ageing; Insulin/IGF1-like signalling and lifespan; Caloric restriction and sirtuin activity

What the study showed, in plain terms

This is the review that put SIRT6 on the map for the ageing biology field. Two years earlier, the Alt lab at Harvard had shown that mice lacking SIRT6 develop a rapid-ageing syndrome and die at about four weeks old. This 2008 paper asked why. It laid out three parallel arguments — genomic stability, insulin signalling, and sirtuin biology — and used the SIRT6 data to weave them together.

On the genomic stability side, the review argues that SIRT6-null cells fail specifically at base excision repair — the pathway that fixes single-base DNA damage from oxidation, alkylation, and deamination. This connects SIRT6 loss to the same class of ageing phenotype seen in humans with rare progeroid syndromes like Cockayne syndrome and Werner syndrome.

On the metabolism side, the review shows how SIRT6 knockout produces hyperactive insulin/IGF1-like signalling. Because reduced insulin signalling is one of the most conserved pro-longevity interventions in worms, flies, and mice, hyperactive IIS in SIRT6-null mice is a mechanistic explanation for the accelerated-ageing phenotype.

On the sirtuin biology side, the review places SIRT6 in the context of all seven mammalian sirtuins, arguing that different family members do different jobs but share the underlying property of being NAD+-dependent nutrient sensors. The paper is the reason later reviews describe SIRT6 as a "longevity enzyme". Not because Lombard and colleagues had proof of that in humans — nobody did — but because they made a coherent theoretical case that every subsequent review has built on.

Key findings

  • SIRT6-null mice die at approximately four weeks old with a syndrome that closely resembles accelerated ageing — kyphosis, lymphopenia, subcutaneous fat loss, osteopenia, and severe hypoglycaemia — providing the foundational phenotypic argument for SIRT6 as a longevity enzyme.
  • The DNA repair defect in SIRT6-null cells is specifically in base excision repair (BER), not homologous recombination or non-homologous end joining. This was distinctive at the time — most other progeroid mouse models had DSB repair defects.
  • Cockayne syndrome, Werner syndrome, and Hutchinson-Gilford progeria are used as human parallels. All three are progeroid conditions caused by mutations in DNA repair or nuclear structural proteins. SIRT6-null phenotype fits the same class.
  • Insulin/IGF1-like signalling (IIS) is the most conserved pro-longevity pathway across worms, flies, and mice. SIRT6-null mice have hyperactive IIS, which the review positions as a distinct mechanism (independent of the BER defect) contributing to the accelerated-ageing phenotype.
  • Sirtuins act as NAD+-dependent nutrient sensors, tying cellular metabolism to gene expression and DNA repair. This framing — sirtuins as sensors, not simply enzymes — has been the working model for the field ever since.

What this study can and cannot tell us

This is a 2008 narrative review. Everything published on SIRT6 since — including the Kanfi 2012 lifespan-extension paper, the Mao 2011 PARP1 mechanism, the Michishita 2008 telomere paper (published later that year), the Tian 2019 cross-species analysis, the Onn 2020 sensor paper, and every human genetic dataset — post-dates this review. The review is foundational but out of date on specifics.

No human data are analysed. The review is entirely based on mouse and yeast findings extrapolated to a general theory of mammalian ageing. Human relevance was speculative in 2008 and remains partially so.

The BER-specific framing has been complicated by subsequent work. Mao 2011 and Onn 2020 both established SIRT6 as important for double-strand break repair, not only BER. The 2008 review's clean pathway assignment does not survive later evidence.

The review is cited by essentially every SIRT6 review since. Its framing has shaped how the field describes SIRT6, which is a double-edged effect — accurate framings get reinforced, but so do assumptions that later evidence would refine. Read as historical context and framing, not as a current summary.

Reviewed by , Medical Advisory Board · Last verified against PubMed on 08 August 2026