The article makes it very difficult to follow up because no direct link to the scientific paper is given.

This lapse is unfortunately way too common and puts the author as well as the publisher in an unprofessional light.

Presumably, this is the paper:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/355/6331/1312

Given the title, you can look up on Google Scholar:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=+0+R...

Click on the "Cited by" link at the bottom of the entry to see the 47 papers that have cited this one to date:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=6666909628793143847...

Reverse chronological sort didn't find anything that looked like a follow-up.

I'm not sure why the most cited article couldn't be called a follow-up or at least summary of intention to follow-up.

"A comprehensive concept that connects NAD+ metabolism to the control of aging and longevity in mammals has been proposed, and the stage is now set to test whether these exciting preclinical results can be translated to improve human health."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S155041311...

I'd be very curious to hear it indeed. We keep getting interesting articles about breakthrough, but lack to my knowledge follow-up on them. Good opportunity here to see how this went

I’m skeptical too, and a lot of this research smacks of the same mix of desperation (who wants to die?) and a market of nearly all people which has traditionally made searching for elixirs of immortality such a dangerous and unproductive pastime. Aside from a lot of geriatric mice and worms, people ordering raw compounds from Alibaba, and the occasional muttering about uploading our brains (as if we even understand what that would look like, never mind technically entail) this looks a lot like people melting cinnabar in an alembic.