Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Geneticists Claim Aging Breakthrough

Posted by Zonk on Fri Nov 18, 2005 05:02 PM
from the lazarus-long-i-presume dept.
Quirk writes "The Science section of The Guardian is reporting on recent experiments by geneticists 'to unlock the secrets of the aging process has created organisms that live six times their usual lifespan, raising hopes that it might be possible to slow ageing in humans.' 'In the experiment, Dr Longo's team took yeast cells and knocked out two key genes, named Sir2 and SCH9. The latter governs the cells' ability to convert nutrients into energy. They found that instead of dying after a week, the cells lived for up to six weeks.''Research has now begun to test whether the effect works in mice.' So it looks like we might soon have near immortal, fearless mice."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Scientists Identify a Potentially Universal Mechanism of Aging 359 comments
cybergenesis2008 points us to a summary of research out of Harvard Medical School in which a set of genes known to affect aging in yeast was found to affect aging in mice as well. The genes, called sirtuins, perform two particular tasks; regulating which genes are "on" and "off," and also helping to repair damaged DNA. As an organism ages, the frequency of damage to DNA increases, leaving less time for the sirtuins' regulatory tasks. The increasingly unregulated genes then become a significant factor in aging. Realizing this, the researchers "administered extra copies of the sirtuin gene [to the mice], or fed them the sirtuin activator resveratrol, which in turn extended their mean lifespan by 24 to 46 percent." We discussed the plans for this research a few years ago.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • Hilander (Score:5, Funny)

    by Morky (577776) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:04PM (#14066733)
    I am Mickey McMouse of the clan McMouse, and I am immortal.
    • Re:Hilander (Score:5, Funny)

      by hunterx11 (778171) <hunterx11.gmail@com> on Friday November 18 2005, @05:15PM (#14066882) Homepage Journal
      What's the sequence of the gene the prolongs life for you and me? CTGACTGCATC!
      • Re:Hilander (Score:5, Funny)

        by corngrower (738661) on Friday November 18 2005, @09:04PM (#14068260) Journal
        All those jokes about anti-aging discoveries never grow old, do they?
        • I thought of mentioning Cue "incomplete codon" jokes here..., but I guess I didn't think anyone would be enough of a dork to point it out.

          Then again, I was being pretty dorky in the first place.

          • CTG|ACT|GCA|TC
            We could be out of synch with the frame...
            CT GAC TGC ATC
            C TGA CTG CAT C

            But I'm noticing a concern with the GC being present there. It would not be this sequence that is all so important... GC has a tendency to have 5-methyl-cytosines which are deaminated to thymidine. There's no way that strand would last through the generations of mutation in offspring.

            Maybe that's why the highlanders are dying out...? :-)
            • Just as an explanation, when the 5-Methyl-C is deaminated to T, it is harder for the repair machinery to recognize the error and so the sequence may then remain as CTGACTGTATC.

              Regular C deaminates to Uridine, which gets fixed right away. CG sequences tend to get methylated more frequently unless they are in CpG islands in the upstream promotor regions...
    • by teko_teko (653164) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:19PM (#14066918) Homepage
      And soon our scientists will say stuffs like... Wernstrom: "Face it, Farnsworth, you're over the hill. It's time to leave science to the hundred-twenty-year-olds." Farnsworth: "You young turks think you know everything! I was inventing things when you were barely turning senile." Wernstrom: "Haha! Go home before you embarrass yourself, old man! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a nap before the ceremonies."
    • Re:Hilander (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dgatwood (11270) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:32PM (#14067064) Journal
      I am Mickey McMouse of the clan McMouse, and I am immortal.

      The only thing that will last longer than I will is the copyright on my face.


    • Algernon called; he wants his science back.
  • didn't they find the secret of aging in worms some while ago?
  • We have that already (Score:5, Informative)

    by Chowser (888973) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:05PM (#14066751)
    We have cells already that are not governed by the normal life/death cell cycle. It's called CANCER. Cancer cells have autononmous growth and multiply indefinitely.
    • by iamplupp (728943) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:22PM (#14066960) Homepage
      You are over simplifying. For a normal cell to become a tumor cell all of the following mutations are required:

      * telomerase activity
      * insensitivity to apoptosis by either disrupting the proapoptotic signal pathway (Bax, P53, effector-caspase etc) increase the expression of antiapoptotic signals such as Bcl-2
      * growth factor independence (ie constitutively active Ras)
      * insentivitity to growth inhibitors
      * proangiogenetic mutations
      • by Chowser (888973) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:41PM (#14067135)
        Yes I know, it was a purposeful oversimplification. My point was also showing that jumping from yeast cells to mice is overly optimistic at best, and that transferring such a mutation from a single cell organism to a mammal may lead to unforseen consequences.
        • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 18 2005, @06:19PM (#14067441)
          Actually, jumping from yeast to mice is a fairly common thing to do in genetic research. I'm oversimplifying here as well, but the way genetic research often works is to start with a eukaryote model (yeast), then move to an animal model (like drosophila, or fruit flies), then a mammal model (mouse), before moving on to more complex mammals (with the ultimate goal being humans). Along the way, you might also pass through other species (one of my colleagues downstairs is all about sea urchins). Since each of these experiments can take a long time (though simpler organisms tend to be faster, which is why they're used), I suppose it would make sense to go straight from yeast to mice if you already know that these same genes are present.

          It's astonishing how much genetic material is shared going all the way back to yeast, and how much genetic research is transferable. Yeast is a eukaryote (so, while single-celled, they have a nuclei, unlike bacteria), and though it usually reproduces asexually, it can be made to undergo meiosis and bind half its genetic material with that of a "mate".

          Note: I am not a genetic researcher, but I work in the same research facility as some, and am encouraged to understand more or less what they do.
        • Well the foreseen consequences of not doing anything about aging are well known... getting frail, sick and dying.

          The Sirtuin genes are well established as a regulator of genes expressed near the ends of telomeres and there are many researchers studying its effects in mammals in fact there are pharmaceutical companies (Sirtris for instance) betting the pharm that, resveratrol, a component of red wine and activator of mammalian sir2 pathway, can be tweaked into a more powerful drug and help everyone live
        • this is hardly the case. telomerase, as it turns out, is already active past the embryonic stage of development, in exactly two cell types: spermatocytes, which give rise to sperm, and for the win, care to guess the other kind?

          Cancer cells.

          just having telomerase activity isn't something that's going to let us live forever. the key to long life for a cell is very different from that of long life for humans in general. in some cells, you really DON'T want them to live forever, because they'd never divide.
  • i know exactly when these amazing age-related breakthroughs will come to fruition for humanity

    exactly at the age at which i am too old to partake of any of it
    • That's not a joke. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ungrounded Lightning (62228) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:48PM (#14067194) Journal
      i know exactly when these amazing age-related breakthroughs will come to fruition for humanity

      exactly at the age at which i am too old to partake of any of it


      That's not really a joke.

      People in government see anti-aging research and treatments in terms of the financial load on the retirement and medical infrastructure relative to the tax base of still-working young, and view improved treatments as extending the life of the infirm aged rather than extending productive, vigorous youth. As a result they tend to be opposed to such research, or in favor of rationing its fruits if it ever has any.

      (I recall back in the early days of CNN, when the head of one of the government agencies was being live-interviewed on future solvency issues as the boomers retired, and he slipped and said "We have to get the death rate up to meet the birthrate." Guess what part got clipped from the replay a few hours later...)

      Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).

      You'll notice that a significant fraction of The Fine Article is dedicated to heading off such short-sightedness on the part of the portion of the ruling class that will be dispensing grant money and regulating availability of any treatments.
      • Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).

        Yes, but the politicians worry that they can only use the same old tricks on people for so long before they wise up, so they don't want people living too much longer.
                • Social security is actually not really screwed right now [sscommonsense.org], but might be within the next 25 years if nothing is done.

                  Long term, the birthrate in the US is actually fine, and SS is *not* a pyramid scheme. It currently works on the assumption that people work at their career for about 40 years, save during that time (actually pay for those on retirement) and then retire for 20 years or so living essentially off their savings. If the birthrate and deathrates are steady and retirement savings are adequate, the sc
  • It's gonna get.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by earthloop (449575) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:05PM (#14066753) Homepage
    ..real crowded in the world if we're all immortal.
    • by wiggles (30088) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:10PM (#14066823)
      No problem. Just make sterilization a prerequisite for immortality.
    • Not if I have anything to say about it.

      There can be only one.

    • Well, given that most people in the world don't live their entire lifespan, instead dying from accidents, disease, heart failure, and any number of other ailments, we may find that 'immortality' isn't all it would at first appear.
      • by orichter (60340) on Friday November 18 2005, @07:09PM (#14067756)
        I asked a friend of mine in the insurance industry once how long people would live if we eliminated all natural causes. He said given current accident rates, people would live on average about 800 years. I do wonder if a lifespan was 800 years on average, we might be more careful, but I doubt it. If you think about it, this number means that roughly 1 in 10 people die in accidents over the course of a lifetime. That sounds about right to me. As for people dying of diseases, I believe that most of the diseases associated with end of life are heavily related to aging itself, so many of the diseases you mention may be lessened or eliminated through extending lifespan.
  • by intmainvoid (109559) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:05PM (#14066754)
    Unfortunately being fearless is going to cancel out immortality pretty quickly, when the mouse isn't scared of humans, or their traps...
    • At the rate of mice-related stories we've been getting on Slashdot lately, I'm getting worried that the next one is going to be how scientists found a way to make mice smarter.

      "What are we going to do tonight, Brain?"
      "Same thing we do every night, Pinky: try to take over the world!"
      • Don't forget that they can regenerate body parts, so the only way to kill them is to cut their head off. There can be only one...

        Beheading doesn't work. They just regenerate the whole body.

        I've got two research projects going on concerning this issue, which will become a major problem in the not too distant future if geek pop culture has taught us anything at all. One involves the experimental use of fire and / or acid to prevent regeneration after the supermouse has been beaten down; the second option

  • by BobCat7 (851805) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:05PM (#14066755)
    At this rate I'm never gonna get to sit at the big table on Thanksgiving
  • Yawn (Score:5, Funny)

    by ENOENT (25325) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:05PM (#14066756) Homepage Journal
    Where we can get fearless, immortal, FLYING mice, then I'll be excited.

    Especially if they can also sing "Here I come to save the day."
  • fantastic (Score:3, Funny)

    by Tumbleweed (3706) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:06PM (#14066763) Homepage
    This will give Brain time to take over the world!
  • Unless breakthroughs like this can improve the quality of life, it's a neat but ultimately worthless advance. Humans already life way longer than the length of time they're useful to society, and if we suddenly have people living 6 times as long but still degrading by 70-90, we're just going to sink even more quickly.

    Now, humans living a few hundred years and staying able-bodied for most of it would be an incredible advance and would probably serve to benefit society, but... otherwise... I fear and do NOT w
  • "So it looks like we might soon have near immortal, fearless mice."

    I think you meant immortal, fearless, singing, regenerating, plague-infected mice.

    Can't be bothered pasting all the links, here's the link to the /. old stories results page for mice: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=&query=mice&aut h or=&sort=1&op=stories [slashdot.org]
  • by RingDev (879105) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:09PM (#14066796) Homepage Journal
    Fearless imortal mice?!? Maybe my "wanna see my spaceship" pick up line will start working again!

    -Rick
  • Moral Questions: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by under_score (65824) <mishkin-slashdot&berteig,com> on Friday November 18 2005, @05:09PM (#14066806) Homepage
    If this works (eventually) with humans, who will get access to it? How will we justify the use of this when so many people die very young from preventable causes that are beyond their control (as opposed to simply not taking care of oneself)? How will we prevent the extreme accumulation of wealth that this would allow if it is not equally accessible to everyone?
  • by n0dalus (807994) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:11PM (#14066834) Journal
    It's a huge jump to say that a single-celled fungi's life can be improved to saying it can also be done for a mammal with thousands of different kinds of cells and billions of cells in total. A lot of our physiology actually relies on cells having a short lifetime. I doubt those mice will even live one day.
  • by truckaxle (883149) * on Friday November 18 2005, @05:17PM (#14066898) Homepage
    Longevity will provide the next inflection point of human capacity and progress. Imagine if the great people of science could continue to contribute and innovate for the equivalent of several lifetimes. Gauss was the last mathematician who was said to be able to be conversant with the entire spectrum of mathematics. Currently it takes a human a decade to two just to be abreast of a specific field of science to be able to make any significant contributions. The period of time available to advance our understanding is getting shorter and shorter due to increase in the body of knowledge and our limited life times.

    I know there will be the crowd that says - but we were designed to die. That is bunk! Self aware intelligence is bound and destined to perpetuated and proliferate.
    • by TrevorB (57780) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:51PM (#14067230) Homepage
      There's one argument against longevity I've not been able to properly argue against, it's effects on social evolution.

      A lot of social change can take place because old people (and more specifically, old people ideas) die. I'm sure many of us feel that our ideas are enlightened and superior to those of our ancestors, but when we're all pushing 70, we really shouldn't be the ones deciding the direction which society goes. In the year 2050, we're all going to be bitter crotchety old people, set in our ideas talking about these young kids and their crazy ideas. I'm concerned what living in that kind of world will be like. It might have a stagnation effect on a culture, with other "non-longevity" cultures overtaking our own.

      I'm still 100% for longevity, but it's not going to be great grandmas and grandpas riding roller blades down the sidewalk as healthy as they were when they were 40. There's going to be definate social change the kind the human race has never seen.

      Be sure of one more thing. Someone's going to make a FORTUNE if effective anti-aging drugs can be mass produced. Like, hundreds of billions of dollars, hand over fist.

        • It isn't just the Ayatollah or Stalin, it is everyone. Even goodhearted people are wrong in some of their views. If you look at gay rights initiatives, the public's position is changing on them in almost exact proportion to the older population dying and the younger population being born. The same was true of civil rights. Or the number of people who believed in Newton's laws, etc.

          Additionally, people who have lived their entire lives with a technology internalize it in a way that the older generation j
  • by Biotech9 (704202) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:20PM (#14066930) Homepage
    Here's a simple way to increase your lifespan. Eat less. In fact, halve the amount of food you eat.

    There are papers that you can search for with sciencedirect.com or scholar.google.com that show rats that are given half the calories of the control group living almost 50% longer. It's just not exactly something that you can sell to people. You can live longer, if you live LESS. There's a reason animals that live very long lives have very slow metabolisms (such as Turtles) and animals that have very high metabolisms live less (such as humming birds and mice). To put it simply, you can 'burn the midnight oil' and live a short life, or eat less and do less and live longer.

    Putting it more complicatedly, the reason you age is generally regarded to be because of damage your body and cells accumulate over a lifetime of living. The damage often comes from 'Oxidative stress'. This is just a very broad umbrella term for anything that causes the generation of 'Reactive oxygen species' that are highly reactive molecules that zip about your cell damaging proteins and DNA. ROS are made by things such as too much Vitamin K, smoking, UV light or certain other radiation bands, too much iron in the diet, and so on.

    And the biggest contributor to ROS in your body over it's life? The Mitochondria. The 'power plant' of each cell. It makes ROS as a part of the process used to make ATP (the 'batteries' of your cells) and inevitably some escapes and causes damage. Over a life-time the damage builds up.

    The biggest contributor to ageing is just plain old living (kind of obvious really), and the best way to therefore cut down on that damage is to eat less, slowing down the metabolism and decreasing the amount of ROS the mitochondria produces.

    IMHO, not really worth it! you could get hit by a bus tomorrow! Dig into your fresh Chiabatta and Fetta cheese!
  • by ave19 (149657) on Friday November 18 2005, @05:24PM (#14066976)
    This is all a ploy by Disney to justify keeping Micky under copy-wraps for 600 years.
  • by TheNarrator (200498) on Friday November 18 2005, @07:44PM (#14067945)
    As anyone who has read Bruce Sterling's excellent Schismatrix series knows, Sterling predicts a movement both scientific and political called the "Shapers" who pursue genetic modifications to themselves to extend their lifespans and their physical and mental capabilities. They are opposed by the "Mechanists" who seek to integrate themselves with machines to attain the same feats. The main character Abelard Lindsay, who lives for several hundred years and is followed throughout the book at one point is offered an antique of immense value, the first 500 year old immortal mouse.

    The present version of the "Shaper" movement is known as "Transhumanism [wikipedia.org]". The modern day version of the "Mechanists" would be those who believe in the Ray Kurzweils, Verner Vinge (Singularity Sky) version of the future wherein artificial intelligence becomes integrated with and even exceeds Human Intelligence.

    A bit about Transhumanism:: Transhumanism (sometimes abbreviated >H or H+) is an emergent philosophy analyzing or favouring the use of science and technology, especially neurotechnology, biotechnology, and nanotechnology, to overcome human limitations and improve the human condition.
    ...
    Dr. Anders Sandberg describes modern transhumanism as "the philosophy that we can and should develop to higher levels, physically, mentally and socially using rational methods," while Dr. Robin Hanson describes it as "the idea that new technologies are likely to change the world so much in the next century or two that our descendants will in many ways no longer be 'human'."

    • err can you define "quality". When you say "life is short, but beautiful on account" on whose or what account. To take your conclusion to the extreme the most beautiful and quality filled life would be those that a week live.
    • Don't worry. Scientists are also developing this new substance called soylent green which will help feed all these people.
    • Half of Africa is malnourished because we don't let people move to where the jobs are, and we don't send food to where the people are. This has nothing to do with aging.

      China's one child policy is a big mistake. China needs more urbanites, not less, in order to build the infrastructure to convert to industrial agriculture. But growth is high enough anyhow, so that
      the damage of the policy is not visible.

      You can reliably predict that as longevity increases, birth rates will decline. Simply applying the ex
        • Except that you can't lump all increases of life into the same category. Who's to say that this increase doesn't also affect the length of childhood? Adolescence? People can and do change their minds all the time. I totally disagree that slowing the aging process down and extending life is the wrong thing to do.