Geneticists Claim Aging Breakthrough

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."

We have that already

[Chowser]

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.

Mammals aren't exactly fungi

[n0dalus]

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.

Re:We have that already

[iamplupp]

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

Re:Do not go gently into that goodnight....

[monkease]

The full text of your title (Do not go gentle...; a villanelle by Dylan Thomas) (italics added):

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on that sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

****
I only italicized from the second & third stanza, but really the entire poem is saying "Those who have 'effed up their lives can't deal with death". This is one of the more misused poems, along with Frost's "The Road Not Taken" (& also, for songs, "Born in the USA" which I've seen in a very patriotic Chevvy commercial).

I guess my point: your reference paints your comment, "I know there will be the crowd that says - but we were designed to die. That is bunk!" in a rather ironic light.

Re:We have that already

[NEwBoY04]

and the key there is telomerase activity. the anti-aging problem hasnt been solved at all by this discovery, which is merely a modified physiological state leading to prolonged survival. the true anti-aging key is to figure out a way to artificially activate telomerase past the embryonic stage of animal development. if we do that then our cells will be able to replicate our genetic code indefinitely without having to worry about genetic deterioration and telomere destruction.

Re:We have that already

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Let's take it a step further

[kypper]

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...? :-)

Re:Let's take it a step further

[kypper]

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...