Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Biotech Science

Scientists Identify a Potentially Universal Mechanism of Aging 359

Posted by Soulskill
from the wonder-if-boosterspice-is-covered-by-health-care dept.
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This discussion has been archived.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.

Scientists Identify a Potentially Universal Mechanism of Aging

Comments Filter:
  • uh (Score:1, Informative)

    by circletimessquare (444983) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <erauqssemitelcric>> on Friday November 28, 2008 @07:24PM (#25920311) Homepage Journal

    i have identified a potentially universal mechanism of aging: time

    what scientists have discovered is the opposite: a dna repair mechanism which is overwhelmed over time, and perhaps a way to bolster the repair mechanism so it is overwhelmed a little later

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 28, 2008 @08:02PM (#25920619)

    Creating wealth has nothing to do with printing more money - it has to do with creating value that did not exist before. E.g. a painter might paint a painting, and if the value of that painting is more than that of the blank canvas and paint used, he has created wealth. On the other hand doubling the amount of money will not create any actual value, money will just be worth half as much as it was before. Land might be a finite and by now fully owned resource, but many other things are not.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday November 28, 2008 @08:53PM (#25920999)

    What you and the other numbnut are referring to is the infinitesimal percentage of people who actually know how to make large amounts of money, and use it wisely.

    What little information [fairfield.edu] we have on the subject of wealth distribution states that infinitesimal percentage (5%) owns over 71% of all wealth in the country. Care to revise your statement, sir?

  • by Free the Cowards (1280296) on Friday November 28, 2008 @09:24PM (#25921197)

    If you take the total amount of assets (converted to a monentary value) and divide by the estimated world population, you're in for a shock: That number hasn't really changed in the last 500 years.

    Really? Do you have the figures to back this up? Because simply looking at the average wealth in the "West", plus the average wealth in the two most populous countries which, while not super high, is way higher than it used to be, it seems to me that the per capita wealth in the world is a lot more than it was 500 years ago. Yes, some groups are being left behind, but on the whole people are much richer than they were.

    Consider, for example, that 500 years ago famine was a fairly regular occurrence. Now people only die of hunger in politically-diseased countries, and there really aren't that many of them. The vast majority of the world has enough to eat. That alone puts the modern day far ahead.

  • by girlintraining (1395911) on Friday November 28, 2008 @10:04PM (#25921497)

    Your link doesn't even address the statement you quoted, so I don't really see how you can expect me to revise anything.

    At least I'm providing links, achem. You said earlier "What you and the other numbnut are referring to is the infinitesimal percentage of people who actually know how to make large amounts of money, and use it wisely." I was quoting statistics about how big that percentage is. These people don't make large amounts of money, they have large amounts of money. The numbers suggest that these people save a disproportionate amount of wealth; their overall flow, that is, how much money they are making over a given period of time versus how much they're spending is wildly disproportionate compared to the average person.

    Here's a listing of the richest people in the world and a quip about how they did it. Let's test the assertion you made that "a large percentage of those who were rich last year are poor today"... Source [forbes.com]

    #1 Warren Buffett
    Age: 77
    Net worth: $66 bil
    --
    "Son of Nebraska politician delivered newspapers as a boy. Filed first tax return at age 13, claiming $35 deduction for bicycle. Studied under value investing guru Benjamin Graham at Columbia. Took over textile firm Berkshire Hathaway 1965. Today holding company invested in insurance (Geico, General Re), jewelry (Borsheim's), utilities (MidAmerican Energy), food (Dairy Queen, See's Candies)."

    Well, this guy seems to have made his fortune by saving and investing over the course of his entire life.

    #2 Carlos Slim Helu & family
    Age: 68
    Net worth: $60 bil
    "thanks to strong Mexican equities market and the performance of his wireless telephone company, America Movil. The son of a Lebanese immigrant, Slim made his first fortune in 1990 when he bought fixed line operator Telefonos de Mexico (Telmex) in a privatization. In December, America Movil struck a deal with Yahoo to provide mobile Web services to 16 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean."

    This guy seems to have made his fortune by being at the right time and place, and has been busy expanding in his market ever since.

    #3 William Gates III
    Age: 52
    Net Worth: $58.0 bil

    Do I even need to say it? He got lucky and has sat on his ever-growing gold horde ever since.

    #4 Lakshmi Mittal
    Age: 57
    Net Worth: $45.0 bil
    "Heads world's largest steelmaker, $105 billion (sales) ArcelorMittal, which accounts for 10% of all crude steel production."

    This guy was born into it.

    #5 Mukesh Ambani
    Age: 50
    Net Worth: $43.0 bil
    "Asia's richest resident heads petrochemicals giant Reliance Industries, India's most valuable company by market cap. His fortune is up $22.9 billion since last year, making him the world's second biggest gainer in terms of dollars. The biggest gainer was his estranged brother Anil, who ranks 6th in the world just behind his older brother. The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani."

    Another guy born into it.

    #6 Anil Ambani
    Age: 48
    Net Worth: $42.0 bil
    "The sons inherited their fortune from their late father, renowned industrialist Dhirubhai Ambani. But they couldn't get along and in 2005 their mother brokered a peace settlement breaking up the family's assets."

    Another guy born into it.

    #7 Ingvar Kamprad & family
    Age: 81
    Net Worth: $31.0 bil
    Peddled matches, fish, pens, Christmas cards and other items by bicycle as a teenager. Started selling furniture in 1947. Now his company Ikea, which sells hip designs for the cost conscious, is one of the most beloved retailers in the world, with an almost cultlike following.

    This guy clawed his way to the top and now sits on his horde.

    #8 KP Singh
    Age: 76
    Net Worth: $30.

  • by Martin Blank (154261) on Friday November 28, 2008 @11:45PM (#25922127) Journal

    Bill Gates has not just sat on his horde. One of the reasons that he's no longer at the top is because he's donated vast sums to various causes, totaling nearly $30 billion, and has said that he intends to do the same with almost all of the rest.

The reason that every major university maintains a department of mathematics is that it's cheaper than institutionalizing all those people.

Working...