Scientists Reverse Aging In Human Cell Lines 140
Eloking writes: Professor Jun-Ichi Hayashi from the University of Tsukuba in Japan has discovered the regulation of two genes involved with the production of glycine are partly responsible for some of the characteristics of aging. With this finding he has been able to "flip the switches on a few genes back to their youthful position, effectively reversing the aging process." The Professor's findings cast doubt on the mitochondrial theory of aging, which proposes that the accumulation of mutations in the mitochondrial DNA are responsible for aging.
What is responsible for aging? (Score:2, Funny)
Time
Re:What is responsible for aging? (Score:5, Interesting)
Time
No, irreparable damage. Note that what is irreparable depends on level of technology.
Examples of potentially irreparable damage: DNA damage, oxidative damage, toxin accumulation, damage to extracellular matrix, scarring, changes in gene activity, and more.
Note: Your cell line has lived for about 3,600,000,000 years. The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.
Re: (Score:1)
The trick to living 3,600,000,000 years is to repair damage faster than it occurs, for example by reproducing cells at sufficient rate that new undamaged material is created faster than damage accumulates.
One might argue that the advent of politicians proves that this strategy is not working optimally.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I used to work there (Score:5, Interesting)
I wrote a PL/I compiler for Tsukuba's IT department. Yes, that was a long time ago. The university stood alone among rice fields at the time; now it's the centerpiece of Tsukuba Science City, which researches a little of everything.
Oh man (Score:1, Insightful)
I guess that means the current pricks running things will run things forever...yay
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, and they'll deny it treatment to the general public..
Re: (Score:1)
You can't be in the 1% without the other 99.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it gets unnerving when it is the 0.001% vs the 99.999%
Re: Oh man (Score:1)
When the 99% perishes, the 1% becomes the whole of mankind, just as it should be. At last, plenty of resources for everybody, plenty of living space, and plenty of time fo Earth to recover. The Beautiful People inherit the world, and there is finally a true paradise on this planet. Just not for the long-extinct plebes.
Re: Oh man (Score:2, Funny)
And then everyone dies after someone contracts a disease from a dirty telephone.
Re: (Score:1)
Yep, and this group of people will be completely deranged. They would have totally forgotten where they had come from. It will only be a matter of time before this group will fail as well. If that's the way humanity wanted to go, then so be it. The world will keep turning.
Re: (Score:2)
Our death will mean theirs.
What good is all their money and power when there are no proles to do their dirty work? It would mean they'd have to do it.
Re: (Score:3)
What good is all their money and power when there are no proles to do their dirty work? It would mean they'd have to do it.
Hence the large investments in robotics and AI research.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're reading this you likely are in the top 1% globally. Yes, you could redefine it as the top 0.1%, or 0.01%, or 0.001%, or 0.0001%, but in my experience wherever you go on the curve people have similar vices, virtues, motivations and goals. Richer people get more help and own better toys—that's about it.
Re: (Score:3)
If the 1% in America would quit shitting all over everyone, the global 99% would have a chance to catch up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So... if you stay quiet, you should be okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Moonraker?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
epigenetics (Score:5, Interesting)
As expected, the older cells had reduced cellular respiration, but the older cells did not show more DNA damage than those from children. This discovery led the team to propose that the reduced cellular function is tied to epigenetic regulation,
So it seems like the aging process of reduced cellular respiration comes from gene expression, that is, which genes are active, rather than their inability to perform.
Re:epigenetics (Score:4, Funny)
Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Informative)
Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...
1) Don't drink so much.
2) Not all of our genes are active. For example, if you exercise then certain genes activate (presumably ones that say 'big muscles?').
3) When we get old, our 'aging' genes activate.
4) These scientists found a way to 'deactivate' the aging genes.
I have no idea if that made more sense. I don't think this is the only problem with aging, though; here is a list of known problems [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
ok, so imagine a library with books on all kinds of subjects. You're only interested in say, space rockets. So, you're only reading those books and the rest just sit on the shelf. Now, every cell with a nucleus (red blood cells excluded among others) has the full DNA library. DNA is like the library in that it is a string of genes which are like the books in a library. Think of genes like recipes or instructions- they code for specific proteins. These proteins make things happen in your body. The liv
Re: (Score:1)
Pretty much this, really.
It just goes to show that evolution tended towards a nice niche between longevity to breed and bring up offspring before setting in ageing.
Stable growth.
But evolution can't see the future, y'know, since it is a concept. So it had no idea about the ramifications of our industrialized society.
What I wonder is how our genetics is going to react to our growing numbers, ample food supply, eventual drop in supply due to growing numbers, rising temperatures and more chaotic weather, over
Re: (Score:3)
Yay! LIke! This is just what science reporting ought to be like. This won't get people thinking that 80-year old Japanese people are turning into 12-year-olds like the original article might. Here's my 2p's worth...
4) These scientists found a way to 'deactivate' the aging genes.
This is not necessarily a good thing to do. My mum (which is currently 95) has blood cancer. She disliked chemotherapy, and would have refused a second round if it. However, the aging process also slowed her cancer development t
Re:epigenetics sesame street style (Score:2)
5. Ha ha ha Ha ha!
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I got the just of it.
Glad to hear it.
And, about the drinking, if you were married to my wife; lemme tell yah...
No excuses.
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Funny)
if you were married to my wife
Imagine some more advances like this and you could be married to your wife for so much longer...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My wife doesn't think i will make 60 with the shit i get up to. And tbh i am surprised i made it to 40. It has been touch and go a few times.
But if I did become ageless, i wouldn't assume i going to be dead anytime soon, and well not aging also has other benefits..... Why squander them
Re: (Score:2)
I call that 'Golden Sonic Rules'. You can still die by getting squished or falling in a bit, but mostly you're invincible to the 'small stuff'.
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Funny)
Can you break this down for me sesame street style? 31 year old alcoholic idiot here...
If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.
We evolved mechanisms to kill us off in a timely manner so we don't compete with our better adapted children too much.
The processes of evolution aren't for your benefit. They're just things that get selected for for maximum propagation. This is bad. If we find the mechanism and can stop it, there will be some really old farts about, arguing about how their Cherry M keyboards are superior to the direct brain interface.
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
If we lived too long, evolution to adapt to the changing environment would be impacted.
Too late! In a couple hundred years, we went from walking around and working the fields all day, to idling in cars and elevators and sitting in a chair all day and with access to more food than we could possibly eat, including artificial food. And in a few more years we'll take that mammalian internal development thing, and probably the much older sperm racing thing, and replace them with selected genes developed in an artificial womb. (Which will also mean no more "must fit through mom's pee hole" limits o
Re: (Score:2)
But we have already nullified environmental adaptation with clothing, housing, and agriculture. The future of human evolution is going to be based on intelligence and social adaptation.
Re: (Score:2)
But we have already nullified environmental adaptation with clothing, housing, and agriculture.
Correct. For the past ~2000 years, rise of trade, urban culture and sophisticated economies meant smart people tended to become more successful (wealthy) and breed more children. For example in the Far East nations, surest way for an ordinary person to raise your social status and income was to be really smart and score high on the social service exam which would lead to a government bureaucrat position. With the newfound wealth you could afford to not only start a family, but also a second family. Having s
Re: (Score:1)
Looking to evolution to inform etiquette and behavior sounds like some parlor game where people are blowing smoke in each others faces.
Other than embracing mediocrity per se, killing people for being old is, well, too awful to be worth my time considering.
On the other hand I'll be there's an ivy league university out there that would like to extend a chair to you.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't get selected as such at all. Selection is not a positive process - there's no intent. It's just a side effect.
Yes. I wasn't trying to convey intent, quite the opposite.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/... [jbc.org]
200mg of liver every day for dinner is not my idea of enjoyable eating. Anyway, have you tried it? Has it worked out for you?
Re:epigenetics (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not try an all meat diet? Smarter people than you do: http://www.jbc.org/content/87/... [jbc.org]
200mg of liver every day for dinner is not my idea of enjoyable eating. Anyway, have you tried it? Has it worked out for you?
That's not my idea of a fun diet. Liver is ok. It's excellent when if it's from a well fed goose. Escargot are awesome. It worked out well. Steaks, eggs, roasts, chicken livers cooked in milk, much bacon. It's not expensive since you don't eat as much. It's energy and nutrient dense. I lost a lot of weight, all blood markers improved dramatically. It's hard to keep it up because it's simply hard to do when you aren't cooking all your own meals. My workplace canteen has no non-carb food offerings. Rice, potatoes and wheat is cheap. So I go back on it hard core when I need to recover the ability to fit into the skinnier jeans. But I'm too lazy to cook and pack a lunch every day, year after year. You need to keep in mind that it's a high fat diet, not a high protein diet. No one can eat a predominantly protein diet. It's not possible. Mostly fat, some meat, no carbs.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apples are a bit carby, but yes. Be careful with sausages of any form, they often put breadcrumbs in. Kefir is easier that yoghurt because you can grow it at room temperature and use heavy cream instead of milk.
If I'm doing it properly, I'm doing all these things. But I don't do it properly all the time because life gets in the way. Traveling gets in the way also and I travel a lot.
So after loosing a bunch of weight, it's now a maintainence thing. If the pants don't fit, go back on the plant 100%. If they f
Re: (Score:2)
You mean a force fed goose. The realities of the meat supply are harsh enough. Force feeding geese is cruel.
The best fois gras is from happy free range geese that voluntarily eat grain. I don't eat fois gras from force fed geese.
Whenever I think of easily misinterpreted science (Score:1)
I'm going to associate it with that cool food art. My life has now improved significantly!
Thank you University of Tsukuba!
I'm glad Google's reseachers didn't discover this (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'm glad Google's reseachers didn't discover th (Score:5, Funny)
Again? (Score:1)
Reversing it twice is bad!
The next illegal drug (Score:2)
If this works, the monied and in-power will make this as illegal as LSD and heroin.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'd certainly hope so. You know how easy it is to score LSD and heroin.
Not if they think they can get more work out of us (Score:2)
If this works, the monied and in-power will make this as illegal as LSD and heroin.
Not necessarily.
If the anti-aging drug(s) make people healthier, reducing the drain on the government pensions and enabling the government to push the retirement age out over the horizon, so the people will be working and taxed, they might prefer to have the drugs put into use.
Heck, they'd probably add them to the water.
Re: (Score:3)
Overly optimistic article (Score:4, Interesting)
It's certainly possible that, as a person gets older, epigenetic regulation of (nuclear encoded) mitochondrial genes can get messed up in a way that impairs mitochondrial function.
But lots of things get messed up as a person gets older. Obviously a person accumulates a lot of damage that never gets repaired - e.g. because the repair mechanisms that would be needed don't even exist. But a person's cells are also on this amazing developmental program that takes a person from a single cell to full adult. While much of this program shuts down once a person reaches adulthood, there are almost certainly parts of this developmental pathway that continue to operate at a low level - slowly causing changes that over time increasingly make a person less healthy.
Bottom line, there ain't no silver bullet on aging. Eventually it will be possible to design a new species that looks and acts human but that has the necessary repair mechanisms and developmental programs to be able to live indefinitely. And humanity may then choose to (voluntarily) go extinct allowing themselves to replaced by this new species. But any such species would be vastly different genetically than modern humans. Living forever is fundamentally and pervasively incompatible with our genetics.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe Arther C. Clark said something about AI and untrained labor making intelligent systems. Good luck stopping that.
Re:Overly optimistic article (Score:5, Interesting)
Would it not be possible to repair the genes? If DNA gets messed up, why not keep a backup with multiple copies and (important) checksums to refresh the copies stored in the cells once in a while so it does not become too corrupt? The DNA is a few gigabytes IIRC, easily stored in a small chip.
Now, currently I do not know of a way to actually repair the DNA in cells, but maybe at some time in the future some smart people figure this out...
Re:Overly optimistic article (Score:4, Informative)
That's what adult stem cells are for.
Fine news! (Score:1)
Excellent! I want my age 19 wanker back!
Re: (Score:1)
+1 Funny, I gotta admit.
Collapse (Score:1)
Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.
Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.
Re: (Score:1)
We have always valued saving people's lives and old people are people too.
If everyone has at most 1 child, then every generation is half the size so that population would stabilize even if no one ever died. Since people do die of other causes than old age, the average could be perhaps be even slightly higher than 2 and population could still stabilize eventually. Yes, retirement would be different, no, that would in no way destabilize economies - it would be a tremendous economic boon not to have to support
Re: (Score:2)
>If everyone has at most 1 child
Yes, that would be incredibly easy to enforce.
Re:Collapse (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, retirement would be different,
You would probably work for a while, retire for a while, work some more, retire some more, try something different, and keep going until you got hit by a car.
Re:Collapse (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Why does this shit get spewed forth every fucking time.
Because the left hate humans, because most humans won't do what they're told just because the left are convinced they know what's best for them. Also, humans typically move further to the right politically as they grow older, so a population whose average age is measured in centuries won't have much time for SJWs.
Re: (Score:1)
Worse. All the bigoted assholes won't die as quickly so we'll have to deal with their bullshit longer. Why do you think we tend to progress toward less bigotry and oppression as a society? It's because the assholes eventually die and only the most brainwashed bigots continue to carry the torch. Of course the worst of those sometimes realize how shitty they were in their youth and will take it down a notch from being a supreme douchebag to just being a typical douchebag that uses terms like SJW.
Modern Cavemen (Score:2)
Cavemen were modern They were fully wireless, and I hear they liked to go clubbing.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between extending life and living forever.
Re: (Score:2)
Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.
Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.
Ok I'll take a shot.
Our civilisation (mostly) depend on economy. And what's the biggest thread of economy in devellopped country right now? Population ageing. We get more and more older, health cost rise and rise and the economy crash deeper and deeper. Get my drift?
Idealy, economically speaking, people would work, make money and stay healthy until they die. The basis of our retirement system depend of having more income from the young than expence from the old and, currently, we're clearly not heading in t
Re: (Score:3)
Immortality would realistically cause the collapse of human civilization. Massive cullings would have to be undertaken. Riots, revolts, revolutions would all ensue. Economies would destabilize as the retirement system would lose all meaning. Jobs would never be vacated.
Seriously. If there is anything that might have wiped out all other intelligent species in the galaxy, it's the scientific achievement of immortality.
Or it will jumpstart human exploration and settlement of the universe. If a person can comfortably and productively live for centuries then it will be much easier for us to send manned missions to the rest of the planets in our solar system as well as enable us to explore outside our solar system. Who needs ftl travel when you can live 500-1000 years?
Re: (Score:2)
Only the passion of the young push society to dream and explore.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hurry up!!! (Score:5, Funny)
I am 43 and starting to feel the effects of aging. I need this stuff pronto!
Re: (Score:1)
Hate to tell you this, but if you think it's bad now, wait 20 more years.
Re: (Score:2)
Telomeres? (Score:2)
So what happened to the theory that the shortening of telomeres was responsible for aging?
Re: (Score:3)
It is not the body (Score:1)
Pass! (Score:2)
Current process works quite nicely (Score:1)
Instead of permenating existing tissue to reset all the epigenetic switches.. just extract a few cells and throw out the rest.. reset at conception and 'clone' the individual.. differentiate by mixing genes extracted from successful individuals that survived to adulthood. Filter meta-genetic information from one generation to the other through tutalage and temporary 'parenthood'.. throw away the rest.
How to mess this up? Initiate random epigenetic repairs and partial repairs, reduce atoposis, induce mutagen
Glycin supplement (Score:2)
Gizmag's paper reports the research is about a Glycine regulating gene, then suggest Glycine supplement may sometime thrive as anti-age treatment.
Is it just me, or did the person that wrote the second part failed to understand what is gene regulation?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Humans, like all life on planet earth, depend on evolution to improve the species. The old die, the new survive, and humanity improves. Achieving immortality would be akin to freezing humanity in time.
Unscientific and irrelevent. Evolution (mostly) happen on offspring and unless you think we'll stop having babies if we achieve immortality then, global warming jokes apart, humanity will not "freeze". Unless you pull a China on us claming "One-child policy" or something which won't happen even if we get stop getting old.
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're the richest man on earth, what's the point?
Given an infinite lifespan, everyone would get to be the richest man on Earth for a while. And the poorest.
Re: (Score:2)
First article I read about the so called "on off" aging switch the guy said you wouldn't live forever. He backed this up with statistics and the certainty that something would get you after about 300-400 years: illness, plane crash, murder, etc. it is the aging switch, not the immortality switch in the general sense.