First Ever Anti-Aging Gene Discovered In a Secluded Amish Community (newsweek.com) 159
"This is one of the first clear-cut genetic mutations in human beings that acts upon aging and aging-related disease," Dr. Douglas Vaughan, a medical researcher at Northwestern University, told Newsweek. schwit1 quotes Science Alert:
As far as we know, it looks like the only community in the world known to harbour it is an Old Order Amish community living in Indiana... Vaughan's team tested 177 people from the Amish community of Berne, Indiana, and found 43 people with one mutated SERPINE1 gene copy. Compared to the general Amish population, these 43 people had a 10 percent longer lifespan, and 10 percent longer telomeres (the DNA-protecting structures at the ends of our chromosomes that unravel when the cells reach the end of their lifespans). They also showed lower incidence of diabetes and lower insulin fasting levels. On top of that, the study showed a small indication of lower blood pressure and potentially more flexible blood vessels.
"For the first time we are seeing a molecular marker of aging (telomere length), a metabolic marker of aging (fasting insulin levels) and a cardiovascular marker of aging (blood pressure and blood vessel stiffness) all tracking in the same direction in that these individuals were generally protected from age-related changes," said Vaughan. These people also had 50 percent lower PAI-1 levels than average. It's not known exactly how PAI-1 contributes to aging, but it does play a role in a process called cellular senescence. This is when cells are no longer able to replicate, so they just go dormant. This contributes to the effects of aging.
"For the first time we are seeing a molecular marker of aging (telomere length), a metabolic marker of aging (fasting insulin levels) and a cardiovascular marker of aging (blood pressure and blood vessel stiffness) all tracking in the same direction in that these individuals were generally protected from age-related changes," said Vaughan. These people also had 50 percent lower PAI-1 levels than average. It's not known exactly how PAI-1 contributes to aging, but it does play a role in a process called cellular senescence. This is when cells are no longer able to replicate, so they just go dormant. This contributes to the effects of aging.
If I have to be Amish to live longer (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
It just seems longer :).
Re: (Score:1)
The Amish life is much easier. They have far less to worry about and stress over.
Re: (Score:2)
Men live longer when married because we can’t spend our food money on ship containers of Cheetos and Mountain Dew. Plus, once you’re married you usually can’t spend your day playing video games. My Steam Library keeps growing (thank you Humble Bundle) and I haven’t finish a game since Titanfall 2 and DOOM (2016) were released.
Re: (Score:2)
"Amish... nothing to do with lifestyle" wut? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um diet? (Score:3, Informative)
Its like we just discovered clean and healthy living....
Re:Um diet? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it.
Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
Re: (Score:2)
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it.
Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
True, but your net contribution to the genes you sowed must be higher than the cost of competing for the resources, otherwise the genes of those who die earlier will be selected for.
Re: (Score:2)
Two nephews/nieces = 1 your own son or daughter
Genetic distance = probability of finding your gene in that person = 0.5 for son/daughter/sibling
Distance to child= 0.5
Distance to child's child = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Distance to nephew = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Number if nephew/niece you need to raise to get the equivalent of fathering/bearing a child yourself = 2 Gay uncle theory ; why/how gay genes persist in genepool
In early days when infant mortality was hig
Re: (Score:2)
That is not how evolution works. There's no incentive to preserve identical genes, only direct lineages. Evolution works at the level of the individual, not the species or even family, other than as a mean to assist in propagating your genes. Not identical genes, but ones that actually came from and passed through the individual.
The belief that evolution works at a species level hails back to the early days of Darwin/Wallace, but has since been abandoned.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Richard Dawkins was too clever and too subtle in naming his book The Selfish Gene. He was trying to answer the question, Are genes our way of making more copies of ourselves? Or, our bodies are the gene's way for making more genes. Accepting of anthropomorphizing bits of DNA and attributing intelligence and purpose as shorthand, his point was, the genes selfishly replicate themselves using animal bodies, species or even genus. But the general press misto
Re: (Score:2)
But the question I want to ask is whether living longer is a good thing. Once past the age of reproduction, the genes do not benefit from people living on forever - then they become competitors for resources used by the offspring.
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills. As a society we're probably more productive and thus more evolutionary "fit" the more results we get after spending 20-25 years raising you. Besides, we've pretty much negated all natural selection by trying to save all genes no matter how poor they might be. And a larger resource footprint
Re: (Score:2)
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills.
True, and the human lifespan reflects that. Those who died early while still being net contributors were selected against, and so did those who lived overly long. Based on the human reproductive cycle, and a mix between living in hardship and living with surplus, evolution is at a point where it's beneficial to live past the reproductive cycle, but not too long past it.
And a larger resource footprint only means there's room for fewer, but there's always a sustainable size.
Yes, and no. Our biggest adversary is other humans, and if one group of people put an ever-growing ratio of their resources into prolong
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but such a statement is not any less unfalsifiable than the notion that god exists in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right, but such a statement is not any less unfalsifiable than the notion that god exists in the first place.
The null hypothesis does not need to be falsifiable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Finding a single elephant in my freezer would disprove the hypothesis
For very small amounts of elephant or very big forms of deep freezers.
I'm not sure, what scares me more :D
Re: (Score:2)
There is a genetic benefit for us to live longer and past our burning age.
Humans are communal animals so for those past child baring age role is to watch over the kids while their parents who are in their prime fight for supplies. They will also teach lessons from the past as each generation doesn’t have to make the same mistakes.
So with the elderly it makes sure the next generation is safe.
The Baby Boomers however culturally just recked the norm because they are afraid to get old and hord their succe
Re: (Score:2)
My life is of benefit to myself. I'm not going to be a sucker for your foul plan to make me feel guilty for living.
Re: (Score:2)
These are all artificial means to extend life.
Those are all artificial means that increase the quality of life. Don't confuse quality of life with longevity. Even if the same remedies often increase both, they are two very different goals.
Re: Um diet? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You are advancing a false dichotomy, and allude to this fact in your post. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed complementary.
That doesn't imply that both are good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be orthogonal. Increased quality of life can be good without increased longevity being good. That's why it's a real dichotomy, not a false one.
Re: Um diet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You should look up the difference between dichotomy and false dichotomy. You seem to think that the two are the same.
Re: (Score:1)
Grandparents help raise their children's children. Huge help in not only babysitting but passing along knowledge. How do you think we got to where we are technologically?
To be honest, there's little you can learn from your grandparents that you can't learn from your parents. And when someone pushes the 90s, what, exactly, do you learn from them?
Again, the net contribution to the genes that were passed on has to be positive. Unless the benefits the old animal gives exceeds the detrimentals (like competition for resources, time spent that could be spent obtaining resources, decreased mobility), nature will select against extended life. Those who die at the point where net
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
Spoken like a true (young and healthy) conservative.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
I have contingency plans in place should I become a burden, and they don't involve spending huge amounts of money getting medical assistance to die, when my family can do better with that money than the leechers. Right now, I'm still reasonably productive, but still have a DNR.
Enough about me - how about you? You'll gladly be a burden for others, including your own children? Does that make you feel proud?
Re: (Score:2)
Unless your plan is a bullet to the brain, your plan will leave as a burden to someone. Now, if only you realized that you stopped being productive 2 or 3 decades ago.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: Um diet? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
âStop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.â(TM)
After you.
The rallying call of slavers seeing the population as laborers, in broken unicode.
Re: (Score:2)
âStop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.â(TM)
After you.
Not necessarily. For many, they leave an estate that serves society in a positive way. At least that's my intention.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like someone's got a financial stake in the funeral business.
No, and you haven't thought this one through. Everybody dies. Those with a financial stake in the funeral business would be those who lobby against birth control. The more people that get born, the more people there are that undoubtedly will die.
It also gives you an aversion to tech (Score:5, Funny)
The mutation also causes an aversion to technology and religious piety, so it's a non-starter for most.
Re: (Score:2)
From what I've seen the Amish actually like technology, their religion just told them they can't use it. They happily accept lifts in cars driven by other people, for example.
Reminds me of some Jews who won't turn electronics or cooking equipment on for one day a week. God said not to, but that's really inconvenient so they buy a 24 hour timer and set it the day before. The rule says don't light a fire, if one happens to start on your stove then apparently it's fine to cook with it.
Which also reminds me of
Re: (Score:2)
>Reminds me of some Jews who won't turn electronics or cooking equipment on for one day a week.
I believe that's because they're not allowed to make a spark. But as you said, they find workarounds. And then there's the eruv - where they put string around a neighborhood to turn the outside into inside so that God's restrictions aren't so onerous. That's right... you can lawyer your way around God's rules with technicalities, because obviously loopholes are consistent with edicts set by an infallible omn
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what Jewish heaven is like, but if I believed in such a thing I wouldn't want to risk damnation because I couldn't lawyer my way past all the obvious bullshit I pulled to get around God's rules during my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is interesting because the problem with inbreeding is mostly genetic, and it turns out they have good genes, at least when it comes to aging.
Maybe we should inbreed more.
It is not completely a joke btw, I've actually seen some serious research suggesting that a moderate amount of inbreeding is actually beneficial.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't turn out so well for Joffrey
Re: (Score:2)
Inbreeding is only objectively dangerous when the involved parties have a gene defect.
If both have no gene defect there is no difference to ordinary breeding.
And if in ordinary breeding one has a gene defect, there is no difference to inbreeding with a gene defect.
Your genes don't know if the mate you mated is a relative or someone far away from being a relative.
Re: (Score:2)
CRISPR (Score:2)
CRISPR gene editing is putting plausible biohacking on the agenda, so probably not necessary. It is only a matter of time before enhancement genes start entering our genome.
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
Paywalled but citing for source.
The highs and lows (Score:5, Interesting)
They've found a gene mutation that adds 10% to your lifespan. That's good!
If you have two copies, you get a nasty blood disorder. That's bad.
But maybe they can isolate the specific effect that slows ageing and give us a pill. That's good!
It's not ready yet, and I'm middle aged already. That's bad.
Re: (Score:1)
They've found a gene mutation that adds 10% to your lifespan. That's good!
Why exactly is this good, without begging the question?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people in general don't want to die
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good?
Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
So...you're insinuating that this is bad?
May I add that we already spent an ever growing amount of ressources on the growing (and older) human population?
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume there'll be spending of more resources on older people? If the gene expands their live spans and general health, they are functional for longer and can retire later in life. Besides, while older age is certainly no guarantee of maturity or wisdom, you'll more likely to find it there.
Careful what you wish for; Logan's Run, ever hear of it?
Re: (Score:2)
That makes it desirable, now what makes it good?
Because there's only one definition of 'good' that makes sense to me, and that is achieving what I desire.
Re: (Score:3)
Because there's only one definition of 'good' that makes sense to me, and that is achieving what I desire.
To spend 20 years in diapers, all your friends dead, and your mind dying a little more every day, but for a while still knowing that you cost your children and grandchildren a fortune they can't use for better things?
If that's "good" in your definition, you're entitled to think so. But I'm also entitled to call you both selfish and short-sighted..
Re: (Score:2)
Objectively speaking, what's better than keeping ones parents alive? Just because you're an anti-social shit who raised his children to hate old people doesn't mean that rest of us are.
Re: (Score:2)
Objectively speaking, what's better than keeping ones parents alive?
Objectively, keeping your children alive is better.
Each child has half your genes, and can propagate them, unlike your parents, who have become dead ends.
Re: (Score:2)
That is easy to prevent.
Do sports, particularly martial arts.
cost your children and grandchildren a fortune they can't use for better things?
Why are you so money focused?
Oh ... you live in a country with no health care?
What can be a better thing than helping your parents or kids or other relatives? You see: with your attitude you would be stoned in any asian/buddhist country. Completely different idea about what is moraly right and what is moraly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
What we want is booster spice, that keeps you from ageing. Start taking it in your 20s and stay young forever.
Even better, figure out how to reverse ageing so us poor buggers over the age of 30 can be young again.
Re: (Score:2)
What we want is booster spice, that keeps you from ageing. Start taking it in your 20s and stay young forever.
That would be a terrible idea unless coupled with population control measures that many would consider draconian.
And even then, it might not be a good idea. If we slow down the reproductive rate to compensate for a longer fertile lifespan, we fall back in the red queen race, and diseases and parasites get ahead of us, because their rate won't slow down. Sex and generation changes is a weapon we use to fight diseases and parasites - our offspring are not identical to ourselves, but only has 50% of our gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who says the gene adds that 10% to the END of your life? Maybe it just makes your middle-age level of health last longer.
That would be even more terrible, if it prolongs the reproductive time span, without also reducing fertility. Not only because it would trigger a population explosion, but because the generation churn is one of our main defences against diseases and parasites, so unless the mutation also provides a benefit to the genes (not to the individual), it would be handing our predators a gift on a silver plate.
Re: (Score:2)
The implication of this gene is that it increases both lifespan and quality of life into old age, so your argument doesn't track.
If it increases both at a similar rate, the net productive range is stretched, but so is the net unproductive rate that follows it. That's not beneficial.
In no species on the planet has prolonging life past child rearing been selected for by evolution. It's not a net benefit to the offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit if far future descendants even exist, much less have a better life? It's completely illogical to worry about those who have not even been conceived.
Re: (Score:2)
Who gives a shit if far future descendants even exist, much less have a better life?
They do.
Which is why a good part of the human population do care about things like climate change, and think alt-right egotism is a sad blight.
Re: (Score:2)
Will the future of our far descendants be better if we spend an ever growing amount of resources on keeping people alive?
And what makes you think that their interests are the objective standard for what's better? If you're really fucked up enough to not understand why it's better that people live rather than die, you deserve to have your asshat question turned back at you (and probably worse).
Re: (Score:1)
Why exactly is this good, without begging the question?
Would you consider it bad if you lived 10% less? No? How about 25%? When does bad kick in for you?
Re: (Score:2)
Would you consider it bad if you lived 10% less? No? How about 25%? When does bad kick in for you?
When the net contribution to survival of my genes becomes negative, I become a non-symbiotic parasite. Then it's time to die.
And that's what evolution will select for too. Those who don't spend an ever-growing portion of their resources on keeping old people alive at all costs will easily win, long term. Fighting it is a battle that cannot be won, and is why we don't live to 300 years already. Nature selects against that.
Re: (Score:2)
Resource consumption of an older person is likely lower than the resource production lost when a prime aged individual has to devote time to child care. If you are alive and functional at 90 you are on to 3rd or 4th generation care depending on breeding age cycles.
Re: (Score:2)
Statistics show otherwise.
For 2010, the average personal expenses (out-of pocket + insurance) for healthcare for a 45-64 year old was $8,370, and the total expenses (including medicare/medicaid/other) $13,115.
For an 85+ year old, the average personal expenses was $34,783, and the total expenses $131,164.
(Source: www.cms.gov)
That's not covering non-healthcare expenses. While the costs for consumables likely are lower, housing and electricity isn't going to be any lower just because an old person lives ther
Re: (Score:2)
You said you were reaching the end of your productive life, Will it be drugs? A rope? Bullet to the brainpan (messy, not recommended)?
I think you're all talk. If you don't do it you're a hypocrite.
Re: (Score:2)
You said you were reaching the end of your productive life, Will it be drugs? A rope? Bullet to the brainpan (messy, not recommended)?
It's quite frankly none of your business.
That said, there are non-messy ways to go too. Refusal of medical services past the age of productivity is common in some cultures. It works quite well on a larger scale, as it weeds out the worst cases first, and our genetic disposition for not living forever comes stronger into play. We haven't evolved to live long lives, because it's not a benefit for our genes, so most of us won't have long natural lives without medical intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you have no plan, and you're a lying piece of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
In other words, you have no plan, and you're a lying piece of shit.
Given that the only way to prove anything would be to become a burden and then either die or not, what exactly can anyone be expecting here? That I maim myself to become unproductive, and then see what happens? Are you stupid, insane or just an internet wanker?
Re: (Score:2)
Why the anger over this? Are you surprised that we spend a lot on healthcare for old people? This is not a secret.
These statistics are right, and they apply to everyone in the way that statistics generally do. That is, while there are plenty of people who work until they die and incur minimal health care costs, that's not the case for most people.
However, we have built our society so that more money is available to spend on the elderly. People save for their entire lives just to be able to pay for healt
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't select for anything, you ignorant and stupid deadweight. You've already passed your prime and you're too stupid and/or hypocritical to admit it.
Re: (Score:2)
Evolution doesn't select for anything, you ignorant and stupid deadweight.
The full name is "Evolution through natural selection", and is probably the most solid scientific theory, undisputed among pretty much anyone not afflicted by radical religion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good is a value judgement. I want to have more choice in when and how I die, so anything that reduces the effective limitations on my choice is good in my opinion.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it not? ... no idea about you.
I would prefer to live for ever
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of this exchange:
Shopkeeper: Take this object, but beware it carries a terrible curse! ...That's bad.
Homer: Ooh, that's bad.
Shopkeeper: But it comes with a free frogurt!
Homer: That's good.
Shopkeeper: The frogurt is also cursed.
Homer: That's bad.
Shopkeeper: But you get your choice of toppings.
Homer: That's good!
Shopkeeper: The toppings contain potassium benzoate.
[Homer looks puzzled]
Shopkeeper:
Homer: Can I go now?
Telomeres (Score:2)
The gene increases telomeres length by 10%, the age increase is a secondary effect of that. Perhaps the blood disease is as well and they can be separated.
Re: (Score:2)
Telemeres may only be one factor, and in fact other ageing research indicates that this is the case.
Admittedly I am fairly ignorant on the subject (not being a medical researcher, biologist, or geneticist), but I believe telomeres are more or less analogous to a countdown timer, to let cells know when it's time to stop reproducing as the odds of critical errors have grown too high. If you extend the timer, you're still not fixing the underlying failures.
Now, if you had some way of fixing deleterious mutati
Stephen King (Score:2)
Children of the Corn.
So they live longer because... (Score:4, Funny)
... they've been spending most their lives living in an Amish paradise?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it's because they never wear buttons but they've got cool hats and their homies agree they really look good in black.
It Figures (Score:1)
Live long and prosper*
*See "prosper" as defined by the Amish.
I think I'll take "short and sweet," thank you very much.
It's a double mistake, actually (Score:2)
They aren't older. They just LOOK way older than they really are.
And they don't live longer. It just seems to them that way because, well, have you ever spent a few weeks without TV, computer or anything that a normal person would consider entertaining? Time REALLY gets long.
And anybody han switch those genes (Score:2)
just hard work, no booze, no phone, no tv, no internet, no electricity, no coffee for a couple of hundred years.
Unsurprising (Score:2)
Mixed races (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Not for atheists (Score:1)
That's not how genes and science work.
Re:I wonder how they know the lifespan (Score:5, Interesting)
of these 43 people. Or did they examine the already deceased?
Given genes are genetic, and the mutation is widespread enough to not be completely new, the life span of the ancestors is significant. If someone with the gene had parents that lived 10 years longer than average, that's significant.
Add to this the higher projected lifespan due to lower prevalence of e.g. obesity and D2.
But before we get all hallelujah about this, looking for negative effects might be prudent too. If it was all positive, this mutation would likely be far more spread around than it is. While a semi-closed community, Amish do sometimes leave the fold and have children.
Re: (Score:2)
Positive or even neutral genes spread quite rapidly. A calculation I saw said that it will take no more than 200 generations for a non-malign mutation to spread from one averagely fertile person to half of the US population. If this is a relatively new mutation, with only a few generations, it should still be detectable.
Either we're not looking, or it may not be a gene that survives well in a setting substantially different from the Amish. More studies seem warranted before breaking any apple cider bottl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
200 generations is still a pretty long time for humans, from a "ongoing research protocol" standpoint. Hard to suss out 3000 years of breeding.
From an individual's point of view, it's a very long time. From an evolutionary point of view, 200 generations is a very short time.
It used to be far fewer generations, back when the reproductive rate and death rates were much higher. A substantial part of Europe have a lineage going directly back to Charlemagne, and that's far fewer generations.
Of course, only the truly fundamental mutations will spread to the entire population. Like onset of male puberty adjusting to female puberty, or ability to figh
Re: (Score:2)
Except that in an isolated community like within the Amish population, the gene is effectively cut off from the rest of the population. It wouldn't matter how beneficial it is if it's isolated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A mutation/gene is not a virus. How would it spread? Hm?
Genes spreads through procreation. Benign mutations spread more, and malign mutations spread less when subjected to evolutionary pressure, including competition from peers. You're just a vehicle for your genes to spread. I thought this was common knowledge?
Re: (Score:2)
The genes reproduce, like you do.
But that means you give them to your next generation.
They don't spread.
To spread you need a situation where every generation statistically produces more than 2 kids per parent. Or has other breeding habits like cheating.
If genes simply would spread like you first implied, we had no black, yellow, white, what ever races but would all look the same.
"malign" has not much to do with it anyway unless you die before you breed.
In other words: the spreading of genes we see is basica
Re: (Score:2)
To spread you need a situation where every generation statistically produces more than 2 kids per parent.
No, that doesn't follow. Genes spread even in declining populations. They just have to be more successful than other genes. The genes compete, and any small advantage reaps the benefit of the equivalent to compound interest. If one family gets 5% interest on their bank account, and another has to pay 5% interest to keep the money safe, as the years (generations) go by, the proportion shifts.
If genes simply would spread like you first implied, we had no black, yellow, white, what ever races but would all look the same.
You're assuming unlimited mobility, which is not the case. That people in Ireland does not look like people in