Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Science

Scientists Make Further Inroads Into Reversing Ageing Process of Cells (theguardian.com) 75

Posted by msmash from the moving-forward dept.
People could eventually be able to turn the clock back on the cell-ageing process by 30 years, according to researchers who have developed a technique for reprogramming skin cells to behave as if they are much younger. From a report: Research from the Babraham Institute, a life sciences research organisation in Cambridge, could lead to the development of techniques that will stave off the diseases of old age by restoring the function of older cells and reducing their biological age. In experiments simulating a skin wound, older cells were exposed to a concoction of chemicals that "reprogrammed" them to behave more like youthful cells and removed age-related changes.

This has been previously achieved, but the new work was completed in a much a shorter time frame -- 13 days compared with 50 -- and made the cells even younger. Dr Diljeet Gill, a researcher at the Babraham Institute, said: "Our understanding of ageing on a molecular level has progressed over the last decade, giving rise to techniques that allow researchers to measure age-related biological changes in human cells. We were able to apply this to our experiment to determine the extent of reprogramming our new method achieved. Our results represent a big step forward in our understanding of cell reprogramming."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientists Make Further Inroads Into Reversing Ageing Process of Cells More

Scientists Make Further Inroads Into Reversing Ageing Process of Cells

Comments Filter:

  • This will be solved (Score:5, Funny)

    by olsmeister ( 1488789 ) on Friday April 08, 2022 @12:20PM (#62429046)
    About six months after I die.

    • "About six months after I die."

      Exactly my feeling with all these articles.

    • About six months after I die.

      You jest, but several promising treatments for my wife's type of brain tumor (GBM [wikipedia.org]) went to trials (relatively) soon after she died [tumblr.com] in 2006, although they probably still wouldn't have saved her.

      • As someone in a position to understand what that's like. I'm really really sorry that happened in your life and that the help was too late. Feels like nobody knows or cares sometimes in the whole damn world.

      • I'm sorry for your loss. I've lost people to it as well.

        There still aren't great treatments or prognoses for GBM. It's one of the nastier kinds of cancer out there. Treatment today is designed to prolong survival; in most cases, an outright cure still eludes us.

    • Or before you die, but only a billionaire will be able to afford it.
  • You won't be getting anti-aging treatment. The mega wealthy will.
    • Why? If they can make money selling it to consumers, why wouldn't they do it. Not to mention that demographics are collapsing and I am sure those elites would like to get a few more decades out of their worker bees.
      • Because they can make even more money selling it to the less wealthy who make it from consumers. An important point to remember is that the wealthy don't just want to have everything they want, they want to have better than others.

        • This doesn't make sense. Businesses are owned by shareholders, and shareholders want profit. That means that the decision-makers have direct incentive to sell product at the price point where supply meets demand. Some petty "I don't want poor people to have this even though I would make more money if I sold it to them" attitude will get board members voted right off by shareholders, and replaced by someone who sells to optimize profit.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by tekram ( 8023518 )
            '"I don't want poor people to have this even though I would make more money if I sold it to them" attitude will get board members voted right off' -- I guess you have never heard of Tiffany, LVMH or the luxury goods sector.
            • Those are luxury brands for non-essential consumer goods. That mean fuck-all in the therapeutic space.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by tekram ( 8023518 )
                'Those are luxury brands for non-essential consumer goods. That mean fuck-all in the therapeutic space.' -- only if you live in a country with sufficient wealth and equality for equitable and affordable distribution of healthcare -- very few countries with those qualities exist.

            • When lowering price involves a reduction in the quality of the product, you enter a different market demographic where there is more competition. So in those cases it still makes business sense to maximize profit by competing in a smaller but higher-value market when one has the resources. In the case of a medical treatment like this, regulatory laws block quality reduction, and it is likely that any legal quality reduction will just make the treatment not work, so this market force won't be there to bifu

          • There is more than one point where supply meets demand and more than one kind of value. Creating an exclusive and elite product enables a much higher margin. I think you underestimate the wealth gaps between the wealthy and the rich, the even larger one between the ultra-wealthy and the wealthy... both make the gap between the rich and the poor look tiny.

            To price in most people I'd need a one time price point of about $200... that would still exclude the poor though. To price out everyone but the successful
      • we're going in the direction of neo-feudalism. The wealthy will want power over us, and access to anti-aging will be one of the ways the get it.

        Ask yourself, is it fun to tell people what to do and have them do it? Would you like it if all of society was at your beck and call? If you wanted something built, no matter how silly or useless and you could just say "do it" and people would fall all over themselves to do it what would that be like?

        How good would that much power _really_ feel? You'd start t

        • we're going in the direction of neo-feudalism.
          We are in it since over 100 years.

        • Vampires. The rich essentially want to be vampires. The way they spend money on anti-aging research (especially in Singapore) really clues you into what the billionaire agenda really is.

          • space.
            then environment is currently very destructive.
            cell rejuvenation therapies would be very useful here

    • How do you think all medical breakthroughs start?

      With the people who paid for the research profiting first.

      I don't see how this is unfair.

      • How do you think all medical breakthroughs start? With the people who paid for the research profiting first. I don't see how this is unfair.

        You mean the publicly funded research that is then licensed to companies who directly profit? It’s the taxpayers who paid, the university and a few researchers who perhaps get some small royalties, and the company who gets rich.

        It’s the socialization of the costs or any losses and privatization of gains that is the main complaint.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dvice ( 6309704 )

        > How do you think all medical breakthroughs start?

        Mostly in publicly funded university research.

        • Most medical breakthroughs that matter and have an impact on real health were made by 1960. I'm not sure what in the actual fuck they've been doing since then besides trying to lobby for more authoritarian lockdown health tyranny laws. I'm wholly unimpressed with the medical "progress" of the last half century. I hear claims that perhaps mRNA tech will cure Herpes, HIV, and Syphillus potentially as well as the Flu. Yeah? Seriously? Then fucking stop talking about it and do it. It sure as fuck didn't cure or

          • There has been progress. It's just been frustratingly slow in some areas. But it's there if you look. For instance.

            HIV is no longer a death sentence, at least in developed countries.

            Many cancers have dramatically higher survival and/or cure rates than in previous decades.

            We know MUCH more about the role of nutrition in normal health as well as in illness.

            We know how to prevent most of the cases of most of the leading causes of death.

            We are MUCH better at preventing and treating infectious diseases, and t

            • Bro, I won't deny a single one of the factual points you make. However, I do think it's simply not enough. It's a drop in the bucket compared with the discovery of antibiotics or vaccine. I think we need a quantum leap. We could argue over if those evolutions add up to a revolution, I'm thinking the items you highlight are barely enough to say that medicine was awake. I mean from 1960 forward and all we have are some "more effective" treatments for the same old shit? Where are the cures? Where are the break

    • A business wants to make money.
      So you set the price that you get max of money.

      Ofc lazy me would set the price that I have enough money and minimal work, but that is just me.

      So: a successful business will serve as many people as reasonable possible.

      Plenty of women would pay a small fortune for a cream that makes their skin (look) young.

      • So you set the price that you get max of money.

        Smart businesses look for a way to segment the market, charging more for people able and willing to pay higher prices while charging lower prices to others.

        Airlines do this by having 1st class, business class, and economy class. Gas stations sell "premium" gas that has no performance benefit for 90% of their customers.

        Pharma companies price high in America, lower in Canada, and even less in poor countries. Drug brand owners often make their own generics, identical other than the label, to sell at a reduce

    • You won't be getting anti-aging treatment. The mega wealthy will.

      The mega-wealthy are the risk taking first adopters for anything. They paid a lot to fly, and died in large numbers before aviation became so safe that the last American crash of a mainline air carrier occurred a month after 9/11. Right now, they are early adopters testing costly, risky private spaceflight.

    • Even if you are a billionaire, when you have infinite time, you can be 100% certain that an event will occur at some point that will wipe out your assets. You will be homeless at some point if you live forever.

  • Cancer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StuDude ( 627980 ) on Friday April 08, 2022 @12:28PM (#62429070)
    As with most things on the "anti-aging" research area, all enthusiasm for regenerative cell therapies must be tempered with expectation that cancer may occur.

    • Re:Cancer (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Brain-Fu ( 1274756 ) on Friday April 08, 2022 @01:06PM (#62429180) Homepage Journal

      It's true. Right now, the ONLY thing that prevents a person from dying of cancer is dying of something else first. Addressing other causes of mortality may give us a few more years by eliminating other causes of death, but then cancer will get us instead.

      • Cancer has a wide range of causes, but is ultimately a breakdown in cell replication. Reprogramming cells should, in theory, reset any innate "timer" that leads to age related replication and by extension eliminate these types of cancer completely. It won't prevent cancers caused by outside sources but if perfected, cell Reprogramming would also be a way to treat them as well.

        • is ultimately a breakdown in cell replication. Reprogramming cells should, in theory, reset any innate "timer" that leads to age related replication and by extension eliminate these types of cancer completely.

          Cancer is caused because there are mutations in the DNA, the most important of which prevent the cell from suiciding when there is a DNA problem. It isn't caused by an innate timer.

          • The goal is to have rich folks live forever. I'm pretty sure they'll find at least one good strand of DNA to baseline and if they don't they can fill in a few AGCTs from software when CRISPR on their germline. The challenges with cancer are just challenges. The goal is to live longer and the billionaire billions will not shy away from the challenges. When they do make a breakthrough, I wouldn't expect it to be known for quite some time outside of a few secret society meetings.

            • I wouldn't expect it to be known for quite some time outside of a few secret society meetings.

              ok, you just lost your brain there. Time to come back in to reality.

          • is ultimately a breakdown in cell replication. Reprogramming cells should, in theory, reset any innate "timer" that leads to age related replication and by extension eliminate these types of cancer completely.

            Cancer is caused because there are mutations in the DNA, the most important of which prevent the cell from suiciding when there is a DNA problem. It isn't caused by an innate timer.

            It actually is in some cases. The previous poster is referring to telomeres [wikipedia.org], which function as cellular timers and which are the target for much of this sort of research. They're "spare" material at the ends of our DNA that keep "useful" DNA from suffering harm when errors occur during cellular replication. We lose telomeres with age as they get cut off due to those errors. When they run out, the rate at which damage occurs to our DNA goes up.

            So, yes, mutations can cause cancer, but the rate at which mutati

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Mitreya ( 579078 )

        Addressing other causes of mortality may give us a few more years by eliminating other causes of death

        I feel like you are forgetting the quality-of-life issues. Even if this doesn't give extra years but just improves the quality of the years you would have had anyway, it is still a huge win.

        • They kinda are overlooking those, but bruh just imagine if/when those issues are not an issue. I mean if you reprogrammed your skin cells to a genetic age of 25 then in pretty short order you are going to start looking 25. Same with the other signs of aging like hair, nails, etc... If the rich vampire wannabes want to live in Twilight or some other teenage vampire fantasy. They want to be 150 years old while looking and feeling 21 forever and they will keep spending their billions until it happens. When it

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tekram ( 8023518 )
      'tempered with expectation that cancer may occur.' or a head on collision with a truck or mountain or a bullet.

      • a head on collision with a truck or mountain or a bullet.

        Fatalities from accidents and violence have dramatically declined and are trending even lower.

    • all enthusiasm for regenerative cell therapies must be tempered with expectation that cancer may occur.

      I'll take a cancer over a virgo any day of the week. Yes, while a virgo is terrible but somehow you never hear about the horrors wrought by a gemini.

  • That is, if you're a mouse. [nih.gov]

  • Queen Elizabeth and Keith Richards eventually get this treatment. They'll look hundreds of years younger!

  • Wasn't it just a few months ago that some scientists were claiming it was impossible for anything to extend our overall lifespan potential and that it was only possible to increase the number who reached that built-in potential?

    • Never trust a scientist who says something is impossible. Or rather, never trust someone that says a scientist said something is impossible.

      Human history is literally defined by people doing what was once thought impossible.

      If there's a will then we'll find a way.

    • Well,
      I'm convinced research is much farer ahead in age reversing and long levity than is currently public knowledge.

      Around 1995 - 2005 or so we had like 30 companies researching long levity, with random publications.

      They all got bought up and closed.

  • Young cells reproduce more than older cells. Cancer means your cells are reproducing more than they should. Any technique that rejuvenates cells will automatically increase your risk of cancer. It will always be a risk but sometimes the risk will be worth it. For skin, this is not likely - we defeat most forms of skin cancer.

    But a technique that rejuvenates essential organs such as heart, kidneys, or pancreatic, that will very likely be worth it for someone that has heart, kidney or pancreatic issues. Espe

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      "Any technique that rejuvenates cells will automatically increase your risk of cancer."

      This is an overly simplistic view of a complex issue. By your logic, the vast majority of cancer patients would be young people.

      • You do not understand my argument or cancer. Cells do not have to get old. They can live forever, even in nature.

        Single celled organisms never age, at least not the way we do. They just get fatter, split and have two new cells. If their DNA is damaged, they die or evolve. But no such thing as single celled creature with cancer.

        Multi-cellular organisms get cancer. A single cell that ignores what they are supposed to is not a big deal. It becomes a big deal only when that single cell starts reproduci

    • It will always be a risk but sometimes the risk will be worth it. For skin, this is not likely - we defeat most forms of skin cancer.

      Most forms of cancer are "skin" cancers. That is, they are either on the external skin or on the internal "skin" of organs (epithelial cells).

    • Any technique that rejuvenates cells will automatically increase your risk of cancer.
      No it won't.
      Cancer comes from genetic defects in the genetic code of your cell.
      If simply can add more life time to a cell, it does not necessarily add defects.

      • You do not understand my argument or cancer.

        Multi-cellular organisms get cancer. But a single cell that is damaged and does not follow instructions is not a big deal. While technically that cell would be cancerous, if it is not growing, it is not a big deal. Ask any doctor and they will tell you that every single person probably has at least ONE cell that is genetically damaged but is not cancerous.

        It only becomes cancerous when that single cell starts reproducing. Then you have a huge, parasitic mas

        • That makes sense :D

          I thought you wanted to imply that an genetical reprogramming automatically damages a cell so much that it is cancerous.

  • Cellular rejuvenation therapy safely reverses signs of aging in mice [salk.edu]
    March 7, 2022
    "... found no increase in cancer or other health problems later on"

    Clinical Trials Targeting Aging [frontiersin.org]
    Feb. 4, 2022
    "The risk of morbidity and mortality increases exponentially with age. Chronic inflammation, accumulation of DNA damage, dysfunctional mitochondria, and increased senescent cell load are factors contributing to this."

    Can Anti-Aging Research Keep Us Healthy in the Long Run? [labiotech.eu]
    Nov. 30, 2020
    "Most cells in our bo

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tekram ( 8023518 )
      ;March 7, 2022 "... found no increase in cancer or other health problems later on" -- this experiment if you read the paper, was done on a mutant back-ground mice displaying an accelerated aging syndrome therefore the results cannot rule out the possibility of any confounding effect due to the point mutation.
  • Massive!! "Blowout Sale" going on now. Full Size cemetary plots. "Buy now and SAVE" Last century prices, today any size lot. The reason you won't need a grave is when everyone lives to 180(whtvr) the 7 Trillion inhabitants won't leave room for a graveyard. {parking garages only}

    • Graves are weird. Most won't need one and they will become a thing only for the uber wealthy. (Assuming it isn't already that.) Cremation is cheaper and doesn't require taking a small plot of land for infinite time in the future. (Then you can spread the ashes in a forest, ocean, or keep them in your home.)

  • Take your pick of episodes: "Too Short a Season," "Rascals," "Genesis"

    A good rule of thumb is to always refer to Star Trek, Stargate, or other sci-fi TV series before doing real science so you know what might be possible outcomes at the macro level. Doing so helps avoid the Jurassic Park effect. Plus you get to watch Star Trek. What's not to like?

  • You heard population was stabilized or even declining, but those estimates were made assuming constant lifespan. The rule of thumb is for each 15 years of life extension the population increases by 2 billion. Here's the meme https://www.genolve.com/design... [genolve.com]

  • The drug is not recommended for anybody less than 30 years old.

  • People could eventually be able to turn the clock back on the cell-ageing process by 30 years, according to researchers who have developed a technique for reprogramming skin cells to behave as if they are much younger.

    This will be reality as soon as they solve the problem of those pesky facial tumors that keep cropping up.

Slashdot Top Deals

When it is incorrect, it is, at least *authoritatively* incorrect. -- Hitchiker's Guide To The Galaxy

Close