Researchers Rejuvenate Skin Cells of 53-Year-Old Woman To the Equivalent of a 23-Year-Old's (bbc.com) 63
An anonymous reader quotes a report from the BBC: Researchers have rejuvenated a 53-year-old woman's skin cells so they are the equivalent of a 23-year-old's. [...] The scientists in Cambridge believe that they can do the same thing with other tissues in the body. The head of the team, Prof Wolf Reik, of the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, told BBC News that he hoped that the technique could eventually be used to keep people healthier for longer as they grow older. [...] Prof Reich stressed though that the work, which has been published in the journal eLife, was at a very early stage. He said that there were several scientific issues to overcome before it could move out of his lab and into the clinic. But he said that demonstrating for the first time that cell rejuvenation is possible was a critical step forward.
Prof Reik's team used [a method, called iPS, that involves adding chemicals to adult cells to turn them into stem cells] on 53-year-old skin cells. But they cut short the chemical bath from 50 days to around 12. Dr Dilgeet Gill was astonished to find that the cells had not turned into embryonic stem cells -- but had rejuvenated into skin cells that looked and behaved as if they came from a 23-year old. He said: "I remember the day I got the results back and I didn't quite believe that some of the cells were 30 years younger than they were supposed to be. It was a very exciting day!"
The technique cannot immediately be translated to the clinic because the iPS method increases the risk of cancers. But Prof Reik was confident that now it was known that it is possible to rejuvenate cells, his team could find an alternative, safer method. "The long-term aim is to extend the human health span, rather than the lifespan, so that people can get older in a healthier way," he said. Prof Reik says some of the first applications could be to develop medicines to rejuvenate skin in older people in parts of the body where they have been cut or burned -- as a way to speed up healing. The researchers have demonstrated that this is possible in principle by showing that their rejuvenated skin cells move more quickly in experiments simulating a wound. The next step is to see if the technology will work on other tissues such as muscle, liver and blood cells.
Prof Reik's team used [a method, called iPS, that involves adding chemicals to adult cells to turn them into stem cells] on 53-year-old skin cells. But they cut short the chemical bath from 50 days to around 12. Dr Dilgeet Gill was astonished to find that the cells had not turned into embryonic stem cells -- but had rejuvenated into skin cells that looked and behaved as if they came from a 23-year old. He said: "I remember the day I got the results back and I didn't quite believe that some of the cells were 30 years younger than they were supposed to be. It was a very exciting day!"
The technique cannot immediately be translated to the clinic because the iPS method increases the risk of cancers. But Prof Reik was confident that now it was known that it is possible to rejuvenate cells, his team could find an alternative, safer method. "The long-term aim is to extend the human health span, rather than the lifespan, so that people can get older in a healthier way," he said. Prof Reik says some of the first applications could be to develop medicines to rejuvenate skin in older people in parts of the body where they have been cut or burned -- as a way to speed up healing. The researchers have demonstrated that this is possible in principle by showing that their rejuvenated skin cells move more quickly in experiments simulating a wound. The next step is to see if the technology will work on other tissues such as muscle, liver and blood cells.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whoopee! (Score:5, Informative)
Overpopulation is a myth. If anything the world is severely underpopulated.
I think you meant to say the population is severely underdeveloped. The planet is most certainly overburdened by the current human population (if we use a robust Western standard of living as our baseline—probably necessary to achieve the security required for low-to-negative population growth), which is universally what people mean when they use the word "overpopulated."
Re: (Score:1)
The western standard of living is sustainable if we didn't use fossil fuels. If we used nuclear or solar, it would be totally sustainable. Only a tiny percent of the earth's surface needs to have solar panels and we would have more than enough energy for everyone. Also, with improvements in lighting and computer technology energy consumption per person can start reducing with no lifestyle changes. The ideal solution is to develop nuclear energy, especially nuclear fusion, but people are afraid of the N word
Re: (Score:3)
That's just energy. What about all the plastic in the sea? And all the other crap the human race is doing to the planet?
The western standard of living is not sustainable at almost any level.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You said
Your argument reads as, "the Western standard of living is unsustainable because non-Western nations are making a mess." And it reads that way because it is exactly what you said.
in response to
That's just energy. What about all the plastic in the sea? And all the other crap the human race is doing to the planet? The western standard of living is not sustainable at almost any level.
Please explain, how in HELL did you get "non-Western nations are making a mess" (emphasis mine) from the comment you replied to?
Re: Whoopee! (Score:5, Informative)
Please explain, how in HELL did you get "non-Western nations are making a mess" (emphasis mine) from the comment you replied to?
Not the original poster, but I think it was in reference to your "What about all the plastic in the sea?" statement. Most of the plastic in the sea does not come from western nations (a full 1/3 comes just from China and Indonesia* [statista.com]) so to blame the plastic pollution in the ocean on the "western standard of living" when you should be blaming it on the "eastern standard of living" probably rubbed the GP the wrong way.
* https://www.statista.com/chart... [statista.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Most ocean garbage not from first world. (Score:2)
I always found it far fetched that first world nations were responsible for all the ocean waste, we generally do a good job with our waste disposal meanwhile it's third world nations that actively practice ocean dumping. Turns out I was right to be suspicious, the vast majority of the garbage in the sea is from Asian developing nations so not those enjoying a Western standard of living at all https://www.reusethisbag.com/a... [reusethisbag.com]
This is a problem that can absolutely be solved by these people obtaining a Western
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whoopee! (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Whoopee! (Score:2)
Define energy intensive. In my opinion, desalination, even with todays technology, is not all that energy intensive. I believe the current overall cost, of which energy is one part, is around 50 cents per cubic meter of water in some countries like Saudi Arabia. Meaning even with todays technology a few solar panels per person could easily generate the water they need. And by water they need I include the water needed for growing their food. Add to that graphene based desalination membrane filter technology
Re: (Score:2)
Populations are growing fastest where lifespans are shortest.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd. I must not exist.
Granted, having no libido due to being asexual has some part to play in that-- I have 0 interest in sexual activity of any kind-- but saying I do not exist is just not kind, yo.
I am perfectly fine to shake my fist at you breeder types though. ;)
Re: (Score:1)
I heard theyre calling her Babraham Lincoln now.
Re: (Score:1)
Consider that if people lived longer then that effectively increases the range of interstellar travel with our current technology. I say that colonizing other planets can offset the impact on this planet's resources much more easily if people aren't afraid they're giving up most or all of their lifespan to get to another planet.
hey /. boys (Score:5, Funny)
I'm going to have the skin of an 11 year old boy. Before you get too excited I'll be dry with eczema and have hives from mosquito bites and poison ivy.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the hard way to do it. (Score:5, Funny)
The easy way to get the skin of a 23 year old woman is to use the hose to get it to rub the lotion on.
Re: (Score:1)
It adds the lotion to the basket.
What, you think _I'm_ going to pay for it? That stuff is really expensive.
Dupe story. (Score:5, Informative)
But better written with more information. As I wrote previously, all techniques like this risk cancer. As people age they accumulate genetic damage, but because they are old, the cells stop reproducing. That is what we call age - the cells stop making new, younger ones. A single cell (or hundred) scatter about your body that have stopped doing what they are supposed to do is not a problem. Even if they are heart cells. Even if they make a few copies, it isn't a problem. They call it benign.
But if those cells suddenly become young enough to reproduce then they turn into a huge mass of cells, called a malignant tumor. This Cancer is a parasite that absorbs your nutrients without doing any work.
Basically, age is just one of natures way of turning malignant cancers into something you can live with. If we didn't have cancer there would be much less reason for cells to age.
All of this only applies to multi-cellular organisms. Single cells can never grow into a mass, so they can live forever without worrying about a parasitic neighbor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Dupe story. (Score:5, Informative)
Tress get cancer, they just don't die of it as easily as humans do.
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: Dupe story. (Score:2)
Isn't that partly what makes an 'annual' an 'annual' instead of a 'perennial'?
In Florida, for example, we don't have winter to kill things like marigolds. But... if you plant marigolds & just leave them for a year or two, they get REALLY 'scraggly' & 'unhealthy-looking' after their first bloom, and start getting weird growths on them that look like what I envision 'plant cancer' looking like. Ditto, for lettuce & corn. I tried planting them once, and let one of each just keep growing. After a fe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dupe story. (Score:3)
SIde effects? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cells have a determined lifespan, as after repeated cell divisions, DNA replication errors occur. Errors are proportional to cancer.
Maybe having the cells age protect us from cancer.
No such thing as a free lunch.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No such thing as a free lunch.
Oh trust me. It definitely will not be free. Rates will depend upon credit rating and collateral.
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean no such things as a free lunch. Look around you, humanity has managed to extend average lifespan. We can detect and fix replication errors. Cancer too will be cured. In fact 99% of cancers caught in Stage I can be cured. The numbers flip when the cancer is caught in stage IV .. but there are many cancers that can already be cured even at stage IV and newer technologies and approaches are coming onstream that will cure most cancers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but over the last 100 to 150 years the survival rate of all age groups except the oldest has dramatically improved. [ourworldindata.org]
Let’s see how life expectancy has improved without taking the massive improvements in child mortality into account. Child mortality is defined as the share of children who die before reaching their 5th birthday. We therefore have to look at the life expectancy of a five-year-old to see how mortality changed without taking child mortality into account. This is shown by the yellow line. In 1841 a five-year-old could expect to live 55 years. Today a five-year-old can expect to live 82 years. An increase of 27 years.
The same is true for any higher age cut-off. A 50-year-old, for example, could once expect to live up to the age of 71. Today, a 50-year-old can expect to live to the age of 83. A gain of 13 years.
Re: SIde effects? (Score:2)
First, have a look at the medical reports documenting the chronic conditions the founding fathers faced. Second, even if life expectancies at any given age have improved over what it used to be. Yes, at the older ages we have not improved dramatically yet, but if you look at the age at deaths of the founding fathers, it is clear the modern presidents live quite a few years longer. Most of them aside from John Adams died in their 80s.) Sure, John Adams got to 90, but no other president until Herbert Hoover m
Re: SIde effects? (Score:2)
A third point is that the presidents who were elected previously tended to be older (for the most part) therefore life expectancy at that age gives them a higher chance at loving longer. But even so, more of our recent presidents got to their mid or late 90s. Whereas none of the pre-1970s presidents did.
Re: (Score:1)
> Maybe having the cells age protect us from cancer.
Correct. Having cells that age and reset on new births does protect the human species. But it kills the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Cells have a determined lifespan, as after repeated cell divisions, DNA replication errors occur
This is not true because of telomerase.
Re: SIde effects? (Score:1)
so? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Love the 'chair!
Nuke-Us-All!
mull up (only locals will get it)
So I get -30 years and a cancer... (Score:2)
Nice...
Already patented... (Score:2)
Surely this is just copying work already done by the boffins at Laboratoires Garnier?
bacta tanks (Score:2)
so basically they've created a proto bacta tank...
So, this will work for my 53 year old woman? (Score:4, Interesting)
And don't anybody tell her I said this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry. As you get older, older women look a lot more attractive. Young women keep getting younger. Today some of them are not even women LOL.
Impression (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only two areas med-sci is allowed to advance. (Score:2)
Once upon a time, medical science cured diseases. Since nature hasn't fundamentally changed, the total failure to repeat the successes with smallpox and polio tells me the problem is on our end.
Cancer Factory (Score:2)
All these treatments are impossible in vivo because they cause wild amounts of cancerous tumors. The reason your body doesn't do this naturally is because it causes cancer. You live longer with senescence than without it. This has been the consistent conclusion of all experiments of this kind. Virtually all the tricks that can make an animal live long have been flipped on in humans by evolution already. It's why we're one of the longer lived species already.
In order for a human to live longer you would hav
Re (Score:1)