Pregnancy May Increase Biological Age 2 Years - But Some End Up 'Younger' (science.org) 29
Slashdot reader sciencehabit shared this report from Science magazine:
Nurturing a growing fetus requires a series of profound physical, hormonal, and chemical changes that may rewire every major organ in the body and can cause serious health complications such as hypertension and preeclampsia. But does being pregnant actually take years off your life...?
Today in Cell Metabolism, scientists report that the stress of pregnancy can cause a person's biological age to increase by up to 2 years — a trend that may reverse itself in the months that follow. In some cases, the authors write, those who breastfeed their children after giving birth may end up biologically "younger" than during early pregnancy. The finding represents yet another piece of "compelling" evidence that events during and after pregnancy can have far-reaching health consequences, says Elizabeth Bertone-Johnson, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who wasn't involved in the new study...
The discovery that biological aging isn't necessarily a linear process "came as a real surprise," says Kieran O'Donnell, a perinatal researcher at the Yale School of Medicine... But blood samples from 68 participants, collected 3 months after giving birth, revealed a dramatic about-face. Although being pregnant had initially aged their cells between 1 and 2 years, says O'Donnell, their biological age now appeared to be 3 to 8 years younger than it had been during early pregnancy — with different epigenetic clocks algorithms providing slightly bigger or smaller estimates.
Today in Cell Metabolism, scientists report that the stress of pregnancy can cause a person's biological age to increase by up to 2 years — a trend that may reverse itself in the months that follow. In some cases, the authors write, those who breastfeed their children after giving birth may end up biologically "younger" than during early pregnancy. The finding represents yet another piece of "compelling" evidence that events during and after pregnancy can have far-reaching health consequences, says Elizabeth Bertone-Johnson, an epidemiologist at the University of Massachusetts Amherst who wasn't involved in the new study...
The discovery that biological aging isn't necessarily a linear process "came as a real surprise," says Kieran O'Donnell, a perinatal researcher at the Yale School of Medicine... But blood samples from 68 participants, collected 3 months after giving birth, revealed a dramatic about-face. Although being pregnant had initially aged their cells between 1 and 2 years, says O'Donnell, their biological age now appeared to be 3 to 8 years younger than it had been during early pregnancy — with different epigenetic clocks algorithms providing slightly bigger or smaller estimates.
seems to be nonsense (Score:1)
other studies say lifespan is increased, even adopting a child increases lifespan. this might have to do with being more conscientious about health and eating behavior?
https://www.mpg.de/14064449/ch... [www.mpg.de]
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation is not causation.
Re: (Score:1)
On the other hand correlation might reveal causation though.
So it seems: Single and no kids? You'll die younger. Gay? 9 years lost at least, Bi even more.
Mother nature is a bitch, get with the program or get weeded.
Re: (Score:2)
> other studies say lifespan is increased, even adopting a child increases lifespan.
Yeah, I was surprised from your link how much more adoptive parents profit than birth parents.
> seems to be nonsense
In this study, they're using epigenetic changes to track biological age rather than life span (or mortality risk) but their results actually don't contradict the study you linked to:
"blood samples taken during early, mid, and late pregnancy, they found unusually high amounts of chemical wear and tear. Tha
I heard pregnant women are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what you heard, but baby cells can only stay baby cells, they can't become mommy cells,
Sez who?
There's been evidence for some time that post-pregnancy mothers often have clones of stem cells derived from the previous foetus. Sure such a clone would likely start out with its epigenitc programming set for whatever function it had in the baby's development (unless, say, some error in its differentiation is what led to it migrating to the woman's body to set up shop). But once established on the
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, the other AC has no clue: https://www.scientificamerican... [scientificamerican.com]
In this new study, scientists observed that microchimeric cells are not only found circulating in the blood, they are also embedded in the brain. They examined the brains of deceased women for the presence of cells containing the male âoeYâ chromosome. They found such cells in more than 60 percent of the brains and in multiple brain regions. Since Alzheimerâ(TM)s disease is more common in women who have had multiple pregnancies, they suspected that the number of fetal cells would be greater in women with AD compared to those who had no evidence for neurological disease. The results were precisely the opposite: there were fewer fetal-derived cells in women with Alzheimerâ(TM)s. The reasons are unclear.
See also foetal microchimerism:
https://www.nationalgeographic... [nationalgeographic.com]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/... [sciencedirect.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I have no documented empirical evidence, but my wife did have a significant health issue that 'magically' disappeared after our first child was born. Given that there's no other known natural repair process for what she had, I certainly attribute it to fetus-supplied stem cells.
Maybe women ought to be storing cord blood not for their children, but for periodic self-injections.
Re: (Score:3)
I have no documented empirical evidence, but my wife did have a significant health issue that 'magically' disappeared after our first child was born. Given that there's no other known natural repair process for what she had, I certainly attribute it to fetus-supplied stem cells.
I've been told this is common. My wife had medical issues only when pregnant as well. I have a sister-in-law that only needed glasses when she was pregnant. Pregnancy does some wild stuff to the body.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not go through the placenta.
Re: (Score:2)
Do not go through the placenta.
Why?
It would be bad.
I'm fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, "bad"?
Try to imagine all peaceful life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your house turning into a pile of used nappies.
Total lifestyle reversal.
Right. That's bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip, don't go through the placenta.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, since you seem to be on something: "They do not go through the placenta". Clearer now?
They would actually kill the mother pretty fast by a massive immune reaction if they were to go through it.
Re: (Score:2)
And they can cause immune reactions. Or unexpected growths. See AC's links: https://science.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org] or just try searching for "fetomaternal transfer" or "fetal stem cells in mother".
Naive researcher? (Score:5, Interesting)
"The discovery that biological aging isn't necessarily a linear process "came as a real surprise," says Kieran O'Donnell"
Seriously? I doubt there are many adults around who haven't seen someone age years in a short space of time due to constant stress perhaps down to some kind of life crisis or bereavement, or perhaps even happened to them.
And look at what the stress of being in charge does - both Obama and Tony Blair aged quite significantly during their terms in power, more than would be expected by the number of actual years passed.
Re: Naive researcher? (Score:3)
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing about Mary Barra of GM.
She looksâ¦. Tired.
Re: (Score:2)
They are not mathematicians. The term they were looking for is "monotonous", but that would have sounded weird.
Re: (Score:2)
Meth ages people like crazy. It's insane how much older someone looks after just a few years use.
Risks and rewards of pregnancy (Score:5, Informative)
Women can gain better immunity, healing, even new cells for their brains. But they can loose if this results in an auto-immune disease -- women are 4X more likely than men to get many autoimmune diseases.
Re: (Score:2)
And if, as the study shows- the stress of the 9 months of pregnancy is equivalent to two years of life, and the woman only gets back a large portion of that investment with engaging in breastfeeding- then does a late-term abortion also abort the positive portions of birth and breastfeeding?
Colloquial Evidence (Score:4, Interesting)
reality is non-linear (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the number of systems which are like that, I don't think that anything in nature is linear, apart from the human mind ;)
True, reality is likely Gaussian, and that's why Gaussian functions occur so frequently in nature. [wikipedia.org]
Epigenetic tests aren't reliable (Score:3)
There's no evidence that changing the markers (due to pregnancy or drugs) has an effect on lifespan. Just like adding maggots won't make a corpse older.
I don't know about that (Score:2)
But the next 18 years will sure take a toll on one's well being.
Re: (Score:2)
yea I was about to say the next 2 years of living in sheer survival mode for the majority of people far outweighs any possible benefit.
Fountain of Youth (Score:3, Funny)
Step 2: Breastfeed 6 months -Get younger by 3 years
Step 3: Give the baby away for adoption before the terrible 2s hit and take years off your life Step 4: Live forever