A discovery about progeria has helped to connect 2 competing theories on aging:
http://www.the-scien.../display/38218/
LongeCityAdvocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans
Discovery Unites 2 Aging Theories
Started by
manofsan
, Dec 21 2006 04:58 AM
19 replies to this topic
#2
-
- Guest
- 146 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU
Posted 21 December 2006 - 05:51 AM
These results led Tom Kirkwood to write in this week's Nature: "We will need to move beyond essentially descriptive studies of what goes up and what goes down, and perhaps to immerse ourselves in the exciting but deep waters of systems biology." He read my mind! This is getting breakthrough-buzz, and researchers at the intersections of DNA repair, cancer, aging, and somatotrophic signaling need to pursue it with appropriately mobilized bellicosity, and I hope they do. But I must stress that I think the way is long and hard, and that concurrent approaches to anti-aging must not flag in the least.
#3
-
- Guest
- 146 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU
Posted 21 December 2006 - 06:05 AM
From the abstract of Niedernhofer et al. (2006):"This highlights a causal contribution of DNA damage to ageing and demonstrates that ageing and end-of-life fitness are determined both by stochastic damage, which is the cause of functional decline, and genetics, which determines the rates of damage accumulation and decline."
To me this single sentence dramatically unites two opposing views of aging intervention, without taking sides. Thus if we can call the seven deadlies "stochastic" and if we can consider genetics as determining the "rates of accumulation and decline", there is no reason at all not to have dedicated people working from both "directions"!
To me this single sentence dramatically unites two opposing views of aging intervention, without taking sides. Thus if we can call the seven deadlies "stochastic" and if we can consider genetics as determining the "rates of accumulation and decline", there is no reason at all not to have dedicated people working from both "directions"!
#5
-
- Guest
- 583 posts
- 21 ₮
- Location:Sweden
Posted 23 December 2006 - 02:54 PM
Do you have a clear idea what IGF acctually does to a cell, becouse I dont? If you look in a biology book IGF is said to promote "growth". But for example in a mature drosophila or C.elegans all cells are postmitotic as I understand it. So this "growth" is not cell multiplication as I understand it but rather increase in cell size?
#6
-
- Guest, Advisor, Guardian
- 2,542 posts
- 157 ₮
- Location:Mountain View, CA
Posted 23 December 2006 - 11:04 PM
True. The question is how should each of us distribute their limited resources? I.e. which "direction" is more feasible? How much would the already aged benefit from each? How do the answers differ for different damage-types? How limiting is each damage-type for survival?there is no reason at all not to have dedicated people working from both "directions"!
#7
-
- Lurker
- 1 ₮
Posted 24 December 2006 - 01:01 AM
Doesn't it stand to reason that if it is people we are trying to save then we should have a strategy for the old and a longer term strategy for the young? We can afford to be more creative with people that have 50 years left but what about people with 10 or 20?True. The question is how should each of us distribute their limited resources? I.e. which "direction" is more feasible? How much would the already aged benefit from each? How do the answers differ for different damage-types? How limiting is each damage-type for survival?
#8
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 1,223 posts
- 56 ₮
Posted 24 December 2006 - 01:34 AM
Seems intuitive to me that you want to catch the aging as far upstream in the process as possible. Those whose repair mechanisms are already defective/less-capable could be said to have a pre-disposition to aging. If you exposed them to high-UV sunlight, smoking, damaging free radicals, trans-fats, unsaturated fats, all the bad foodstuffs and preservatives, etc, then certainly one can blame exposure to these things as causing the age-related damage, but the fact is that their genomes were already more vulnerable/susceptible to the damage than the average person.
We should get an idea of what a healthy genome looks like, and then find ways to attain that genome, if you never had it in the first place.
We should get an idea of what a healthy genome looks like, and then find ways to attain that genome, if you never had it in the first place.
#9
-
- Guest
- 2,141 posts
- 23 ₮
- Location:Perth Australia
Posted 24 December 2006 - 06:13 AM
There needs to be a procedure to stop ageing. SENS aims to reverse ageing. I'd like to argue that we need both and I don't buy the argument that stopping ageing is more difficult than reversing it.
I'm happy with my body how it is right now and I don't want it to undergo any gene failure.
If there are personal and emotional (or even economic) reasons why people are pursuing reversing ageing instead of stopping it can we please bring this out into the open.
Obviously being 25 my emotional bias is towards therapies to stop ageing but someone that is 45 probably wants to reverse it. As long as we totally understand our positions and we talk about this openly we should be able to work out how to develop individualised therapies based on individual need.
The therapies developed for a young person may also benefit an older person as it could restore the bodies own repair functions.
I'm happy with my body how it is right now and I don't want it to undergo any gene failure.
If there are personal and emotional (or even economic) reasons why people are pursuing reversing ageing instead of stopping it can we please bring this out into the open.
Obviously being 25 my emotional bias is towards therapies to stop ageing but someone that is 45 probably wants to reverse it. As long as we totally understand our positions and we talk about this openly we should be able to work out how to develop individualised therapies based on individual need.
The therapies developed for a young person may also benefit an older person as it could restore the bodies own repair functions.
Edited by caston, 24 December 2006 - 06:33 AM.
#10
- Topic Starter
-
- Guest
- 1,223 posts
- 56 ₮
Posted 24 December 2006 - 06:51 AM
Well, to me, stopping aging and reversing aging are the same thing. I don't think any anti-aging supporter wants to see research on how to reverse the physical maturation/development process, turning an adult full-sized organism back into an embryo or an infant.
I think the Holy Grail or ideal goal is simply to have the genome and physical health of a 21 year old. That's supposed to be the approximate average age of peak health and ability, according to my understanding. It's from that point onward that we begin our physical decline.
But I think it would be worth comparing the genome of the 21-year-old with the genome of the 80-year-old, to be able to see how the genome has been affected by the aging process.
I think the Holy Grail or ideal goal is simply to have the genome and physical health of a 21 year old. That's supposed to be the approximate average age of peak health and ability, according to my understanding. It's from that point onward that we begin our physical decline.
But I think it would be worth comparing the genome of the 21-year-old with the genome of the 80-year-old, to be able to see how the genome has been affected by the aging process.
#12
-
- Guest
- 866 posts
- 0 ₮
- Location:Tucson, Arizona
Posted 24 December 2006 - 07:21 AM
Why not have "diff" for each year from 21-80?
I'd like to be able to compare the genome I have today with my genome each year from now.
US$10 million up for grabs to realize just that.
#13
-
- Guest, Advisor, Guardian
- 2,542 posts
- 157 ₮
- Location:Mountain View, CA
Posted 24 December 2006 - 08:42 PM
Ahh, you're onto me. The only reason I work on what I think could be reversing aging is that I really want to see a cute 21-year old Caston some day.If there are personal and emotional (or even economic) reasons why people are pursuing reversing ageing instead of stopping it can we please bring this out into the open.
#14
-
- Guest
- 146 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU
Posted 24 December 2006 - 11:08 PM
I'd like to be able to compare the genome I have today with my genome each year from now.
Then start saving tissue samples until somebody perfects cheap sequencing. Whenever you cut yourself shaving that should provide an opportunity.
#15
-
- Guest
- 1,996 posts
- 56 ₮
- Location:USA
Posted 25 December 2006 - 08:36 AM
I'd like to be able to compare the genome I have today with my genome each year from now.
Then start saving tissue samples until somebody perfects cheap sequencing. Whenever you cut yourself shaving that should provide an opportunity.
And how would those samples be preserved?
#16
-
- Guest
- 146 posts
- 1 ₮
- Location:University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, EEUU
Posted 25 December 2006 - 09:48 AM
And how would those samples be preserved?
Toilet paper should work just fine, assuming that the ultra-cheap sequencers of 2010 or 2015 or 2020 or whenever will work with very small amounts of genomic DNA. He could also take bi-monthly cheek/mouth-roof swabs (Q-tip scraped against the inside of the mouth) and keep them in Zip-Locs in the freezer for the next ten years (or whatever). BTW, I'm certainly not suggesting that he expend the energy to do any of this... Even if the technology enables this as hoped, being able to track genomic damage over the next ten years (or so) retrospectively may not help him out in any way... But having a lot of people do it, that might be something else to consider that could enable some pretty useful bioinformatics to complement ultra-cheap sequencing in the future... Large scale longitudinal retrospective analysis of genomic damage along with carefuly gathered biometric data covering the interval... But I am not saying that the pursuit of such a vision is a good use of limited resources... No telling how disruptive ultra-cheap and fast sequencing technology might be...
#19
-
- Guest
- 2,350 posts
- 4 ₮
- Location:Rhode Island, USA
Posted 08 January 2007 - 09:15 PM
Unless you were exposed to a mega-dose of radiation or crazy DNA mangling virus I would think that you'd be able to find some unmodified DNA somewhere in your system regardless how old you are.
I've considered snagging some various tissue and fluid samples from myself and preserving them. See this thread. Who knows what value young versions of fully functioning cells might have 50 years from now. Unfortunately, the more interesting samples are also the more difficult to obtain. I think it was John S that pointed out that simply differentiating stem cells might be easier and a more plausible alternative once the technique is perfected.
I've considered snagging some various tissue and fluid samples from myself and preserving them. See this thread. Who knows what value young versions of fully functioning cells might have 50 years from now. Unfortunately, the more interesting samples are also the more difficult to obtain. I think it was John S that pointed out that simply differentiating stem cells might be easier and a more plausible alternative once the technique is perfected.
#20
-
- Guest Shane
- 1,416 posts
- 0 ₮
- Location:Sydney, Australia
Posted 12 January 2007 - 05:34 AM
Regardless, you are only get the genetic samples from those collection of cells. Since you are looking at mutation, each cell will be different, thre will be no concensus. And each sample you take will be different...I'd like to be able to compare the genome I have today with my genome each year from now.
Then start saving tissue samples until somebody perfects cheap sequencing. Whenever you cut yourself shaving that should provide an opportunity.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
