• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

Eliminating Defective Mitochondria


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 manofsan

  • Guest
  • 1,223 posts
  • 56

Posted 03 January 2007 - 06:26 AM


Hey, I just read about some species of bacteria that parasitically infects and attacks the mitochondria in cells:

http://www.the-scien...cle/home/36660/

So I'm wondering if these hungry bacteria (mito-phages?) could be reprogrammed to kill defective mitochondria in particular.

Comments?

#2 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:13 PM

Interesting idea. Will the cell spontaneously spawn new ones to replace those that get eaten?

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#3 John Schloendorn

  • Guest, Advisor, Guardian
  • 2,542 posts
  • 157
  • Location:Mountain View, CA

Posted 04 January 2007 - 08:57 PM

One problem with broken mitochondria is that they tend to take over postmitotic cells. So eventually you end up with cells that have mostly healthy mitos while others are completely depleted. Those cells can possibly be helped best with a constructive intervention that actually brings in new mitochondrial genes somehow (perhaps after "cleaning them out" with a mito-eater).

But then there is dysfunctional "giant" mitochondria, which possibly have become too large to be turned over by endogenous autophagy. Perhaps these could make make a good feast for a mito-eating bug...?

#4 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 04 January 2007 - 09:06 PM

I wonder just how much of aging can be bioremediated.. [wis]

#5 manofsan

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,223 posts
  • 56

Posted 05 January 2007 - 01:15 AM

Heh, we'll know once stem cells get off the ground. :)

#6 maestro949

  • Guest
  • 2,350 posts
  • 4
  • Location:Rhode Island, USA

Posted 05 January 2007 - 01:26 AM

And for those to get off the ground don't we need to know what cellular state mechanisms are inhibiting them from joining the fold so to speak?

Click HERE to rent this BIOSCIENCE adspot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#7 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 26 January 2007 - 08:50 AM

One problem with broken mitochondria is that they tend to take over postmitotic cells. So eventually you end up with cells that have mostly healthy mitos while others are completely depleted. Those cells can possibly be helped best with a constructive intervention that actually brings in new mitochondrial genes somehow (perhaps after "cleaning them out" with a mito-eater).

But then there is dysfunctional "giant" mitochondria, which possibly have become too large to be turned over by endogenous autophagy. Perhaps these could make make a good feast for a mito-eating bug...?


I once heard, not sure cause it was long time ago, that gingko reverted giant mitos back to normal looking/functioning mitos in mice. Haven't heard much more about that. But if it's true, we could use that.

#8 olaf.larsson

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 January 2007 - 05:03 PM

I guess that you all agree to the claim that we have very little knowledge of the mitochondria and mtDNA dynamics and that this is a serious problem if one is to make the puzzle of aging interactions complete.

#9 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 26 January 2007 - 07:15 PM

I guess that you all agree to the claim that we have very little knowledge of the mitochondria and mtDNA dynamics and that this is a serious problem if one is to make the puzzle of aging interactions complete.


Well, my opinion is this, that is most likely correct. But we've got the necessary data/information to solve this, right in front of us. We've got genomes, proteomes, metabolomes(human & draft) outhere. Even genomes from various species, and even distributed protein folding, and specialized supercomputers for such tasks. The problem is the freaking raw amount of data, the tedious tools we've been left with(probably those programmers lacked some passion/drive/motivation or something, dunnoh),we need to get/convince skilled and passionate people to deal with the various aspects of the problems at hand, and I think it's happening too, but as always collaboration is key and we've to find a way to make that work. The solution to the aging problem must not be something that is patented, nor must the means to reach it or enable it nor the know-how, it must be something for the people, for everyone from the poorest to the richest, from the infamous to the famous. Words despite being finite can convey the infinite(don't ask me how...), they are the key, communication. From funding to interface design, to data gathering to sharing, it's something that has to be done together. Groups of passionate individuals dividing the work that needs to be done with ever improving tools, ever increasing knowledge, ever increasing numbers, are practically equivalent to a superintelligence, they could actually be considered as such, imho.

Here's a quote from my molecular biology book that I found inspiring

Jacques Loeb in 1906:
Through the discovery of Buchner, Biology was
relieved of another fragment of mysticism. The
splitting up of sugar into CO2 and alcohol is no
more the effect of a "vital principle" than the
splitting up of cane sugar by invertase. The
history of this problem is instructive, as it warns
us against considering problems as beyond our
reach because they have not yet found their
solution.



#10 olaf.larsson

  • Guest
  • 583 posts
  • 21
  • Location:Sweden

Posted 26 January 2007 - 08:32 PM

I didnt say of mito dynamics was out of our reach or anything similar.
One good paper could be enough to explain it all. In fact im little surprised that it the details are not known yet.

#11 apocalypse

  • Guest
  • 134 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Diamond sphere

Posted 27 January 2007 - 02:47 AM

I didnt say of mito dynamics was out of our reach or anything similar.
One good paper could be enough to explain it all. In fact im little surprised that it the details are not known yet.


Yeah I know, but I was referring more to the aging problem in general. Like most, I believe more integration/collaboration and greater speed is possible in this quest, but it's going to require, as most have already said and as Aubrey's trying to accomplish, more man power, passion, and financial backing to achieve such.

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 27 January 2007 - 03:30 AM

Well, my opinion is this, that is most likely correct. But we've got the necessary data/information to solve this, right in front of us. We've got genomes, proteomes, metabolomes(human & draft) outhere. Even genomes from various species, and even distributed protein folding, and specialized supercomputers for such tasks. The problem is the freaking raw amount of data, the tedious tools we've been left with(probably those programmers lacked some passion/drive/motivation or something, dunnoh),we need to get/convince skilled and passionate people to deal with the various aspects of the problems at hand, and I think it's happening too, but as always collaboration is key and we've to find a way to make that work. The solution to the aging problem must not be something that is patented, nor must the means to reach it or enable it nor the know-how, it must be something for the people, for everyone from the poorest to the richest, from the infamous to the famous. Words despite being finite can convey the infinite(don't ask me how...), they are the key, communication. From funding to interface design, to data gathering to sharing, it's something that has to be done together. Groups of passionate individuals dividing the work that needs to be done with ever improving tools, ever increasing knowledge, ever increasing numbers, are practically equivalent to a superintelligence, they could actually be considered as such, imho.


That is well put.

Somebody once said that if all scientists would just work together and share their data, we could have cured cancer already. While that's just a hypothetical, the guy was onto something. The problem is, science is an incredibly human institution. It is driven by typical human emotions like need for recognition, status, and plain old greed. Occasionally people have created institutions where a greater than normal amount of good science gets done, because they have crafted an environment conducive to it. Often these places are technological Disneylands, where someone has at least partially eliminated the bad things that often go along with scientific jobs, like fighting for money, justifying your research to management, or spending endless hours in stupid meetings. Places like this are wonderful and fragile, and can be easily wrecked by a few jerks in the right (or wrong, more accurately) places. The one thing that really gives me hope is the Internet, and the growth of institutions like PubMed, Wikipedia, and PLoS, and of the open source concept. (Not to mention fora like this.) We are almost on the verge of having a university level science library at the fingertips of everyone in the developed world. A lot of knowledge is still locked up in the grip of profit making concerns like Elsevier et al. Science needs to complete the painful process of tearing itself away from the profit driven world of paper journals and go 100% electronic and free. That would be a start.

To book this BIOSCIENCE ad spot and support Longecity (this will replace the google ad above) - click HERE.

#13 solbanger

  • Guest
  • 215 posts
  • 11

Posted 09 December 2007 - 08:21 PM

Well, my opinion is this, that is most likely correct. But we've got the necessary data/information to solve this, right in front of us. We've got genomes, proteomes, metabolomes(human & draft) outhere. Even genomes from various species, and even distributed protein folding, and specialized supercomputers for such tasks. The problem is the freaking raw amount of data, the tedious tools we've been left with(probably those programmers lacked some passion/drive/motivation or something, dunnoh),we need to get/convince skilled and passionate people to deal with the various aspects of the problems at hand, and I think it's happening too, but as always collaboration is key and we've to find a way to make that work. The solution to the aging problem must not be something that is patented, nor must the means to reach it or enable it nor the know-how, it must be something for the people, for everyone from the poorest to the richest, from the infamous to the famous. Words despite being finite can convey the infinite(don't ask me how...), they are the key, communication. From funding to interface design, to data gathering to sharing, it's something that has to be done together. Groups of passionate individuals dividing the work that needs to be done with ever improving tools, ever increasing knowledge, ever increasing numbers, are practically equivalent to a superintelligence, they could actually be considered as such, imho.


That is well put.

Somebody once said that if all scientists would just work together and share their data, we could have cured cancer already. While that's just a hypothetical, the guy was onto something. The problem is, science is an incredibly human institution. It is driven by typical human emotions like need for recognition, status, and plain old greed. Occasionally people have created institutions where a greater than normal amount of good science gets done, because they have crafted an environment conducive to it. Often these places are technological Disneylands, where someone has at least partially eliminated the bad things that often go along with scientific jobs, like fighting for money, justifying your research to management, or spending endless hours in stupid meetings. Places like this are wonderful and fragile, and can be easily wrecked by a few jerks in the right (or wrong, more accurately) places. The one thing that really gives me hope is the Internet, and the growth of institutions like PubMed, Wikipedia, and PLoS, and of the open source concept. (Not to mention fora like this.) We are almost on the verge of having a university level science library at the fingertips of everyone in the developed world. A lot of knowledge is still locked up in the grip of profit making concerns like Elsevier et al. Science needs to complete the painful process of tearing itself away from the profit driven world of paper journals and go 100% electronic and free. That would be a start.


A lot of the life extension sites are advocating a Manhattan Project style approach. The internet can make this possible without Federal funding. It's just that the marketing of the possibility is taking time. For instance I recently saw an article on curing aging in Discovery, Scientific American as well as a business mag (forget which one). I think the PR exposure just has to keep consistent in order for the general scientific public to warm to the concept. Oddly, I think the average scientist is aware of the potential of medical technology. I remember asking a former biologist who switched careers to our office what he thought about a bird flu pandemic and the topic seemed to veer into life extension of mice using gene therapy! I also think that we as a community on this board have the power on an individual level to promote SENS and Singularity research on our own. I know that there are a couple video game designers that come here occasionally, someone could slip the suggestion to make SENS banners a part of their games like they do with Coca Cola and Pepsi sponsors. That would be a neat way to reach a younger audience.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users