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

Photo
- - - - -

lobby for lifespan tests when toxicity tests are performed


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 AgeVivo

  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 01 July 2009 - 09:32 PM


It seems to me that there is a simple trick to largely progress towards life extension:

TODAY
  • Do you know how long standard lab mice live? ... about 2 years and a half on average; most die between 2 and 3 years old (similar with rats)
  • Do you know how long toxicity/carcinogesis tests last in rodents? ... 2 years; probably because old age did not interest people when toxicity tests where initially designed
  • Do you see the trouble? ... Because of these 6-12 months of test lacking,
    for most drugs and chemicals that are around us* we have no idea of their impact on lifespan!!!
TOMORROW
  • Could it be different? ... Yes, technically it seems easy: simply don't stop toxicity/carcinogenesis tests so early. Everything is already in place, simply don't stop the experiment (at least when no severe drawbacks are found after 2 years; that's such a shame!)
  • How to make it change? ... I'm not sure yet. Perhaps first contacting the NTP. Perhaps C.E.L. might want to participate. I thought it is such a specific subject with such a potential impact for life extension that it deserves its own thread. I'm still surprised that it might be so simple. I'm awaiting your reactions :|w
*: the ones that passed toxicity/carcinogenesis tests

Edited by AgeVivo, 01 July 2009 - 09:52 PM.


#2 AgeVivo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 03 July 2009 - 09:33 PM

simply don't stop toxicity/carcinogenesis tests so early

i meant lobbying such that the new norm becomes that when such tests reveal good they are continued to also get lifespan statistics

#3 caliban

  • Admin, Advisor, Director
  • 9,150 posts
  • 581
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 July 2009 - 01:46 AM

Thanks for your suggestion AgeVivo.

Any scientist working in this field is unhappy about the sparse availability of aged and old rodent models. However, spaces in an animal house are limited and expensive. Who would pay for the extra upkeep and who would do the research that you suggest?
Top be clear, are you aiming to lobby policy makers to introduce a 'lifespan' testing requirement in preclinical studies?

#4 brokenportal

  • Life Member, Moderator
  • 7,046 posts
  • 589
  • Location:Stevens Point, WI

Posted 07 July 2009 - 03:29 AM

I think that ideas like yours are an excellent way to help engage the scientists and science students and the like around here more. I hope your persistence holds until more of these kinds of ideas take root because they are great, and once they do take root, a variety of ideas like them will be more likely to begin to proliferate more and more around here.

#5 AgeVivo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 07 July 2009 - 07:59 AM

To be clear, are you aiming to lobby policy makers to introduce a 'lifespan' testing requirement in preclinical studies?

yes, completely.

Any scientist working in this field is unhappy about the sparse availability of aged and old rodent models.

it would certainly help that change

However, spaces in an animal house are limited and expensive. Who would pay for the extra upkeep and who would do the research that you suggest?

The same ones who do the toxicology test. Everything is already is place (people, animal, treatments, materials, methods) so the extra cost and time is minimal and the data/cost ratio is optimal. Also animals are better used, rather than killed when they are 2 years old.

#6 AgeVivo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 08 July 2009 - 09:10 PM

A. Based on the National Toxicology Program (NTP):
Contacts: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/index.cfm?objecti...0032407A834B400
  • Imagine: lifespan tests with 50 animals per group, at 3 doses, for both sexes, and mice and rats !!!

    From http://ntp.niehs.nih...9A7F9CAA57DD7F5 :
    The NTP long-term toxicology and carcinogenesis studies (bioassays) in rodents generally employ both sexes of rats (Fischer 344/N or Wistar Han) and mice (B6C3F1 hybrid) with three exposure concentrations plus untreated controls in groups of 50 animals for two years.

  • For many products!!!

    Two-year studies in laboratory rodents remain the primary method by which chemicals or physical agents are identified as having the potential to be hazardous to humans.

  • Methylene blue is an example of product for which 2 years was obviously TOO SHORT:

    Posted Image

    Where is the right-hand side of the graph? :)
    Methylene Blue has since been recognized to extend [human] cell-lifespans, and is now being considered for MPrize @ home: http://www.imminst.o...showtopic=21310 ...
  • 274 such NTP studies are found on pubmed
    By searching "National Toxicology Program"[Corporate Author]
    You can access them one by one at http://ntp.niehs.nih...tml?col=010stat
    Example: MB: http://ntp.niehs.nih...BE2C5310A792BB3
B. There is more:
  • All big pharmaceutical companies do such tests, afaik today their results are in general not easily accessible
  • Many chemicals are also tested, for example with the REACH European regulations: http://ec.europa.eu/...reach_intro.htm
C. Conclusion:
LIFESPAN MATTERS...
MANY products are ALMOST tested on lifespan...
* DON'T STOP TOXICITY TESTS SO EARLY! *
(...or start with 1 year old animals...)

Edited by AgeVivo, 08 July 2009 - 09:43 PM.


#7 treonsverdery

  • Guest
  • 1,312 posts
  • 161
  • Location:where I am at

Posted 11 August 2009 - 07:23 PM

I like this idea

#8 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 18,997 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 27 August 2009 - 08:49 PM

Another valuable idea that the recorders would like to revisit in the future.

#9 AgeVivo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 19 September 2009 - 05:20 PM

I posted the idea in GRG and got very usefull feedback:

a) machines for "virtual necropsies" are needed

Most animals are examined by necropsy after toxicity studies, so lifespan
studies are difficult. If "virtual necropsies" were performed, using
various imaging techniques
, the cost/benefit ratio would be much better.

they are in fact needed because many (most of the N=50) animals are needed to statistically detect effects on survival: continuing the toxicity tests with *a few* animals that do not have necropsy is not an alternative.

b) PET scans might do the trick

In studies looking for cancer, PET scans using 16F fluorodeoxyglucose could be used to detect cancer without hurting the animal. This is done all the time in humans and is also sometimes done in animals.


c) Contacts: tell them about the project if you meet them!

it doesn't seem like a bad idea, particularly when longevity studies
are becoming more common and so drug discovery groups may be willing to pay
a little more to see if there's an effect on longevity.

A preclinical CRO could pitch the study option to a potential client that
1/10th of the animals in a toxicity study will not be necropsied, but will
be kept for longevity studies (the client would decide the dosing regimen).
There still would be increased costs due to the animal husbandry,
additional compound, etc. The CRO could determine the price and make an
appropriate quote. Maybe you could find a funding source willing to
subsidize the added cost in exchange for making the results
publicly-available in a database.

Among the larger preclinical CROs you could mention the idea to are Charles
River Laboratories, SRI International, and Pacific Biolabs
.


Don't hesitate to discuss about the project with people working there, don't hesitate to post their answer here! The more we are, the better

#10 AgeVivo

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest, Engineer
  • 2,110 posts
  • 1,555

Posted 10 October 2009 - 10:07 AM

the above post from feifan looks like a spam
PET scans cost much, but it's really worth asking around how to extend toxicity tests into lifespan tests.




23 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 23 guests, 0 anonymous users