Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: "The First Glimmer that We Could Live for Centuries"

  1. #1

    Default "The First Glimmer that We Could Live for Centuries"

    This is about as ballsy as I've seen any claim get of research suggesting human life span might be extended for a very long time. Usually these guys are very cautious owing to the snake oil suspicion of life-extension science. Indeed, wow.

    Cue Wiggin's wet blanket...


    Aging Is Reversible—at Least in Human Cells and Live Mice
    Changes to gene activity that occur with age can be turned back, a new study shows
    By Karen Weintraub on December 15, 2016


    New research suggests it is possible to slow or even reverse aging, at least in mice, by undoing changes in gene activity—the same kinds of changes that are caused by decades of life in humans.

    By tweaking genes that turn adult cells back into embryoniclike ones, researchers at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies reversed the aging of mouse and human cells in vitro, extended the life of a mouse with an accelerated-aging condition and successfully promoted recovery from an injury in a middle-aged mouse, according to a study published Thursday in Cell.

    The study adds weight to the scientific argument that aging is largely a process of so-called epigenetic changes, alterations that make genes more active or less so. Over the course of life cell-activity regulators get added to or removed from genes. In humans those changes can be caused by smoking, pollution or other environmental factors—which dial the genes’ activities up or down. As these changes accumulate, our muscles weaken, our minds slow down and we become more vulnerable to diseases.

    The new study suggests the possibility of reversing at least some of these changes, a process researchers think they may eventually get to work in living humans. “Aging is something plastic that we can manipulate,” says Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, the study’s senior author and an expert in gene expression at Salk. In their study Belmonte and his colleagues rejuvenated cells by turning on, for a short period of time, four genes that have the capacity to convert adult cells back into an embryoniclike state.

    In living mice they activated the four genes (known as “Yamanaka factors,” for researcher Shinya Yamanaka, the Nobelist who discovered their combined potential in 2006). This approach rejuvenated damaged muscles and the pancreas in a middle-aged mouse, and extended by 30 percent the life span of a mouse with a genetic mutation responsible for Hutchinson–Gilford progeria syndrome, which causes rapid aging in children.

    Because the Yamanaka factors reverse changes made to gene regulators, some scientists see the study as further evidence that aging is driven by epigenetic changes. “I do think that epigenetic reprogramming is the ultimate way to reverse aging,” says David Sinclair, a Harvard University geneticist and anti-aging researcher who was not involved in the study but is doing similar work. “My lab has a lot of evidence that the primary driver of what we call the hallmarks of aging is the epigenetic change.” Sinclair says his lab is preparing a paper explaining what causes these changes as we age.

    The Salk study was conducted on middle-aged mice. But in theory, reprogramming epigenetics should work on mice and people at any age, says first author Alejandro Ocampo, adding that even cells from human centenarians could eventually be rejuvenated. He and Belmonte say they think they can improve the efficiency and results of the technique with more research—and that they can undo the epigenetic changes responsible for aging by using easier-to-handle chemicals instead of the Yamanaka factors, hopefully moving toward the possibility of treatment for people.

    Matt Kaeberlein, a molecular biologist at the University of Washington who studies aging but was not part of the work, says other researchers have found that the Yamanaka factors can rejuvenate cells—so in some ways this study is not surprising. But Kaeberlein says no one else had yet shown that the factors can treat age-related diseases in an animal by making the same changes. “That’s the wow factor,” he explains.

    Kaeberlein says the study suggests it may be possible not just to slow aging but to actually reverse it. “That’s really exciting—that means that even in elderly people it may be possible to restore youthful function,” he says. Plus, it is easier to imagine a treatment that makes changes to the epigenome than to consider going into every cell and changing its genes. He also notes that the results of the new study are very similar to those seen when senescent cells—those that have lost function due to aging—are removed from an organism. It is not yet clear, he says, whether “this is another way to shut down or maybe reprogram senescent cells.”

    Manuel Serrano, an expert on senescence at the Spanish National Cancer Research Center in Madrid, was not associated with in the new research but says he is impressed with the study and its results. “I fully agree with the conclusions. This work indicates that epigenetic shift is in part responsible for aging, and reprogramming can correct these epigenetics errors,” he wrote in an e-mail. “This will be the basis for future exciting developments.”

    The study also showed how fine the line can be between benefit and harm. When the researchers treated mice continually, some developed tumors and died within a week. When the scientists cut the treatment to two days out of seven, however, the mice benefited significantly. Sinclair says this should be taken as a note of caution by anyone trying to increase the human life span. “We’ve all been playing with fire,” he says, adding that this fine line will make it challenging to get a drug approved by regulatory agencies. “This is going to be what we spend the next 10 years figuring out: how to reprogram cells to be young again without taking it too far so they become tumors.”

    Both Sinclair and Kaeberlein say they wish Belmonte’s lab had shown that a normal mouse could live longer after the gene tinkering—instead of just reversing an aging-related illness.

    Belmonte, like some other anti-aging researchers, says his initial goal is to increase the “health span”—the number of years that someone remains healthy. Extending life span, the number of years someone remains alive, will likely take longer to achieve. Most major killers, including heart disease, cancer and Alzheimer’s, are diseases of aging that become far more common past middle age. “This is not just a matter of how many years we can live but how well we can live the rest of our life,” Ocampo says.

    Belmonte says his team is also trying to determine if aging is a process that occurs simultaneously throughout the body. Or, as he puts it, “Is there some tissue that regulates aging—and when that goes bad, the entire organism goes bad?” He says they currently think the brain’s hypothalamus—known as the seat of control for hormones, body temperature, mood, hunger and circadian rhythms—may also act as a regulator of aging.

    Other approaches that have been discovered to have anti-aging benefits in animals include calorie restriction, the drug rapamycin and parabiosis—the practice of giving old mice a blood supply from younger ones. The fact that these diverse strategies all seem to work suggests there may be more than one way to age, and that multiple complementary therapies may be needed to significantly extend longevity, Kaeberlein says.

    Some compounds such as resveratrol, a substance found in red wine that seems to have anti-aging properties in high concentrations, appear to delay epigenetic change and protect against damage from epigenetic deterioration, Sinclair says. These approaches can reverse some aspects of aging, such as muscle degeneration—but aging returns when the treatment stops, he adds. With an approach like the one Belmonte lays out in the new study, theoretically “you could have one treatment and go back 10 or 20 years,” he says. If aging starts to catch up to you again, you simply get another treatment.

    “This work is the first glimmer that we could live for centuries,” Sinclair says, adding that he would happily do so himself: “Forty-seven years went by pretty quickly.” (AMEN, BROTHER!)
    Link: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...and-live-mice/
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by EyeKhan View Post
    This is about as ballsy as I've seen any claim get of research suggesting human life span might be extended for a very long time. Usually these guys are very cautious owing to the snake oil suspicion of life-extension science. Indeed, wow.

    Cue Wiggin's wet blanket...
    I seriously clicked on this thread with the intention of being a 'wet blanket' but now I feel bad.

    I skimmed the original article in Cell (I can read in more detail later if someone really wants a sophisticated analysis). The science appears fairly sound but the extrapolation in the SciAm piece seems wildly optimistic. I have no doubt that epigenetics are indeed involved in aging and that tranfection with OSKM factors can help ameliorate this. I think the study was really interesting in that they were able to delay death in a disease model and had some modest success in treating two very specific injuries in WT mice; the in vivo aspect is quite novel.

    That being said (wet blanket alert!), translating this to humans is likely to be very challenging. Not just because of the fact that they used genetically engineered mice to carry out the studies, but also because human aging is a complicated thing and there is little evidence that what works in slowing aging in a mouse will work in a human. Moreover, the authors notably did not demonstrate extension of a normal mouse lifespan despite the fact that it's an obvious experiment to do; it's entirely possible that it didn't really do the trick.

    Lastly, I think some perspective is necessary on the aging issue. There are a lot of different things that go into the ways our bodies fail us. Yes, some of it has to do with damaged cellular processes that might be restored by epigenetic 'rejuvenation' of one sort or another. But there are a huge number of other processes involved that are not likely to be completely (or even partially) addressed by this treatment. For example, the biggest killers in the elderly - by far - are cardiovascular disease and cancer. CV disease is mostly due to physiological and environmental factors that seem largely inevitable - given a long enough time, you will develop atherosclerosis, though there are ways to delay its onset. I find it highly unlikely that you'd be able to prevent (or, better yet, reverse) atherosclerotic lesions using this kind of technology. Similarly, cancer is inevitable - eventually your cells will accumulate enough deleterious mutations that one of them will become cancerous. One could imagine that epigenetic reprogramming might keep DNA repair machinery working in better condition for a bit longer, but the onstoppable march of ionizing radiation and probability mean that eventually we'll all get cancer if we don't die of anything else.

    I guess my point is that true dying of 'old age' - you know, where most organ systems just fail - is still quite rare. If we can't lick the problems that kill most of us before we really reach senescence, I question how relevant this will be. Furthermore, even if we managed to address the other big killers, I seriously doubt that we're going to get to 'centuries' any time soon. Aging is incredibly complicated and epigenetic regulation is just one part of a very big story. Even if we figure out most of the things that appear to be killing us now, I think we're going to continue to find new and increasingly more intractable problems as we age. For example, right now a substantial proportion of people are still moderately mobile when they die. As we get older, though, wear and tear on our musculoskeletal system (which was hardly designed for more than a few decades of use) is going to tell - our current best orthopedic treatments work for, at best, a few decades before you are stuck in a wheelchair for the rest of your life. That's fine when most people don't need orthopedic help until their 50s or 60s, but it's a real problem when your average lifespan gets up into the 100s. Or cue in neurological issues (neurodegenerative diseases just being one part of a much bigger problem), or metabolic syndromes, or whatever. There are so many different systems in our body that fail in new and creative ways as we get older that I think effective extension of human lifespan much past 100 or so is going to get increasingly difficult.

    I'm not saying it's impossible - far from it! - just that it's going to be slow, and hard. A much more achievable goal is to use some of these technologies to improve the quality of the last few decades of life - and I think some of the lessons from this study can arguably be applied much more reasonably to such a goal.
    "When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)

  3. #3
    If enough rich people decide they want to live forever, serious resources could be thrown at the problems Wiggin says about
    When the sky above us fell
    We descended into hell
    Into kingdom come

  4. #4
    The article does mention the researcher's goals are to improve human "health-span," giving people a better quality of life in the life-span they have rather than extending life. And I agree it's almost certain that new extended-age-related diseases will be revealed should we get past the current life-span limits. But this is pretty neat, anyway. I'd be very happy just to have a health-span improvement, but another life-time would be nice too, especially if there were some whole-body tissue regeneration available.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    If enough rich people decide they want to live forever, serious resources could be thrown at the problems Wiggin says about
    The more they puzzle out these mechanisms and show a way forward for life extension, likely the more resources will be put toward it. Right now the sci-fi BS factor associated with this kind of work drives money and researchers to other fields.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  6. #6
    Of mice and men, huh.

    Right now it's possible for humans to live to 115 yrs old. Why would we want to live any longer than that?

    Back in the "dark ages", when people died at age 40, they were likely already grandparents. People used to procreate for different reasons, but it was mostly future-oriented. Human DNA has always found its way forward, and with today's technology....shouldn't that mean we should be LESS concerned about longevity?

  7. #7
    Is there any sense of how epigenetic changes may impact brain function and memory? Seems like that would be a big limiting factor assuming one could manipulate genetic changes with regards to organ function.

  8. #8
    I don't think they've gotten anywhere near that far in studying this. Based on the article, I don't believe there are any actual genetic changes being made. The treatment seems to clean up accumulated "garbage" (adding/ removing gene regulators) which inhibits the normal functioning of cells, and allows them to rejuvenate to a healthier, "more youthful" state. Whether that works on brain tissue is a subject for future research, since this study was specific to muscle tissue. But extrapolating from what they have seen so far, which is a big hopeful guess, the potential is for the treatment to be broad spectrum, working on all tissues, including brain.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •