Slashdot Mirror


"Cell Executioner" Gene

slantyyz writes: "A fascinating and possibly scary scientific discovery -- Toronto scientists have discovered a "chisel of life" gene that kills cells. Apparently this ancient gene, dubbed AIF [apoptosis (death) inducing factor] is found across all forms of life and acts as a cell executioner. While this could have uses in killing cancer cells, it could potentially open the discovery of a true fountain of youth." Nature has more, if you're a subscriber.

3 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. "Living forever".. unlikely.. longer, maybe. by xtal · · Score: 5

    Ok, for starters: I really recommend that anyone interested in this stuff pick up a (modern) book on biology and genetics, there's a lot of stuff been discovered in the past 10 years, and we're only just scratching the surface. (Someone will make a lot of money selling computers to process all that info :).

    This gene has been predicted (if not known about) for some time. It's needed, because your cells die all the time, they're supposed to. Over time, you get problems - errors - in DNA, and this is one of the problems with making cells that duplicate forever, eventually, they won't do the same things anymore (IIRC, brewing companies need to change the yeast they use periodically, because mutations that occur over time change the taste of the beer). The cells in yeast aren't all that different from the cells in your own body! (Actually, anyone who has problems with evoloution would be shocked at how much your cellular processes are (identical) to any other furry mammal).

    The biggest application of this kind of technology is the real limit on human lifespan - brain cells. We can eventually replace almost everything else, somehow, but your brain is what and who you are. Once it deteriorates, you're not the same person anymore. Figuring out how to prevent brain cells from dying - brain cells are unique, in that they do not reproduce, ever - just the supporting (gidal?) cells do.

    Nobody will be living forever until nanotech becomes rampant - no other mechanism to repair nerve and cellular damage is possible (and even then, it might not be enough). I wouldn't mind retaining my mental facilities until I reach the end of my lifespan, though. If you figure you'll probably live to 80, but will be signifigantly handicapped after 60 or 65, that's a 15 year productive increase.

    --
    ..don't panic
  2. Immortality this ISN'T by Mr.+Obvious · · Score: 5
    Excuse me if I'm doing y'all an injustice, but I get the feeling that all you folk talking about immortality (e.g. "who wants to live forever". etc.) could not have read the article(s). I've only read the one at theStar.com (I don't subscribe to Nature), but it is pretty clearly stated there why this cannot be used for immortality (at least not without a few more breakthroughs added to it). I quote:
    Still, Penninger and his colleagues did not know how important the gene was. So, following common scientific practice, they tried to produce genetically engineered mice lacking AIF to see what would happen.

    They couldn't.

    When the team sat down to analyse why they couldn't breed the mice, they discovered the mice never grew beyond the embryonic stage. Cells didn't die off to make room for the next stage in development.

    All living things, plants, animals and humans, must have cell death to develop beyond an embryo. And fully formed living things must have controlled cell death to stay healthy. For instance, people lose millions of skin cells every day.

    [Emphasis added.]

    The rest is also quite interesting. Read it!

    Ron Obvious

  3. Clarification for those who say it's old news by sacremon · · Score: 5
    Yes, apoptosis has been known for some time.

    What the article is describing is the discovery of a factor that leads to apoptosis apart from the previously elucidated mechanism, which involves a protein (cytochrome c) leaking out from the mitochodria into the cytosol of the cell, where it shouldn't be. Essentially, if the cell detects that, it knows that the there is something terribly wrong, and it should suicide - which is essentially what apoptosis is.

    Now, it had been arleady known that there was another mechanism, because if they knocked out the genes responsible for the known mechanism, they could still get apoptosis, though not as readily. This lead to the search of what was causing it. This article describes that discovery, which is AIF.

    Interesting work. The reason that this is a more likely candidate that the previous method for fighting cancer is that cytochrome c is a very large, complex protein. Injecting it into cancer cells to initiate apoptosis would be difficult, to say the least. I didn't see enough of the article to see how large AIF is, but I bet it is smaller, and may be easier to get into cells that cystochrome c.

    The thing that has me curious is if they could knock out the gene temporarily. They showed that cells were less likely to induce apoptosis under conditions of serum deprivation (starvation). Starving cells is one of the steps toward prepping the nucleus for use in cloning. If they keep more of the cells alive during that process, they might have a better success rate in cloning.

    Chew on that one for a while.

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.