Couch-Potato Gene Found In Mice

syousef writes "Good news for those of us who are prone to putting on weight sitting in front of a computer screen. The Sydney Morning Herald is reporting on research which shows that changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice that don't get fat and are able to run for hours. They believe this has the potential to lead to a pill to turn similar genes on in humans. From the article: '"It is a pill that, in part, mimics exercise. It mimics the metabolic activity associated with exercise," said Ronald Evans, of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, who led the study. Writing in the journal Public Library of Science Biology, Dr Evans and colleagues said they tweaked the PPAR-delta gene to stay in a permanently "on" position and then genetically engineered mice with it. They expected to see changes in metabolism but were surprised at how extensive they were.'"

Comments

I didn't know they were looking for it.

[keiferb]

I've got it. I could've saved them a lot of time...

For how long...

[Drunken_Jackass]

I wonder what the new life expectancy of these super metabolizers is.

Re:For how long...

[nomel]

According to this article, longer!

From the article:
" Mice with a high metabolism live longer than their low-metabolism counterparts, a finding that conflicts with a long-held theory of aging and suggests new approaches to extending lifespan."

is this the same as

[ashot]

this?

Re:is this the same as

[Jesrad]

Hmm, no. The link you provide talks about a way to deprive monkeys of the "satisfaction of work done", so they keep working and working because they never "feel" their work is done. It acts on the pleasure/reward circuit in the brain.

The pill discussed in this here article, though, is about forcing the metabolical effects of exercise (developing of muscles, turning of fat into readily-usable energy, etc...) without exercising. It acts on the metabolism.

Couch potato gene eh?

[MarkGriz]

Sounds interesting, but I'm too lazy to RTFA.

*twitch* *twitch* CHEESE!

[kmahan]

I'm sure my boss would like to see me spending my time running through the maze of the cube farm looking for cheese.

Fear

[oKtosiTe]

This all sounds very promising, but if it would be all good and all, why didn't a mutation in the past turn this gene on? There must be a downside, because it seems to me the organisms with this gene haven't evolved the way it looks now.

Re:Fear

[spacecowboy420]

We don't stop evolving, maybe it just hasn't been time yet. Maybe it wasn't neccessary for survival to be as pronounced.

I for one welcome our synthetically buff overlords.

Re:Fear

[Wtcher]

Well, a being that's constantly spending energy would have to constantly restore its reserves of energy. That is, it would have to be scrounging around for food all the time, which could be dangerous to its health due to predators and other hazards. Also, you need to think about the environment in which the being would need to live - perhaps it is an environment that doesn't offer an abundance of food. At that time, staying still and conserving energy until it really does need replenish its energy stores (fat, etc) does make better sense.

Keep in mind I'm not a biologist or anything fancy like that.

Re:Fear

[nine-times]

...a being that's constantly spending energy would have to constantly restore its reserves of energy....Keep in mind I'm not a biologist or anything fancy like that.

Well, it's a good theory anyway. Scientists have speculated that our energy conservation and fat stores have evolved into us. Perhaps as we were travelling around (you know, spreading out all over the globe, you never know what you're in for) or perhaps through surviving periods of famine, we developed the tendancy to pack on the fat as a means to protection against starvation. Other proposed possibilities include that our higher level of body fat than other primates may have come from migration into colder climates or perhaps even from needing the ability to swim (higher body fat means greater insulation and buoyancy).

I don't know the current state of any of these theories (whether they're currently in vogue or not), but it seems to me that your overall point, that this may have been evolved into us because it was advantageous, is dead on. Evolution is not always towards what we would think is "better". Some scientists have even speculated that aging is caused by a mutation and that it was advantageous because it caused the population and gene pool to be "refreshed", so to speak. Some animals don't really age in a way that we can measure (or so I've read).

Re:Fear

[nine-times]

We don't stop evolving, maybe it just hasn't been time yet. Maybe it wasn't neccessary for survival to be as pronounced.

Well, with evolution, you kind of have to think of everything that exists as being "added in". What I mean is, this isn't a switch, always off, waiting for us to "evolve" to the point of switching it on. To think that way implies that we have some "superior human" in our genes, waiting around for "evolution" to flip some pre-existing switches. According to all theories of evolution that I'm aware of, no trait exists unless it is useful in some way, and evolution doesn't wait around for the right time to express a useful trait.

What we have here is a case of your body evolving a means of self-regulation, your body saying, "I'm not going to use all my energy, I'm going to save some and store it up in fat." It's not a failure to use energy, it's a positive act of conservation. The fact that this trait exists at all would mean that it is/was specifically useful in some way.

Now, there is an argument that homosapiens are so effective at surviving that our physical evolution has become stagnant, in which case we may need to take it upon ourselves to control our genetic expression somewhat. What I mean is, perhaps the reason for obesity is that we aren't properly evolved to sit in front of a computer screen all day. That there isn't strong natural selection killing off those who balloon up under our current lifestyle means that we probably won't evolve on our own to the life of abundant food and little exercise. Perhaps we can cause changes in ourselves which would help the situation.

That's one line of thought, anyway. Whatever we do, though, I'd advise a lot of good thought, taking different perspectives into account, and caution. Lots of caution.

dupe.

[numbski]

I couldn't find it, but I know I read this here last week. The article stated that by switching the gene they went from procrastinators to workaholics.

Unless they're different genes, in which case we could go from being procrastinating couch potatoes to workaholic super-athletes.

Yikes.

Ahh.. that explains it

[El Micko]

I've been wondering about the outstanding swimming and cycling results the Aussies are having/had at the Olympics..

If we (Australia) beat the French it will be all worth it.

Wait a minute...

[databoing]

Isn't that just what the mice want us to think? I mean, after all, this planet is THEIR experiment.

and I quote...

[boisepunk]

changing a single gene in mice turns them from couch potatos into super-athlete mice that don't get fat and are able to run for hours

Read: ADD/ADHD

One thing here

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like to bust a move into this debate which is sometimes assumed and rarely taken.

Evolution is not "progress" it is adaptation. This is such a key concept that many of people miss. Things evolve back and forth according to their environment.

Humans, as a cognative creature, subvert this partially - in that physical evolution is trumped by cognative evolution. But even cognative evolution is trumped by social evolution. You can be much more stupid, but if your society (a meta-organism if you will) has better schools/educative practices you will pwn the smarter ones. Some of the debates about us pwning the neanderthals go into this - us using our social power to beat them.

But returning to the point, there are many scientists and activists who believe that there is some predetermined greatness we are heading towards and that genetic engineering allows us to press fast forward on so to speak. This tripe. We aren't "heading" anywhere, we are adapting to environments. So anyone who uses this technique to justify what they want to do to humans, is using a bs argument.

This makes people like advocate aborting disabled babies (like the philosopher singer) true monsters as they are saying that the natural randomness of evolution (which may or may not give the defect holder an advantage and take over the gene pool) is wrong and that there is a "true" course to our travels - which there simply is not.

Anyway, the "laziness" gene is there in some people for a reason, it's there because it is part of a process of adaptation. When we turn it off we are not "doing what is natural and taking away a "defect"" we are subverting people's natural states. This is dangerous to do without thinking about it. What happens when certain political ideologies become "defects" - anything to do with behaviour/mind and genetics over mere survival (I don't oppose fixing people with genetically busted livers etc.) is a dangerous propsition.

I am not opposing it outright, but it needs to be thought through carefully with a mind to what evolution really means (adaptation) rather than falling in with the cheerleaders of "progress" and starting to modify everything.

Anway, a word of caution - as it is our generation who will set the playing field for the future on this one. And jokes and such that take these issues lightly are ok, but being entirely conservative (in the sense that humour always pulls us back to, or away from, a "norm") ties us to the discourse of "progress" - which is simply not the reality of evolution. Anyone who says otherwise is making a loaded truth claim as to what "normal" is.

Re:One thing here

[HalfFlat]

Just on one point: I think you are seriously misrepresenting Singer's position.

His argument is not at all based on considerations of directing evolution or eugenics, despite some strange arguments to the contrary [1]. On the contrary, it follows logically from two propositions: firstly that we should minimize suffering, all other things being equal; and secondly, that a foetus is not a person in the sense of a it being a rational self-conscious being, and so questions of its abortion do not infringe upon other ethical considerations that are restricted to that class of beings.

That abortion should be performed in order to shape the genetic profile of a population simply doesn't come in to it.

[1] One argument for example is that eugenicists predicated their arguments on a reconsideration of the sanctity of human life based on scientific and utilitarian ideas, and that Singer's stance on abortion is also predicated on such a questioning. To say that this means the two stances are the same is quite clearly fallacious.

Re:How can a pill?

[Icarus1919]

They're not saying they're changing the genetic code, they're saying they want to activate the gene. Big difference. Changes in body chemistry activate and deactivate genes in our cells all the time, and while not a simply matter, it is quite possible to invent a pill that would turn the gene into the on position while the drug is in out body. We'd have to keep taking the pill, though, as the change wouldn't be permanent.

Re:A pill can't replace real exercise

[PainKilleR-CE]

Just like winning $100,000 at the lottery can't replace working hard to get those $100,000

Yeah, but if I can get $100,000 for buying a $1 ticket instead of working a year or two, I'll take the lottery money and keep on working.

Similarly, if I can turn my metabolism up a few notches without the months of working out 7-20 hrs/week that it normally takes me to do so, I'll gladly take the pill and reduce my work-out schedule to simply that which I need to gain the muscle mass I want. At the same time, if their research is correct, it would be much easier to actually put in that time in the gym.

No laziness no perl no progress

[mattr]

Obviously this is anti-evolutionary dehumanizing stuff. It is human to want to sit back and tell other people to do the work, this would mean you work your ass off forever. You burn more calories, and just work work work. Whereas laziness is a virtue for perl programmers (and maybe many other pursuits) that is, the point is not to do nothing but to use the minimum amount of time needed and just focus on the fun part.

I first thought maybe I should sign up for this gene thing but now I think it is scary. It is the kind of thing a future corporate suit collective could easily launch in a closed environment.. just making sure the managers don't get dosed. Presumably current outsourcing is based on a gradient in standard of living but when everyone is at the same standard then what? Will outsourcing contracts require genetic testing in the future? I'd rather have the switch to turn something like that on and off myself, or have no such gene at all and just hypnotize myself to clean the house and love it periodically. I think getting married probably would do that too.. not?

Re:How can a pill?

[cft_128]

Always wondering, in genetic marketing speeches, how they can pretend that a pill or any process can change genetic code in an already grown being. To change a gene in my body, they'd have to reprogram billions of cells, one by one

Check out in vivo gene therapy. One approach is to use viruses to do the work, many of which already insert new DNA into our cells (HIV, chicken pox, herpes, etc). It's still in its infant stages but is very interesting.