Geneticists Claim Aging Breakthrough

Quirk writes "The Science section of The Guardian is reporting on recent experiments by geneticists 'to unlock the secrets of the aging process has created organisms that live six times their usual lifespan, raising hopes that it might be possible to slow ageing in humans.' 'In the experiment, Dr Longo's team took yeast cells and knocked out two key genes, named Sir2 and SCH9. The latter governs the cells' ability to convert nutrients into energy. They found that instead of dying after a week, the cells lived for up to six weeks.''Research has now begun to test whether the effect works in mice.' So it looks like we might soon have near immortal, fearless mice."

Comments

We have that already

[Chowser]

We have cells already that are not governed by the normal life/death cell cycle. It's called CANCER. Cancer cells have autononmous growth and multiply indefinitely.

Re:We have that already

[Chowser]

Yes I know, it was a purposeful oversimplification. My point was also showing that jumping from yeast cells to mice is overly optimistic at best, and that transferring such a mutation from a single cell organism to a mammal may lead to unforseen consequences.

Re:We have that already

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, jumping from yeast to mice is a fairly common thing to do in genetic research. I'm oversimplifying here as well, but the way genetic research often works is to start with a eukaryote model (yeast), then move to an animal model (like drosophila, or fruit flies), then a mammal model (mouse), before moving on to more complex mammals (with the ultimate goal being humans). Along the way, you might also pass through other species (one of my colleagues downstairs is all about sea urchins). Since each of these experiments can take a long time (though simpler organisms tend to be faster, which is why they're used), I suppose it would make sense to go straight from yeast to mice if you already know that these same genes are present.

It's astonishing how much genetic material is shared going all the way back to yeast, and how much genetic research is transferable. Yeast is a eukaryote (so, while single-celled, they have a nuclei, unlike bacteria), and though it usually reproduces asexually, it can be made to undergo meiosis and bind half its genetic material with that of a "mate".

Note: I am not a genetic researcher, but I work in the same research facility as some, and am encouraged to understand more or less what they do.

i know when we will see these benefits

[circletimessquare]

i know exactly when these amazing age-related breakthroughs will come to fruition for humanity

exactly at the age at which i am too old to partake of any of it

Oh, great more old people

[BobCat7]

At this rate I'm never gonna get to sit at the big table on Thanksgiving

Yawn

[ENOENT]

Where we can get fearless, immortal, FLYING mice, then I'll be excited.

Especially if they can also sing "Here I come to save the day."

Re:Hilander

[hunterx11]

What's the sequence of the gene the prolongs life for you and me? CTGACTGCATC!

And soon our scientists will say...

[teko_teko]

And soon our scientists will say stuffs like... Wernstrom: "Face it, Farnsworth, you're over the hill. It's time to leave science to the hundred-twenty-year-olds." Farnsworth: "You young turks think you know everything! I was inventing things when you were barely turning senile." Wernstrom: "Haha! Go home before you embarrass yourself, old man! Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a nap before the ceremonies."

Re:Hilander

[dgatwood]

I am Mickey McMouse of the clan McMouse, and I am immortal.

The only thing that will last longer than I will is the copyright on my face.

That's not a joke.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

i know exactly when these amazing age-related breakthroughs will come to fruition for humanity

exactly at the age at which i am too old to partake of any of it

That's not really a joke.

People in government see anti-aging research and treatments in terms of the financial load on the retirement and medical infrastructure relative to the tax base of still-working young, and view improved treatments as extending the life of the infirm aged rather than extending productive, vigorous youth. As a result they tend to be opposed to such research, or in favor of rationing its fruits if it ever has any.

(I recall back in the early days of CNN, when the head of one of the government agencies was being live-interviewed on future solvency issues as the boomers retired, and he slipped and said "We have to get the death rate up to meet the birthrate." Guess what part got clipped from the replay a few hours later...)

Life-extension advocates, of course, point out that real breakthroughs will extend healthy, vigorous life rather than simply stretching senility - and might eventually eliminate the latter entirely. Thus an effective attack on aging would reduce, rather than increase, the load on the systems (once they were adjusted for the increased lifespan).

You'll notice that a significant fraction of The Fine Article is dedicated to heading off such short-sightedness on the part of the portion of the ruling class that will be dispensing grant money and regulating availability of any treatments.

Re:Hilander

[corngrower]

All those jokes about anti-aging discoveries never grow old, do they?