Slashdot Mirror


Aging Discovery Yields Nobel Prize

An anonymous reader writes This year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is awarded to three scientists who have solved a major problem in biology: how the chromosomes can be copied in a complete way during cell divisions and how they are protected against degradation. The Nobel Laureates have shown that the solution is to be found in the ends of the chromosomes, called the telomeres, and in an enzyme that forms them."

35 of 187 comments (clear)

  1. Good find by MistrX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's great news however how are we going to solve the population crisis when the Earth gets too small?

    I always knew I was going to be 512 years old before I die. :]

    1. Re:Good find by NoYob · · Score: 2, Funny

      What, you live in binary years? So, you'll die when you're 0x200?

      --
      It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
    2. Re:Good find by Dunbal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well of course the wealthy elite will be allowed to breed and live longer, while the serfs will be culled at regular intervals, through war, etc.

      Business as usual, really. The more things change, the more things stay the same.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    3. Re:Good find by dword · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Some say it got small a long time ago, because it can support around 500.000 humans at the rate we're "eating" its resources.
      Source.

    4. Re:Good find by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Funny

      breed and live longer

      There's the important phrase. As long as you don't breed, there is no economic problem with your living forever. Good news for Slashdot denizens, not such good news for Catholics.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:Good find by corbettw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If that number were anywhere close to accurate, we would have massive amounts of starvation across the globe, considering the current population is more than 12,000 times the number you provided for the theoretical max population.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:Good find by DrLang21 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's also worth pointing out that the starvation we do have is not for lack of food production.

      --
      I see the glass as full with a FoS of 2.
    7. Re:Good find by Yvan256 · · Score: 5, Funny

      More importantly; as people get wealthier the amount of children they have drops down, for example I am an only child and so is my cousin.

      And some people never have any children, such as my parents.

    8. Re:Good find by ChromeAeonium · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always hate it when people go on about how the world is going to collapse due to overpopulation but forget to take into account that the number of people the earth can sustain is not set in stone. Sure, infinite population growth on a finite world, its going to happen eventually, but in the foreseeable future, its not a problem. We were all supposed to have starved years ago. Borlaug proved that more than everyone, as long as we keep our agricultural practices and plants current (no sliding backwards in the fear of undefined 'toxins'), thay it is more than possible to produce the required amount of food. People getting that food is another story, but the physical production, that we can do.

  2. Re:Sooo by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We need to remove the copy protection first, then there will be many.

  3. OK by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 5, Funny

    So they've changed the chromosome code to encode data using a lossless codec instead of a lossy one. Terrific, now we have to put up with people moaning about the lack of FLAC encoding in their music AND genes.

    Thanks a bunch, stupid scientists.

  4. Re:Sooo by rubycodez · · Score: 2, Funny

    actually, the number of retiring people who are invalids is statistically insignificant when considering load on earth's resources. the major problem is people just like you. so if you could kindly "take one for the team", so to speak, and better yet snuff a couple of your friends before you check out, we the remaining population will be most grateful.

  5. Re:Sooo by cashman73 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, you can be immortal if you want. But part of the problem is that, in order to achieve immortality, you have to keep adding guanines to your telomeres. The problem with that, is that it gives you cancer,... ;-)

  6. Re:Sooo by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Better than being dead.

    You really think so? I tend to think that there are certain fates that are worse than death.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  7. Re:Sooo by nomadic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can you imagine being immortal like Duncan, and being buried alive? Assuming the soil was to hard to be clawed through, it would be an awful way to spend an eternity.

    Nothing is too hard to claw through given enough time.

  8. I would settle for... by Vanderhoth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I would settle for being put to death at 85 to keep population under control, if it meant my bones, mussels and organs didn't age. One of the worst thing about watching someone get old is to see their self reliance taken away and needing someone to help them into and out of the bath, change their diaper, feed them and put them to bed. THE worst thing is realizing someday it could and probably will happen to you.

    It's sad but you start off with needing someone to look after you and that's how it ends, if you live that long.

    1. Re:I would settle for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would hate to have my mussels age too. They really are better fresh.

    2. Re:I would settle for... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      One of the worst thing about watching someone get old is to see their self reliance taken away and needing someone to help them into and out of the bath, change their diaper, feed them and put them to bed.

      Speak for yourself.

      I had to change my kids' diapers. Turnabout is fair play.

      I, for one, look forward to being a burden to my family and making them change my diaper.

  9. old news by Tim4444 · · Score: 4, Informative
    The summary makes this sound like a recent discovery but this has been known for some time. Also, it has more to do with cell aging than human aging. It's very important in cancer research since abnormal telomere activity is one of the factors in making cancer cells immortal (so to speak). They mention this in TFA. BTW, senescence is (naturally) programmed cell death:

    Most normal cells do not divide frequently, therefore their chromosomes are not at risk of shortening and they do not require high telomerase activity. In contrast, cancer cells have the ability to divide infinitely and yet preserve their telomeres. How do they escape cellular senescence? One explanation became apparent with the finding that cancer cells often have increased telomerase activity. It was therefore proposed that cancer might be treated by eradicating telomerase. Several studies are underway in this area, including clinical trials evaluating vaccines directed against cells with elevated telomerase activity.

    1. Re:old news by ashtophoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that the article makes it sound recent and I got misled too before reading TFA. But can you explain why you differentiate between cell aging and human aging? Isn't human aging a consequence of cell aging?

      --
      Life is about being a Phoenix!
    2. Re:old news by KraftDinner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm not sure where you are seeing that the summary sounds like it's a recent discovery. The only thing would be that the scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize this year, which is true. And yes, you're right, this discovery is not recent. Of course, it sometimes takes decades for people to be awarded a Nobel Prize for work they did decades ago.

    3. Re:old news by herring0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From what I recall of genetics, the cellular aging is (partially) what leads to shorter life spans and increased age related problems in clones. If you are cloning an animal it is kind of like making a copy of a copy since the telomeres are actually a part of the chromosomes they are transferred into the new host.

      This leads to the telomeres being extended far beyond their 'normal' lifespan and you end up with all kinds of abnormalities that usually wouldn't be present until the subject is much older even though they still look young.

      If nothing else, this discovery should help in the research of cloned animals and livestock, etc. But take all this with a grain of salt...I've not been involved with genetics for the better part of 12 years.

    4. Re:old news by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anyone who pays attention to how science Nobels are awarded knows that they're generally given for older work which has shown to be important over time. So anyone who thinks the story is calling it a new discovery, and criticizes it on that basis, is pretty much making an ass of himself.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  10. Speak for yourself by arcite · · Score: 5, Insightful
    There was a story out the other day saying that 50% of the people being born now in developed countries will reach age 100.

    So Speak for yourself if you want to jump off a bridge at 85. I work with several incredibly bright people who are in their mid 70's who still travel the world. With the advent of information technology we can even do our work without being physically active, just a computer and internet access.

    By the time I turn 85 in the 2050's, it will be the new 55! I'll race you to the top of the mountain.

    1. Re:Speak for yourself by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Once people start living to be 1,000 or so then it begins to influence behavior in many ways. Things that have an acceptable risk now become absurdly dangerous. Over time, nearly everyone you know who dies does so from some tragic accident. Things like drinking and driving, motorcycles, small planes, crossing a busy street against the light, etc. all become too risky.
      The minimum age for voting, driving, drinking all go way up. We're all just skulls full of mush at 21 and have no business making important decisions. (The age for enlistment in the armed forces of course stays the same, as nobody else would actually do it.)

      General health care becomes much more important, as does nutrition and controlling obesity. Smoking of course is right out. This is only scratching the surface, but everything takes on a longer-term view, and no doubt ultimately we're better off for it.

  11. Re:Sooo by Vanderhoth · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's the cycle. The baby boomers retire, the supporting population is to small to sustain them, the world gets flung into chaos for a few decades and/or we learn to deal, the boomers start dying off, there is another period of prosperity because the future generations have learned to be efficient, future generations slowly for get how to be efficient as it's no longer required to support a large aged population, future generations start having multitudes of children, cycle starts over.

  12. Re:Sooo by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    New slashdot poll?

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  13. Re:Sooo by MyLongNickName · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Sorry for the reply to myself. If you have never read "I have no mouth, and I must scream", it is very applicable. It is a classic of the science fiction genre, and a well written dystopian story.

    This is the only link I could find. I know I have seen it in others...
    http://web.archive.org/web/20070227202043/http://www.scifi.com/scifiction/classics/classics_archive/ellison/ellison1.html

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
  14. Re:Sooo by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Interesting

    For instance, being immortal but still aging.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  15. Re:Bio 101 by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Nobel prizes are never awarded for new work, they are awarded for work you did sufficiently far in the past that it has been extensively peer reviewed and tested and is now accepted as being one of the bits of scientific knowledge that everyone in the field knows. This one is being awarded for work originally published around 1980 (as it says in TFA). Others have now tested this the published results in sufficient detail that it is now something that almost everyone with any awareness of biology knows.

    A Nobel Prize is not like a 'best paper in conference' award. You don't get it for new and exciting theories, you get it for theories that have withstood careful examination and testing. If the LHC finds a Higgs Boson then Peter Higgs will almost certainly get a Nobel, for the work that he did predicting it back in 1964.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  16. Where are we with Viral Immortality? by Adustust · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I was actually wondering how viral technology was evolving. I'm far from a biologist, so correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't we able to reverse engineer and create our own viruses in laboratories now? Doesn't a virus take over your cell and reprogram it with the code wrapped up in the virus itself? It starts making the cell pump out tons of new viruses which ultimately bursts the cell and kills it. How much more difficult would it be to create a virus with your DNA from saved blood at age 20 (say your 60 now), program it to hijack the cell and reprogram it with the new DNA? There would have to be a few modifications made, for example, making it invisible to your immune system, coding the virus to die after reprogramming the cell, etc. Then just fill up an IV and let them flow into your body. I'm sure there's a huge difference from the kind we can engineer versus the type I'm suggesting, but is it possible? Or would the temporary pause of cell function during the reprogramming phase kill you?

    1. Re:Where are we with Viral Immortality? by myc · · Score: 2, Insightful

      no, engineered viruses are nowhere near that advanced. Most viruses are limited by payload; there is a limit to how much DNA (or RNA) you can engineer into a viral particle. (not unlike a BIOS virus I suppose). Also, the viruses that are able to modify the host genome do so at random locations, so it is hard to precisely control where you want a particular modification to occur. And, the virus only modifies a very small portion of the host genome. Finally, most viruses are highly picky as to what kinds of cells they will infect. For instance, HIV will only target helper T cells in the immune system. Engineering HIV to, for instance, infect cytotoxic T cells (another type of white blood cell that is similar but distinct) will never work, because as far as HIV is concerned a cytotoxic T cell is no different than a kidney cell (that is, it's not a helper T cell).

      --
      NO CARRIER
    2. Re:Where are we with Viral Immortality? by reverseengineer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Viruses have very small genomes in comparison with the human genome; many viruses get by with fewer than ten genes, while we have around twenty thousand. In addition, viruses don't arrange their genes in structures anything like the chromatin we use. Packaging a replacement human genome to infect human cells would require a vector so completely re-engineered from what we would currently recognize as a virus that we'd probably want to call it something else. Getting that infection procedure to work without killing the patient is far, far beyond current technology, and I'm not sure that it would confer biological immortality anyway. Your mitochondria have their own little genome, separate from that of the nucleus, which would be difficult to replace with a virus- and mitochondrial aging may play a significant role in producing the outward effects of human aging. If you turned your mitochondria off, you would die very quickly- the effect would be as if you had been poisoned with cyanide.

      It is possible to add very small numbers of genes using viral vectors- human gene therapy is something that may indeed take off in years to come. There are presently many difficulties with using viruses to insert genes- you can use a retrovirus to insert the gene permanently into the genome, but it's hard to control insertion, so it's possible to get many copies- or none- in a given cell. Genes may also insert themselves in the middle of other genes, causing all sorts of deleterious effects.

      --
      "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
    3. Re:Where are we with Viral Immortality? by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > There would have to be a few modifications made, for example, making it invisible to your immune system,

      That's just what we need... a human-engineered virus that is completely invisible to your immune system. There is no way THAT could ever cause any problems as it mixed with other viruses in the wild.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  17. Re:Sooo by dissy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes, you can be immortal if you want. But part of the problem is that, in order to achieve immortality, you have to keep adding guanines to your telomeres. The problem with that, is that it gives you cancer,... ;-)

    I think I would gladly take cancer if I was assured it was not going to kill me due to being immortal ;}