Slashdot Mirror


Flatworms Defy Aging Through Cell Division Tricks

An anonymous reader writes "Researchers from The University of Nottingham have demonstrated how a species of flatworm overcomes the aging process to be potentially immortal. The discovery, published (abstract; full text PDF) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is part of a project funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council and Medical Research Council and may shed light on the possibilities of alleviating aging and age-related characteristics in human cells." After finding the gene for telomerase synthesis in the worms, the researchers were able to observe that the worms "...dramatically increase the activity of this gene when they regenerate, allowing stem cells to maintain their telomeres as they divide to replace missing tissues."

106 comments

  1. Trade off by funtapaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder what they sacrifice for this? I'm guessing they are highly prone to cancer or something. I'm nature I doubt they live long enough for problems like that to manifest.

    1. Re:Trade off by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The trade off? They're highly prone to being a flatworm.

    2. Re:Trade off by cshark · · Score: 0

      I want one!

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    3. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There can BE only one!

    4. Re:Trade off by Culture20 · · Score: 2

      There can BE only one!

      That could be problematic if flatworms regenerate their heads.

    5. Re:Trade off by macraig · · Score: 1

      That's what the worm-snarfing Sheriff of Nottingham is still saying now!

    6. Re:Trade off by cshark · · Score: 1

      I hate to get technical, but do worms even have heads?

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    7. Re:Trade off by EdIII · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hate to get technical, but do worms even have heads?

      Sure. It's the one the shit does not come out of.

    8. Re:Trade off by macraig · · Score: 1

      Tell that to a worm when he's recovering from last night's bender.

    9. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe instead of cutting each others heads off, they just continuously eat each other until they return to being the proto-flatworm now neo-flatform with all that experience added up.

    10. Re:Trade off by witherstaff · · Score: 1

      Didn't you ever dissect a worm in a bio class? Small little brains but they can be found easy enough.

    11. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      That would be all of it.

      "Unlike other bilaterians, they have no body cavity, and no specialized circulatory and respiratory organs, which restricts them to flattened shapes that allow oxygen and nutrients to pass through their bodies by diffusion."

    12. Re:Trade off by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 4, Funny

      I hate to get technical, but do worms even have heads?

      Sure. It's the one the shit does not come out of.

      And thus they shall never be elected to public office...

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    13. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 5, Informative

      In humans, telomeres limit cells to ~50 divisions, which is probably related to how DNA replication is only 99.9998% accurate. After that many divisions, the genome is 0.001% different from when it started, which is one error per 10,000 base pairs, or an error in 1/3 of all genes. This is in addition to the slow rate of spontaneous mutations you accumulate over your lifetime.

      In general, fatal mutations don't matter, the stem cell will just divide again (or be dead), and cells are specialized so only a small number of genes are relevant. Furthermore, cells work together, so if two nearby cells have different lineages then they have different errors, and can likely compensate for each other. Still, you don't want too many errors in your cell replication control genes (i.e. protooncogenes ==> cancer), nor can cells function well with a tremendous number of errors (i.e. "aging"). Telomeres also help divvy-up the workload among stem cells so the most eager doesn't monopolize the work.

      For flatworms, all this likely entails a fast mutation rate. So what if 90% of its offspring die? The one that takes hold in a new host can produce thousands of offspring, and quickly changing their immunologic profile increases the odds of that.

    14. Re:Trade off by Empiric · · Score: 1

      "What has 18 legs, and isn't going anywhere?"

      --
      ~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
    15. Re:Trade off by c0lo · · Score: 2

      I wonder what they sacrifice for this? I'm guessing they are highly prone to cancer or something.

      Cancer most likely: Hayflick limit.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    16. Re:Trade off by physburn · · Score: 1
      Ha, but the usual trade off, in making cells immortal, is making to organism much more prone to cancers.

      ---

      Anti-Aging Feed @ Feed Distiller

    17. Re:Trade off by turing_m · · Score: 5, Funny

      Flatworms are highly prone in general.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    18. Re:Trade off by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      I believe there have already been very limited tests of telomerase in humans, but one of the big fears is indeed that it will increase the odds of cancer. It'll be interesting to see what happens when (if?) we have cures for most kinds of cancer.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
    19. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wonder how this would affect naked mole rats; we've never observed cancer in them or been able to give them cancer. Flatworm + mole rat == immortality?

    20. Re:Trade off by Zorpheus · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Very interesting. I am wondering now how Humans survive for more than 50 generations, since gametes are also fomred by cell division.

    21. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Note that not all flat worms are parasitic, e.g. Planaria sp.

    22. Re:Trade off by cshark · · Score: 1

      No, I went to Hebrew school. You don't get to do anything fun like vivisection in Hebrew school.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    23. Re:Trade off by cshark · · Score: 1

      Oh come on, we have plenty of worms in public office, at least in the US.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    24. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      telomerase - it's just restricted to the germ line

    25. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At Hebrew school, we practice circum^^^^^dissecting other kinds of worms.

    26. Re:Trade off by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Except for the flatworm politicians. They are completely unable to shit as their head and anus are located in the same place. They then literally become full of shit.

    27. Re:Trade off by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Now that is a flat out lie! I know many who are upstanding citizens!

      I get my coat...

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    28. Re:Trade off by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      That sir, is an insult to worms. The next time you put your face on the ground you can expect to be slapped!
      OK, maybe it will be more of a damp brushing against your face... and you may not actually notice... but you have been warned!

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    29. Re:Trade off by cshark · · Score: 1

      Nope. You don't get dis circumcise people either. Can you imagine my disappointment?

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    30. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, these are FLATWORMS, not regular worms. They have no blood or heart or stomach. They do have a cluster of nerves on one end that serve as their brain, but you wouldn't find it easy to dissect.

    31. Re:Trade off by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      It's worth adding that even in humans, telomerase (which is produced naturally by cells) can regrow damaged telomeres. The implications and reasons for this are not yet clear, but it's been known since the 1980s at least

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Trade off by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      I hate to get technical, but do worms even have heads?

      Sure. It's the one the shit does not come out of.

      Are you suggesting that conservatives have two heads?

    33. Re:Trade off by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that conservatives have two heads?

      No, merely their head and ass are co-located

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    34. Re:Trade off by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      "What has 18 legs, and isn't going anywhere?"

      The Chicago Cubs?

    35. Re:Trade off by tOaOMiB · · Score: 3, Informative

      In humans, telomeres limit cells to ~50 divisions, which is probably related to how DNA replication is only 99.9998% accurate. After that many divisions, the genome is 0.001% different from when it started, which is one error per 10,000 base pairs, or an error in 1/3 of all genes. This is in addition to the slow rate of spontaneous mutations you accumulate over your lifetime.

      Where did you get your numbers? Human DNA replication (in normal cells with no damage) is 99.99999999% accurate (i.e. about 1 mutation per 10^-10 base pairs). Please do not mod parent informative for this misinformative post!

    36. Re:Trade off by mhajicek · · Score: 1

      So what's needed is a RAID controller for DNA, that will sample code from several cells and derive the original code, then undo any mutations. Suppose that's within the realm of possibility?

    37. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reproduction between two partners performs error correction. All humans have on average seven fatal mutations. But since we have two parents, the odds of have two identical fatal mutations at exactly the same place are greatly reduced, providing that population isn't isolated. You started finding all sorts of problems with small isolated communities like fused or deformed bones, missing organs.

    38. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In humans, telomeres limit cells to ~50 divisions, which is probably related to how DNA replication is only 99.9998% accurate. After that many divisions, the genome is 0.001% different from when it started, which is one error per 10,000 base pairs, or an error in 1/3 of all genes. This is in addition to the slow rate of spontaneous mutations you accumulate over your lifetime.

       

      Misleading. The mutations that you accumulate spontaneously or due to errors in DNA replication are different than those induced by mutation/loss of telomerase. Telomerase specifically protects the ends of chromosomes.

    39. Re:Trade off by jbengt · · Score: 1

      If 50 cell divisions created errors in 1/3 of all genes, then life would be doomed before 50 generations pass, since the germs cells also must replicate, at least once per generation. Also, just to clarify, telomerase is not a gene, it is a repeating stretch of DNA that ends the chromsome, like the plastic tip of shoelaces that keeps them from fraying. I have no clue how telomeres could possibly "divvy-up the workload" as the parent says.

    40. Re:Trade off by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Which doesn't address the GGP post about mnutation rates.

    41. Re:Trade off by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Miscarriage, I reckon.

    42. Re:Trade off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you've got the wrong errors in your DNA, you get eaten by a tiger.

    43. Re:Trade off by skids · · Score: 1

      And thus having become a mobius strip, they can switch sides seamlessly.

    44. Re:Trade off by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Now you are making a common mistake of assuming of intelligent design, you may not actually subscribe to that thought but you are not really following evolutionary theory when you assume that an advantage needs a trade off.

      The intelligent design (NOT CREATIONISM) approach assumes that there is a plan or a benefit to every evolutionary change. While evolution is more based on pure random events where a random mutation can either give the life form an advantage where it could have offspring, or it could hinder it. Even if it hinders the chances if they still have offspring then it passes to the next generation. Or if you have a mutation that is superior to the others and you don't have offspring then that mutation will not pass on. But there isn't a trade off going on it is just random chance.

      There could be someone who is Smarter then you, Stronger then you, more Attractive, more charisma... Basically Better then you in every way... As insulting as that sounds it is possible. It is not like D&D or Video Games where there is a need to be balanced. Sometimes things have an advantage without a trade off.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    45. Re:Trade off by funtapaz · · Score: 1

      I'm definitely not one who follows ID. It just seems like there's usually some sort of disadvantage to being "immortal." That disadvantage usually seems to involve cancer because telomerase seems to be useful in the prevention of cancer. I don't know enough to speak beyond that though.

    46. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Offspring for each generation are subjected to natural selection, which can be thought of as an independent correcting factor in this case. A sperm or egg with detrimental mutations won't ever reach its counterpart. Most people are familiar with how many millions of sperm don't make it, but for eggs each woman has ~400,000 and only ~400 of those activate (the healthiest tend to do so earlier in life). At least 25% of fertilized eggs self-abort in the first trimester. From there, the number of fetuses that go on to reproduce is substantially less than 100%.

    47. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 2

      Sorry, it appears the rate was revised the year I graduated, so I was using older information (1 per 600,000). I will admit that one error per three genes from replication alone did seem too high to me. In vivo error rates seem to be one per 10^9 base pairs. Given that it's a review article, I'd have to do a lot of reading to determine how DNA packing and such affect that rate (or how they measured in vivo rates rather that ideal in vitro).

      That rate would only allow for 150 mutations per cell before hitting its telemerase limit (which most do not reach). Given the number of genes, number of cells, and sequence required for cancer to form, this number seems much too low. Thus, the environmental mutation rate must make-up the difference. For what I posted, it's not terribly relevant if the mutation was replication-induced or mutagen-induced, so I essentially conflated them for simplicity. Each organism will have very different rates, so deriving highly accurate numbers isn't necessary for explaining the general concept of the purpose of teleomeres.

    48. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 1

      Telomeres are a limiter that is easily overcome by telomerase. What they are a limiter for is generally thought to be the overall number of mutations in the chromosome (which is important for multicellular organisms, so a cell doesn't evolve autonomy -- cancer). Chromosome ends aren't particularly worthy of protection themselves, as you can do just fine with a circular chromosome that lacks them all-together.

    49. Re:Trade off by mywhitewolf · · Score: 1

      "So it has come to this"

    50. Re:Trade off by tOaOMiB · · Score: 1

      Environmentally-induced mutation definitely does play a large role in tumor formation--that's why smoker's get lung cancer, sunburns can lead to skin cancer, etc! There's also viruses that can play a role.

      However, we also don't really know how many mutations are necessary for cancer to arise, and one of the first things to happen may be either immortalization through mechanisms including telomerase activity (or the tumor could arise in stem cells where this activity is already present) or (more often) a mutation that in turns leads to an increased mutation rate! Regardless, it's probably not that many mutations, and don't underestimate just how large a number of cells there are in the body (on the order of 10^13 - 10^14)!

    51. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 1

      The number is about eight for common cancers. Generally you need about three or so before the mutation rate increases dramatically. Still, that works out to about a one in ten thousand chance of getting those three mutations in a cell, in highly active cells (~30 divisions) which are fairly rare in end-organ tissue where cancers arise. While the human body has ~10 trillion cells, 90% of those are symbiotic bacteria, and breast/prostate/lung tissue isn't very dense. From there, the immune system kills the vast majority of cancers, so it seems like the mutation rate ought to be higher to explain cancer's prevalence. Environmental exposure can explain a lot, but low level damage can easily be controlled by the various DNA repair mechanisms (unless you are BRCA positive or something).

    52. Re:Trade off by izomiac · · Score: 1

      If cells could divide 50 times without their less fit offspring dying, a single bacterium could produce one kilogram of offspring in about a day. For perspective, in two more days its offspring would weigh much more than the Earth. Plus, most mutations are silent, or inconsequential, such as the ones that make-up your fingerprint.

      Telomerase is a protein. It has a gene, but it's not a repeating segment (the promoter/enhancer might be, but that's not what you mean). Telomeres are repeating segments that fold-over onto themselves to protect chromosome ends. (Folding might just be in yeast, I forget...)

      As for divvying-up work, without telomeres your most eager stem cell would likely divide thousands of times, while the others just sat around. This would almost guarantee cancer, so each cell is limited, thus requiring all stem cells to do some of the work. Each cell has a threshold for taking action, leading to some being more eager that others, so this is a common problem in the body.

  2. Do they keep their contacts? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1

    A flatworm only has, maybe, a few hundred brain cells, but if they get regenerated are they a "copy", or just "new"?

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Do they keep their contacts? by c0lo · · Score: 4, Funny

      A flatworm only has, maybe, a few hundred brain cells, but if they get regenerated are they a "copy", or just "new"?

      They are a pirated copy.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:Do they keep their contacts? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You wouldn't steal a flatworm

    3. Re:Do they keep their contacts? by cshark · · Score: 1

      I would if they played mp3's.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    4. Re:Do they keep their contacts? by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Yes, but stick with the Chinese flatworms- the Russian ones all have viruses.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  3. Disturbing by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Funny

    I find it disturbing that my tapeworms will outlive me.

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Disturbing by docilespelunker · · Score: 5, Funny

      Remember though, you're drinking and smoking for 2. And where drink's concerned, the little fella's basically swimming around in neat rum. (taking the assumption that you are a pirate and mostly drink rum of course)

    2. Re:Disturbing by giorgist · · Score: 2

      At one point in time ... every living thing will outlive you, think about that.

  4. Where's their TARDIS? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have regeneration down, now all they need is time travel.

    1. Re:Where's their TARDIS? by eternaldoctorwho · · Score: 1

      If that were true, then they would still only be able to regenerate 13 times...

    2. Re:Where's their TARDIS? by cshark · · Score: 1

      Well, they actually do have TARDISeses, but they're disguised very inventively.

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    3. Re:Where's their TARDIS? by oracleofbargth · · Score: 1

      Nah, it's just proof that this species of flatworms originated from Gallifrey. As if asian carp and zebra mussels weren't enough for invasive species, now the time lords are doing it to us too? Sheesh, sterilize your bilges already.

    4. Re:Where's their TARDIS? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Isn't that a little personal?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  5. Video from the researchers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here is a video from the researchers themselves.
    http://www.test-tube.org.uk/videos/pages_aziz_immortal_worms.htm

    1. Re:Video from the researchers. by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      According to the guy, raw sewage dumps directly into the nearby river -- seriously? He says, "There's where a lot of crap comes out of hospital."

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
  6. Re:The T-virus by c0lo · · Score: 2

    The T-Virus... is protean, changing from liquid to airborne to blood transmission, depending on its environment. It is almost impossible to kill. -- Red Queen

    Pretty close

    Jurkat cells are an immortalized line of T lymphocyte cells that are used to study a...

    Jurkat J6 cells have been found to produce a xenotropic murine leukemia virus (X-MLV) that could potentially affect experimental outcomes and infect lab technicians. This infection may also change the virulence and tropism of the virus by way of phenotypic mixing and/or recombination.

    So, only the transmission step to be solved.

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  7. Re:Trade off I am immortal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So if they have to cut each others heads off because in the end the can only be one.I am IMMORTAL!!!!!!

  8. Better memory too by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 2

    "I doubt they live long enough for problems like that to manifest."

    If you train a flatworm to pass a labyrinth and then cut the flatworm into pieces, each piece will remember the labyrinth!

    So, with this memory they don't need to live much longer, piecewise.

    They have all the nice tricks up their sleeves. The trade-off may be their looks.

    1. Re:Better memory too by Boronx · · Score: 1

      Not only that, but if you feed trained worm to an untrained one, it'll know the labyrinth.

  9. Obligatory by tonique · · Score: 1, Funny

    I, for one, welcome our new flatworm genes carrying overlords.

    1. Re:Obligatory by cshark · · Score: 1

      Worms are people too you insensitive clod!

      --

      This signature has Super Cow Powers

    2. Re:Obligatory by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Worms are people too you insensitive clod!

      You're thinking corporations. I understand how you would get them confused, though.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Obligatory by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      Worms are people too you insensitive clod!

      Hey! That clod is my home, you insensitive clod! oh, wait...

  10. Immortal...ish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    New Summer Blockbuster!

    Tapeworm genes turn the billionaire playboys and super models into immortals, only to be taken down by the Cancer!

    Telomerase for all.

    1. Re:Immortal...ish by fishybell · · Score: 1

      urg...don't you hate it when you forget to log in when you actually bother to post.....urg...

      --
      ><));>
    2. Re:Immortal...ish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      fun fact:
      When you see the captcha, you ain't logged in.

      Also, if you 'accidentally go AC', logging in to take credit is just silly, especially if it's lame.

    3. Re:Immortal...ish by fishybell · · Score: 1

      Agreed. Lameness has been had.

      --
      ><));>
    4. Re:Immortal...ish by quadrox · · Score: 0

      I mostly hate that fact that when I do forget to login, slashdot will forget everything about where I was and what I was about to do once I do login. Fucking ridiculous. Most of the time I just don't bother...

    5. Re:Immortal...ish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      What I hate is how every time I log in, Slashdot takes me to my account setting page. What the hell? Why does it think I wanted to go there? Having to navigate back to the comment I wanted to respond to is just icing on the cake.

    6. Re:Immortal...ish by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      I right-click on the login link, send the login to a new tab, login there, then reload the tab I'm on and delete the tab I logged in on. I actually have a bookmark to the login, so I can right-click on that and do the same, so I don't even lose my place on the page (except that my prefs expand more of the comments). I tried setting up the auto-login thing but it didn't seem to work any more.

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    7. Re:Immortal...ish by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I right-click on the login link, send the login to a new tab, login there, then reload the tab I'm on and delete the tab I logged in on. I actually have a bookmark to the login, so I can right-click on that and do the same, so I don't even lose my place on the page (except that my prefs expand more of the comments). I tried setting up the auto-login thing but it didn't seem to work any more.

      There is a lesson here. I'm not exactly sure what it is, but there is a lesson here.....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. Hooray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They've found the Flatworm of Youth!

  12. Ah the recipe for eternal youth! by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

    for ( i = 1; welcome( our ); ) new Imortal::FlatwormOverlords;

  13. The really interesting part by dtmos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From the Discussion section of the linked paper:

    We find that in the model species S. mediterranea, asexual animals demonstrate the potential to maintain telomere length during regeneration. Sexual animals appear to only lengthen their telomeres through the sexual reproduction process. This finding suggests that asexual individuals will be able to avoid senescence over evolutionary timescales using telomerase, a prerequisite for the formation of an evolutionarily stable fissionating asexual lineage. [. . .] The difference we observe between asexual and sexual animals is surprising, given that sexual animals also appear to have an indefinite regenerative capacity. We conclude that either they would eventually show effects of telomere shortening or that they are able to use another chromosome end-maintenance mechanism not involving telomerase. [emphasis added.]

    So both sexual and asexual animals seem to have an indefinite regenerative capacity, but sexual animals appear not to lengthen their telomeres except through the sexual reproduction process. So how do the sexual animals attain their indefinite regenerative capacity, and why does the mechanism seem to be different from that of the asexual animals? I guess the next experiment is to start slicing up sexual animals.

    1. Re:The really interesting part by hardie · · Score: 1

      I was interested in this too. Not that I read the actual paper, but why do they think telomerase is the cause of longer life in the asexual worms? Aren't the sexual worms a counterexample?

    2. Re:The really interesting part by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because there's only so much room on the planet.

      Cancer is Nature's protection against immortality and overpopulation, and our guarantee of forward progress with natural selection.

    3. Re:The really interesting part by garyebickford · · Score: 1

      ... Which goes right to my Brown Food theory. The BFT explains why we like brown foods - chocolate, grilled meat, tobacco (not exactly food, but it is consumed in a relevant way), all sorts of burnt stuff. All of these cause cancer, which causes us to die earlier, which makes room for the next individual. It's God's version of planned obsolescence! :D

      --
      It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    4. Re:The really interesting part by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Asimov, a biochemist, whote a short SF story about this very thing: Playboy and the Slime Gods. The wiki article is incomplete, Asimov explained his motivations is reprints in various of his books.

  14. No references to "In Time" yet? by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

    What, still no references to the film "In Time"?

    --
    Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    1. Re:No references to "In Time" yet? by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Or for that matter, Evolution?

  15. Doctor Whoß by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Timelords are Flatworms?

  16. Corporate masters forever has a new meaning by Ajustator · · Score: 1

    Now when this will be made available to humans the whole game will change again: Basically the corporate overlords will live forever and they will only have to change the workers generation by generation. This until they will create enough robots to do the job instead of the workers. Then most of the humanity will be kinda obsolete. They will live in closed premises, served by robots, having fun among them. the rest of us will freely participate in madmax

  17. Cancer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't cancer's trick also to synthesize telomarase?

  18. Immortality happening TODAY in nature. by cribera · · Score: 4, Informative
  19. Part of a large, confusing body of evidence by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

    It isn't clear at this point if the telomere hypothesis works at a cross-species level. In some species, telomere length is apparently not correlated with aging. In particular, there are some birds which have short telomeres but long lifespans. There's a very good book aimed at laypeople on the science of understanding of aging and the history of attempts- "The Youth Pill" by David Stipp. The only minor disclaimer is that the field is changing so fast that the book is already slightly out of date. But it contains a lot of interesting tidbits and a fair bit of neat history as well. I strongly recommend it.

  20. That and a toupe ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... and all those flatworm dudes will be picking up hot flatworm babes long into their old age.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  21. advantages to mortality? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

    I wonder if there could be some advantages to mortality. It just seems it would be easier (take less energy) to keep an existing organism in good repair indefinitely, compared to starting over with a new generation. If so, then lifespans evolved to be deliberately shorter than need be. If a tree can live 5000 years, why not an animal?

    Shorter generations allow faster adaptation and evolution. Maybe immortality makes organisms so risk adverse that it becomes detrimental to the survival of the species. More adventurous creatures have more successes, even if half of them die of bad luck. New generations more readily learn new ideas, more easily abandon or never learn old ideas that no longer work. Or perhaps the demands and rigors of living set the odds of living more than a few decades so low that investing in repairs isn't worthwhile.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  22. Useful knowledge by squidflakes · · Score: 1

    I wish I had known this years ago when we were writing and printing The Evil Platy-hell-minthes, Planaria of Destruction comics. Then more megalomanicial rants about the benefits of immortality could have been included and they would have had a good grounding in biology instead of Pullingitoutofmyassology.

  23. Basic intro to the planarian flatworm by nohelix · · Score: 2

    The planarian has come up several time here on /. and I thought that some people might like a quick intro these guys.

    The flatworm used in this study is the planarian S. mediterranea, a free living (i.e. non-parasitic) flatworm. They have a distinct head and tail. They have non-lensed eyes capable of detecting the direction and strength of light allowing them to move away from it. Finally, they have a bi-lobed cephalic ganglia (rudimentary brain) and a rudimentary CNS. A similar species of planarians (dorotocephala) is frequently seen in high school science class.

    There are 2 varieties of this species - one reproduces asexually while the other reproduces sexually. Both varieties are capable of complete regeneration (i.e. a full worm from almost any fragment) when cut. In both cases, the only dividing cells in the worms are stem cells called neoblasts.

    Fun Fact: Thomas Hunt Morgan did many of the initial experiments on planarians.

    -----
    Standard disclaimer: I work in a lab that uses these animal.

  24. This immortality thread is fascinating but... by davecason · · Score: 1

    ...the benefit of mortality is that bad people always die. No matter how much power one sociopath picks up, we only have to tolerate them for a century. Let's not ruin a good thing by "fixing" that.