Slashdot Mirror
Gene Therapy Extends Mouse Lifespan
Grond writes "ScienceDaily reports, 'Researchers at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre have demonstrated that the mouse lifespan can be extended by the application in adult life of a single treatment acting directly on the animal's genes. Mice treated at the age of one lived longer by 24% on average (PDF), and those treated at the age of two, by 13%. The therapy, furthermore, produced an appreciable improvement in the animals' health, delaying the onset of age-related diseases — like osteoporosis and insulin resistance — and achieving improved readings on aging indicators like neuromuscular coordination.' Notably, the therapy did not cause an increase in the incidence of cancer."
But they will be divided by a contest for power, for whoever takes the head of another shall gain his might.
I just hope they don't electrocute us all.
Just make sure to get it before you reach the age of 1 or 2
Sure, people lose some mental faculty as they age, but in my estimation it's far more likely because of physical degradation of the brain than a hand-waving concept like "degradation of psyche". Stop the physical degradation of the brain, and the mind will remain fresh.
The Harvard researchers didn't use gene therapy to lengthen the telomeres. They engineered a knock-in allele encoding a 4-hydroxytamoxifen (4-OHT)-inducible telomerase reverse transcriptase-Estrogen Receptor (TERT-ER) under transcriptional control of the endogenous TERT promoter. Basically, the mice had short telomeres and the researchers could reactivate telomerase by administering 4-OHT. That's genetic engineering, not gene therapy in adult mice.
Furthermore, the Harvard researchers showed the reversal of artificially-induced aging, but not an increase in lifespan. The researchers in this study demonstrated an increase in lifespan in normal mice.
The Harvard study showed that improving telomerase activity could reverse or slow aging, but it didn't show how to actually accomplish this in normal, adult organisms. That's what the researchers in this study have done, at least in mice.
I really don't need mice that live longer. I need them to find a gene therapy to KILL mice. What's the point of this?
you're right, there's no point in it unless we can fuck hot young women until the end.
Long Live our new cheese eating over lords!
If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
Avg. life expectancy USA male: 75.6 (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy)
Roy Walford died at age 79 of respiratory failure as a complication of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s Disease). (source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Walford)
Love your rage dripping between the lines, though
Perl Programmer for hire
I'd make an off-the-cuff guess that most people could extend their effective lifespans by 24% if they just got +20 minutes of moderate (heart rate up, light sweat) exercise each day. Cost? $0 and 20 minutes of time. Available to everyone, ready for mass implementation today. Compared to gene therapy, anyone could do the exercise today for nothing. And most won't even then.
They report no statistical increase in cancer, but an absence of signal is not a signal of absence, and the methods alone should clue you in.
I guess my tolerance for cute sayings as explanations has declined as my crotchetiness has increased. The phrase you are looking for is "small sample size". Glancing at the rear of the article:
Separate groups of mice were tail-vein injected with 2*10^12 (viral genomes)/animal of either AAV9-GFP, AAV9-mTERT or AAV9-mTERTDN, a catalytically inactive form of mTERT (Sachsinger et al, 2001), at 420 days (AAV9-GFP, n=14 [50% males and 50% females]; AAV9- mTERT, n=21 [52% males and 48% females]; AAV9-mTERT-DN, n=17 [53% males and 47% females]) or either AAV9-GFP and AAV9- mTERT 720 days (AAV9-GFP, n=14 [58% males and 42% females]; AAV9-mTERT, n=23 [52% males and 48% females] of age. All mice are of a >95% C57BL6 background. Longevity comparisons were always made within the same mouse cohort to avoid minimal possible differences in genetic background between the groups.
They had five samples from 14 to 23 in size. That's a bit slim for some of the claims they make such as the bit about cancer.
you're right, there's no point in it unless we can fuck hot young women until the end.
If they don't age, why would we care if they're young?
The looks and energy of an 18 year old combined with the fertility and experience of a 918 year old sounds like the perfect combination to me!
They report no statistical increase in cancer, but an absence of signal is not a signal of absence
What...the...fuck?
You took something you heard people legitimately saying about certain inferences and used in a way that is not legitimate.
Here's an example that is legitimate. A cold will sometimes, but not always, be accompanied by a cough. Therefore a researcher could be trying to examine the incidence of colds by examining the incidence of coughs. Because it's entirely possible to have colds without coughs, you may then legitimately claim that the absence of the signal, the cough, is not a signal of the absence of colds. It's sufficiently correlated that it is a useful metric, but it is not a sufficient metric to draw strong conclusions. The absence of coughs are, however, most certainly indicative of the absence of coughs
No statistical increase in cancer most certainly means no statistical increase in cancer (I'm a member of the tautology club!). It is possible that the the lack in statistical significance was an anomaly (and just how probable an anomaly that would be is quantifiable, and I'm sure is quantified in the paper in the form of a p-value), but it is certainly indicative of no increases in cancer. That is exactly what they were measuring.
Do you want to die today?
You won't tomorrow, either.
Here is a link to an article in Scientific American about the guys I mentioned just above.
The exact formula they make from astragalus (and possibly other sources?) they claim is made from several ingredients that they claim to have a synergistic effect. However, it is also astronomically expensive. But the main "active ingredient" is available on the open market at much more reasonable rates.
We keep trying to live longer, but I can't see a life past 90 being very comfortable or enjoyable. The older you get, the crazier you become in most peoples eyes.
I look back on neighbors and family who lived well into their nineties --- at home, mentally alert and physically active until very near the end. It has me thinking that it is the contempt the young have for the old that is vain and mad.
Why not? My grandma is 90+ and still happily alive. She lives alone and spends lots of time online Facebook-ing and Skype-ing the many people she's got to know during her long life and meets up with some of them every now and then. The only help she receives is a maid doing some of the heavier cleaning tasks two times a week.
My only fear at that age would be outliving all my close friends and family, but if my grandma is anything like I can expect for myself I'm certainly not worried about physical or mental issues.
Not to mention...
(20 Minutes * 365 days * 63 employable years) = 459900 minutes / 60 minutes per hour = 7665 hours of exercise.
7665 hours * $8 (minimum wage) = $61320. If the treatment costs less than $61000, it is cheaper to have the treatment than it is to exercise.
If you make even $25/hour, a $150000 procedure is cost effective.
What you mean to say is that everyones suffer constant genetic damage that in the absence of cell cycle checkpoints and DNA repair mechanism and improper regulation of apoptosis(cellular selfdestruction) and whatnot else would most likely lead to cancer in a short time.
Some people actually have cancers that are contained and are free from symtoms, but this should be detected and treated as the very hallmark of cancer is their tissue-invasive and metetastatic properties, so given time, they will try their best to kill you if left alone.
But no, everyone do not have cancer.
Either way, you are doing work. You can either do the work for money, and pay cash for your results, or you can do the manual labor yourself. It becomes a question of whether it is more profitable to be employed by someone else, or be self employed for the task of extending life. Depending on the cost of the procedure and the earning capabilities of the individual, the implication that exercise is the better choice is misguided.
Unfortunately, at least in the US, it would be more like think of Thurmond, Byrd, and Stevens. We'd have to start actively killing off politicians.
My theory on this is marketing. I mean think about it, the traditional attitude of the young towards the old in most cultures is of respect for their knowledge and experience, but the "MTV generation" run right up to their 30s with a sneer on their face for anyone older. I reckon its the product of an intense and massive focus on youth culture deliberately fostered by marketing executives who know full well that what they are selling is crap, and the only way they can sell it is if the young are seperated from the older, stronger, wiser population who would rightly advise them to keep their money in their pockets.