Slashdot Mirror


Blood of World's Oldest Woman Hints At Limits of Life

porkchop_d_clown (39923) writes "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005, she was the oldest woman in the world. [New Scientist reported Wednesday] that, at the end of her life, most of her white blood cells had been produced by just two stem cells — implying the rest of her blood stem cells had already died, and hinting at a possible limit to the human life span."

55 of 333 comments (clear)

  1. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Isn't this old news?

    1. Re:Old News by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 2, Funny

      Isn't this old news?

      I see what you did there.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:Old News by RockDoctor · · Score: 3, Informative

      *Two* stem cells? For her entire body? How do they actually know that.

      They do tell you in the article, but it's not spelled out. They looked at the range of mutations in the leucocytes in her blood and found that they had only two common patterns of mutations. That implies only two remaining blood stem cells.

      And did they really harvest both of them, and then leave them in the fridge for TEN years? Sheesh..

      They don't say that they harvested either of them. They say that they looked at blood samples. To have collected the blood stem cells, they'd need to have extracted the marrow from her long bones - femur and/ or ribs most likely. That's a much more intrusive operation, even if the patient is a corpse.

      Neither the donor nor her next of kin were under any obligation to allow samples to be taken. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any additional testing to be performed on samples that were taken for therapeutic reasons. Nor were they under any obligation to allow any publication of data obtained either as a part of her therapies, or any publication of the researches (which they were under no obligation to allow) carried out on her body. So ... you're complaining that it took 10 years to get the research done, or that perhaps they imposed a moratorium on the work before it's publication? That's within their rights. As is privacy.

      Isn't this Slashdot, where people foam at the mouth over governmental intrusion into privacy every 30 attoseconds? And you want to violate the privacy of a dead old woman before her ashes have cooled?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  2. Bank them by wiredlogic · · Score: 2

    If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity it would seem to be a simple task to save up and grow a supply of stem cells when one is younger. The cord blood industry is essentially doing this now.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:Bank them by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If this is a critical factor for maintaining longevity ...

      It is not clear that it is. So far there is ONE data point. Before we start extrapolating, we might want to look at some other old people.

    2. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      But they smell funny..

    3. Re:Bank them by briancox2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Really? You're trying to solve this "problem"?

      My thought upon reading this story was, "Oh, thank God!!"

      I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick. I was beginning to fear that the medical community was going to try to force any level of existence to continue without regard to quality. Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

      Try working in the healthcare field. You'll see that that is the norm. Older patients often would be fine with letting go. But the family falls apart emotionally and pushes for ANY MEANS POSSIBLE to save them. It's pathetic. And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.

      --
      We should learn what we need to know about issues, before we decide what we need to feel about them.
    4. Re:Bank them by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly it doesn't stop with death too. Many more billions are wasted in the funeral racket. In my family my grandmother is a very simple and humble woman, but her darn kids keep insisting on fancy expensive gravestones and caskets in her end of life planning. It's like, you realize we are just going to throw dirt on this right? And she won't be "comfortable" regardless of how many pillows are in there.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    5. Re:Bank them by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Death is a part of life.

      Death is a part of life. That doesn't mean it's good or shouldn't be fought against. Smallpox used to be a part of life too, and I doubt anyone's life is made worse by not having it around anymore.

      I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

      The idea of longevity research, of course, is to make 100 year old body indistinguishable from a 20 year old body, not merely to "keep the heart beating".

      And it costs our healthcare industry billions that could be spent much better.

      Really? On what, for example?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    6. Re:Bank them by Chelloveck · · Score: 4, Funny

      I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.

      Nah, science has just identified the thing that needs to be tricked. We just need fresh stem cells. I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
    7. Re:Bank them by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

      False dichotomy. If we manage one day to make 100 year old bodies to be more like today's 60 year old bodies, you'll have a different option.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Bank them by Soluzar · · Score: 2

      It would be interesting to see if your views change on by the 11th month of your 99th year. Assuming you survive that long.

    9. Re:Bank them by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Funny how reactionaries always seem to think of life extension as living a long time as an old person rather than living a long time as a young person.

      Such is life in idiocratic paradise.

    10. Re:Bank them by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I had been hoping there was a definite end that science could not trick.

      There isn't. Our bodies are machines, no more no less, and ultimately science will solve every riddle they pose. Soon, fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born. Who knows, perhaps they already have been.

    11. Re:Bank them by SpankiMonki · · Score: 2

      I, for one, am going to assure that I get a steady supply of stem cells by eating a baby for breakfast each morning.

      I eat Little Debbies for breakfast. Not quite babies, but similarly soft n squishy inside. I'll prolly live forever.

    12. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The comfort is actually for those who see her into the ground. They're not comfortable if the dead person doesn't look like a fucking piece of art. They call this "respect". They do it out of "respect" for the dead person. And so that the living left behind don't poke their eyes out for the rest of their lives that "this guy had no respect for this mother; he bought the cheapest plywood casket with a pillow made of hay". And if you don't want to move to a different state/country, you comply.

    13. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · · Score: 2

      What are are we allowed to live to? 30? Logan's Run for us?

    14. Re:Bank them by phorm · · Score: 2

      I'd be more concerned about the brain, myself. No good having even a 30-year-old's body at 100 if you've gone back to the brain of a 2-year-old...

    15. Re: Bank them by eggstasy · · Score: 2

      On making people slightly less miserable for the 99% of their lifespan that's actually worth living. And providing palliative care to people who are dying, so they won't suffer needlessly. Or simply legalizing euthanasia so people can have the freedom to choose to die with dignity.

    16. Re:Bank them by eggstasy · · Score: 3

      There will be no point to having a "youthful" old age if we will still become more conservative as we grow old, and in our misguided attempts to stay relevant, end up preventing the world from changing, just to keep things familiar.

    17. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Make your living wills now.

      Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.

    18. Re:Bank them by mythosaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Death is a part of life.

      Death is a part of life.

      ...for 93% of us.

      With 7 billion people on the planet, and only 100 billion of us having ever lived, only 93% of us have died.

      As part of the 7%, I'm keeping my hopes high.

    19. Re:Bank them by Princeofcups · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Death is a part of life. I'd rather live with that than trying to force a 100 year old body to keep it's heart beating just because some family member doesn't know how to cope any other way.

      Fuck you fuck you fuck you. I'm grabbing every second of consciousness that I can. My grandfather dealt with crippling arthritis, and kept going. I have no plan to cash it in for health reasons. Is it possible to be productive to society with a worn out body? Ask Steven Hawking.

      --
      The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
    20. Re:Bank them by Gr8Apes · · Score: 5, Funny

      There's a cremation service in the US that you can sign up for that will be ... aggressive ... in seeing your body cremated according to your wishes, (relatively) cheaply and quickly. Their market is precisely people who want to trump their family on this issue. But I'm blocking on the company name - anyone?

      Soylent.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    21. Re:Bank them by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My grandfather just celebrated his 95th birthday, and my co-worker said, "I hope I get to be that age some day!" I replied that I surely did **NOT** want to ever arrive at that age, and he looked at me befuddled.

      I asked, "Do you know any 95 year-olds?" No, he didn't. "Think about his life. All his friends are dead. All his brothers and sisters are dead. His kids are in their 70s and due to die soon. He can't drive. He can't walk without a walker. His breakfast is made up of more pills by volume than toast. He can't see well, and his hearing is worse even when he wears his hearing aids. He hasn't been laid in 30 years and never will be again. Pain is a constant and has been for years. He hasn't had a drink of wine in over a decade. He hasn't been able to travel since 1997. What kind of life is that?"

      Mohamed was rather quiet for quite some time after that.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    22. Re:Bank them by JakartaDean · · Score: 4, Informative

      Real respect is dragging grandpa's corpse to several pubs for a last night of drinking with family and friends.

      I know you're joking, but there's nothing I would want more.

      --
      The subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will neither advise nor submit to arbitrary measures (Junius)
    23. Re:Bank them by Sarius64 · · Score: 2

      More stereotyping. I've two 74-year old friends that think and design software much better than almost all of their contemporaries. I cannot imagine them, nor I for that matter, running out things to do or experience for 10,000 years. This is a vast culture we have on Earth.

    24. Re:Bank them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      You are nothing more than a couple dollars worth of parts and some electrical/chemical interactions.

      The fact that you believe otherwise is cute in the same way that a child believes the tooth fairy is real.

    25. Re:Bank them by T.E.D. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      , fifty or a hundred years from now, the first immortals will be born.

      That would, IMHO, be an utter disaster for mankind. Human beings are really good at learning what their world is like when they are children, because they are more or less starting from scratch. What they absolutely suck at is adapting to change after they've figured all that out. We form our opinions and view of the world when we are growing up. We can see then with (relatively) unclouded eyes the way things are, and even reason out the way we think things ought to be. But that becomes relatively set. This is why Max Plank remarked:

      A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.

      It isn't just science either, it's pretty much every realm of human thought. I was born into a society (1967) where it was accepted that black people should be kept away from white people, women were inferior to men in every way and belonged in the home, and "gay" was not a state of being, but a repulsive activity that needed to be suppressed at all costs. Its true that lot of people's minds changed since then, but by and large what happened is that the old folks who felt strongest about society staying that way died . Social conservatism is far more prominent with older people at pretty much every level you check.

      While I'd like to think that all that was wrong with the 70's is gone from me, the fact is its all still lurking down in my head, because that's the world I was born into. The best I can hope for to personally advance society is to raise my own kids without my prejudices, and then when its just me left that remembers the early 70's I can die and all that horrible shit will die with me.

      Anyone trying to "fix" this is an active threat to humanity.

    26. Re:Bank them by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 2

      Make your living wills now.

      Get the funeral (or lack of one) that you want.

      Technically a "Living Will" only applies while you're alive specifying health care directives should you become incapacitated. It terminates when you do. Your "Will" would be the place to specify your funeral wishes.

      People in the US can setup/register and maintain a Living Will at the U.S. Living Will Registry for a small fee (I think $5) - or free if submitted through a local hospital. You get a registration card for your wallet and the document can be accessed and maintained online.

      My wife had a Living Will when she was dying of a brain tumor specifying her health care wishes (with a DNR) and me as her proxy - to make decisions not specifically documented in her Living Will (generally, the proxy cannot circumvent specific directives). After she died, according to her verbal wishes, I donated her body to the Virginia Anatomical Society (I donated her body to science). A year later her body was cremated by the medical school and her ashes scattered out near the school in Blacksburg VA. (There was no cost to me.) See: Remember Sue...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    27. Re:Bank them by tmosley · · Score: 2

      How do you think people get money from interest? It doesn't fall from the sky.

      As more money is saved by long-lived individuals, the amount of money available for (capital) loans increases, driving down the interest rate (in a free society--one which doesn't have a central bank pretending it knows more about time preference of money than the market).

      Lending money at interest is tied to capital creation. Capital creates wealth. It is natural that people should become wealthier as they grow older. Their wealth will drive down prices for EVERYONE (capital investment allows industrialists to drive down costs via economies of scale and R&D).

  3. She was 115 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.

    1. Re:She was 115 by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Since the summary didn't mention it, and I'm sure others were wondering.

      Ya. That first sentence could have been written: "When Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper died in 2005 at age 115, she was the oldest woman in the world."

      Typing another 10 characters wouldn't have killed the submitter. And it would've spared many Slashdotters from puzzling through a tedious run-on sentence in the Wikipedia article.

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    2. Re:She was 115 by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 2

      I'm sorry, sire. Shall I peel you another grape?

  4. Not an upper limit by Ambassador+Kosh · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you live long enough most of your cells end up dieing or critically damaged by the formation of inclusion bodies caused from misfolded proteins. As far as we can tell the cells are otherwise fine they are just slowly accumulating that damage over time. This is also what alzheimer's is. The problem is that misfolded proteins are kind of contagious to other proteins in the cell and that is what leads to the inclusion bodies.

    We are making progress though on being able to clean out the inclusion bodies. Your cells do have the ability to take them apart but somehow they end up not doing it. Give us some time though and we will fix this problem also and clean out these inclusion bodies in all of your cells and then your cells will work much better.

    The other issue we need to fix is activating telomerase to extend our telomeres. The basic issue is that natural selection does not really select for anything after reproductive age so humans are filled with a bunch of small defects and we are getting better at repairing the damage. I really look forward to what can be done with CRISPR-CAS9 to repair DNA damage and replaced damaged genes.

    --
    Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD! :)
    1. Re:Not an upper limit by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

      One solution would also be to stop people reproducing until after a certain age.

      I look forward to the movie based on this premise, Logan's Booty Run.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    2. Re:Not an upper limit by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      shRNA didn't "pan out" in the sense that it didn't immediately seem effective for therapeutic purposes. As far as research goes, it's extremely useful. In fact, I'd argue it's more useful to research than crispr can be, it's a more versatile tool. Furthermore, research into using shRNA fell out of vogue with the pharmecuticals: that doesn't mean it's dead.

  5. Strange conclusion by geogob · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find the conclusion that there is an absolute limit to the human life span because at some point the stem cells producing white blood cell all die out quite strange.

    A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth. Any similar logical train of though could lead to the same conclusion.

    And now, what if you find out why the cells die and manage to prevent it? Then the next thing that kills us will limit our life span, until we find out how to fix that as well. Absolute limits are difficult to set.

    1. Re:Strange conclusion by operagost · · Score: 5, Funny

      I'm going to get ahead of the game and work on that "heat death of the universe" limit.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    2. Re:Strange conclusion by Qzukk · · Score: 2

      Multivac is on it.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    3. Re:Strange conclusion by GameboyRMH · · Score: 2

      I hope it has sufficient data for a meaningful answer!

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    4. Re:Strange conclusion by DVega · · Score: 4, Funny

      A few centuries ago, we could have concluded that there is an absolute limit to human life span because at some point someone can't eat anymore while he lost all his teeth.

      Do you know about soup?

      --
      MOD THE CHILD UP!
  6. Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Look, if you know what you're talking about, I'm not sure you fit in here....

    1. Re:Oh, so somebody's an expert? by Kjella · · Score: 2

      He's just here as a Vorlon observer, being a smart ass is part of the job but he needs to work on being more cryptic. Oh and if we actually discover the formula for immortality, duck before the fireworks start.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  7. Who Wants To Live Forever by IgnitusBoyone · · Score: 3, Funny

    Who dares to love forever,
    When love must die.

    ---Queen

    --
    Momento Mori
  8. "Millionaires" - heh by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 2

    >> Millionaires will live forever

    Not sure you've been keeping up with the cost of living, but you pretty much have to have a million dollars in the bank to even think about retiring these days. ($1M divided by 20 - a common rule of thumb for maintaining a nest egg in retirement - is just $50K/yr.)

    1. Re:"Millionaires" - heh by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 3, Informative

      >> Actually, because that million is earning interest while you are drawing down on it, even at 5%API, you should be able to draw around $80K/yr for 20 years

      Most advisors recommend calculating return at 4% (not that you can get that today in CDs)...and trying to avoid completely eroding the principal in twenty years. By the time you get through that math, you end up with the popular "rule-of-twenty". E.g.,
      http://www.getrichslowly.org/b...
      http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/2...

  9. longevity worth it? by Ogive17 · · Score: 2

    I don't know about how anyone else feels but I do not necessarily want long life unless I can maintain my youthfulness. I'm 34 now and still stay active but obviously my body is already on the decline (comparing myself to myself at age 24). I do not expect to stay in peak condition when I'm age 80.. but I also don't want to live 40 more years if I have to rely on someone else to do standard tasks

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    1. Re:longevity worth it? by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 2

      Correct. At 47, I'm in better shape than I was at 27. Avoid sugar and alcohol, keep carbs to a minimum, and get some exercise, and you can feel great even in your 60s. Much of our decline over time is just due to self-destructive behavior. If you're inactive and eat poorly, you're going to have a bad time.

    2. Re:longevity worth it? by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      Today is my 32nd birthday and I'm in better shape than at any other point in my life.

      That's more an indication of how out of shape I was in my earlier life than anything else though.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  10. Re:So put more stem cells into people. by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    I'm not so sure that prolongs your life. If history is any indicator, such things usually led to significantly shortened lifespans. Usually involving mobs with pitchforks.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:This is good news... by jeffmflanagan · · Score: 3, Informative

    > Further, I see a lot of pessimism on Slashdot regarding super-longevity. I don't get it.

    You don't understand that super-longevity would be bad both due to over-population and entrenched interests that will not allow progress, or you don't understand how hard a problem life extension is?

  12. Re:This is good news... by wjcofkc · · Score: 2

    Over population? Space, the final frontier...with humans genetically and technologically augmented to live off world in varied conditions. I put forward that many would take this to task. It is not often said here that we need to move a lot of the population off world for the species to survive. That has to happen somehow and sometime or we will die.

    Also, at the pace that the science of super-longevity is unfolding, it is in parallel to, if not in tandem with, technologies that will allow ourselves to be freed from our biological and most importantly, cognitive limitations. We have reached a point where we can scarcely guess at scientific and technological advancements and achievements a few years in advance. In a matter of decades, it will no longer makes sense to bother guessing at a point we will not be able to see past. All human problems have constructive solutions.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
  13. Very Old News: Genesis 6:3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Genesis 6:3 says in the New Living Translation:

    Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, their normal lifespan will be no more than 120 years."

  14. So they know what to work on.... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

    It seems that if they can figure out how to reduce or stop the "stem cell exhaustion" then you probably could significantly extend a persons lifespan, problem is you need to do it early in life. the old rich guy will be too late, he will stay old rich guy. But start with a newborn and suddenly things change. if you can even reduce the exhaustion rate by a tiny 20% at birth, you are looking at a 20 year lifespan extension from a 100 year life, not a lot but the benefits would be throughout the life. the no longer healing as well when you hit 35, the feeling not as fast when you hit 40... etc.. Imagine the regenerative abilities you had as a kid, deep nasty cut healed within days, at 45 a deep nasty cut heals in a few weeks. extending the super healing of the body from stopping in the teens to stopping in the late 20's would be remarkable.

    And that is if you only find a way to slow the burnout, if you found a way to have stem cells regenerate themselves, I dont think you found immortality, but you would have 70 year olds with the body of 40 year olds but with 30 years more wisdom.

    My question is what new diseases will we discover? I am sure there are things lurking that we call harmless, but maybe have a 70 year gestation period....

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.