Slashdot Mirror
Researchers Analyze DNA From 'Supercentenarians' Aged 110+ To Discover Secret To Longevity (nytimes.com)
biobricks writes: Scientists looking for clues to healthy longevity in people in their 90s and 100s haven't turned up a whole lot. It is thought that the DNA of the very old may be a good place to look, but people over 110 are one in five million in the United States. The New York Times chronicles one scientific quest to collect their DNA (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). From the report: "James Clement, a self-described 'citizen-scientist,' has collected blood, skin and saliva samples from individuals aged 110-plus in 14 states and seven countries during the past six years, The New York Times reports. Mr. Clement has detected 2,500-plus differences between supercentenarian DNA and the general population. However, with a sample size of only some three dozen genomes, his team is still working to determine which genes are significant. One analysis suggested supercentenarians tended to inherit fewer genetic variations related to conditions like heart disease and Alzheimer's disease. However, since supercentenarians also tend to be more healthy than the general population, some researchers hypothesize there are other genetic benefits at play. For example, supercentenarians may boast genes that protect them from aspects of aging." Mr. Clement plans to release DNA sequences from the project, called the New England Centenarian Study, this month.
What are you on about? They didn't give them longevity. They just took samples from people who were already old.
I think this is an interesting avenue of study but when I read:
James Clement, a self-described 'citizen-scientist,'
I get wary to the point of being totally turned off. Pretty soon I would expect to start getting banner ads for some new "miracle supplement" or something like that after after reading it. It wouldn't be bad to be wrong about this but the track record...
Even Universities and well-funded corporation get huckster scientists. The guy doing it alone by definition doesn't have the institutional filters in place to keep pipe dreams and wishful thinking at bay.
There will certainly be genetic factors. To the comments about longevity being luck, of course that plays a role. Want to live to 100, don't get hit by a train, duh. Lot of illness is driven by luck. If you have a gene that makes you prone to cancer, that's no guarantee that you will get cancer. However, the fact remains that your chances of longevity are a lot better without that gene.
There have been some experiments with simpler life forms (fruit flies, iirc), where - in surprisingly few generations - they were able to triple the average lifespan through planned breeding. The selection criteria was simply to breed the critters as late as possible in their lives. In any case, the results are pretty clear proof that genetics play a decisive role in longevity.
Who has read Heinlein's novel Methusalah's Children? The premise of the book was that someone had created a legacy - a couple of centuries ago - to encourage certain people to marry and have children (selected, iirc, by their grandparents' longevity). Based on what we know today, this would be entirely possible and reasonable. Equally possible and reasonable was the inevitable resentment felt by the rest of the human race, towards people who lived for hundreds of years. No one wants their neighbor to be smarter, richer or healthier than they, themselves are - humans rejoice in Schadenfreude, but we don't even have a word for the reverse.
Enjoy life! This is not a dress rehearsal.
There have been animal studies in which multiple copies of certain genes correlate with longer life.
Looked at another way, giant turtles live much longer than mayflies. The difference is genetic.
Genes that contribute to improved refolding of proteins, genes that cause a better immune system, and all sorts of other possibilities are waiting to be discovered.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate