Slashdot Mirror
First Ever Anti-Aging Gene Discovered In a Secluded Amish Community (newsweek.com)
"This is one of the first clear-cut genetic mutations in human beings that acts upon aging and aging-related disease," Dr. Douglas Vaughan, a medical researcher at Northwestern University, told Newsweek. schwit1 quotes Science Alert:
As far as we know, it looks like the only community in the world known to harbour it is an Old Order Amish community living in Indiana... Vaughan's team tested 177 people from the Amish community of Berne, Indiana, and found 43 people with one mutated SERPINE1 gene copy. Compared to the general Amish population, these 43 people had a 10 percent longer lifespan, and 10 percent longer telomeres (the DNA-protecting structures at the ends of our chromosomes that unravel when the cells reach the end of their lifespans). They also showed lower incidence of diabetes and lower insulin fasting levels. On top of that, the study showed a small indication of lower blood pressure and potentially more flexible blood vessels.
"For the first time we are seeing a molecular marker of aging (telomere length), a metabolic marker of aging (fasting insulin levels) and a cardiovascular marker of aging (blood pressure and blood vessel stiffness) all tracking in the same direction in that these individuals were generally protected from age-related changes," said Vaughan. These people also had 50 percent lower PAI-1 levels than average. It's not known exactly how PAI-1 contributes to aging, but it does play a role in a process called cellular senescence. This is when cells are no longer able to replicate, so they just go dormant. This contributes to the effects of aging.
"For the first time we are seeing a molecular marker of aging (telomere length), a metabolic marker of aging (fasting insulin levels) and a cardiovascular marker of aging (blood pressure and blood vessel stiffness) all tracking in the same direction in that these individuals were generally protected from age-related changes," said Vaughan. These people also had 50 percent lower PAI-1 levels than average. It's not known exactly how PAI-1 contributes to aging, but it does play a role in a process called cellular senescence. This is when cells are no longer able to replicate, so they just go dormant. This contributes to the effects of aging.
I'll die earlier. kthxby
Its like we just discovered clean and healthy living....
of these 43 people. Or did they examine the already deceased?
The mutation also causes an aversion to technology and religious piety, so it's a non-starter for most.
They've found a gene mutation that adds 10% to your lifespan. That's good!
If you have two copies, you get a nasty blood disorder. That's bad.
But maybe they can isolate the specific effect that slows ageing and give us a pill. That's good!
It's not ready yet, and I'm middle aged already. That's bad.
Children of the Corn.
Have gnu, will travel.
... they've been spending most their lives living in an Amish paradise?
Sorry..
Just because it was posted somewhere else earlier doesn't mean this isn't news that is valuable to read. This is the first I have seen of this particular story (I don't spend time at drudgereport).
Live long and prosper*
*See "prosper" as defined by the Amish.
I think I'll take "short and sweet," thank you very much.
âStop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.â(TM)
After you.
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it.
Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
Then please give up:
- Running clean hot and cold water instead of dirty water
- Indoor plumbing instead of festering outhouses
- Air conditioned and insulated homes instead of drafty shacks
- Fridges full of sterile and nutritious food instead of hunting and gathering
- Cushy office jobs instead of back-breaking labor in the sun
- Pharmacies filled with skin creams and various potions
- Giving birth in hospitals
- Almost magical medical care (Seriously. Look at what medicine was 100 years ago)
- Antibiotics galore
- Medications for conditions previously considered "natural" aging now being controlled
These are all artificial means to extend life.
Grandparents help raise their children's children. Huge help in not only babysitting but passing along knowledge. How do you think we got to where we are technologically?
If you lived in a tribe in Africa thousands of years ago, you'd be thankful for the "elderly" looking after your kids so you can go out an gather food or hunt for it.
Once past your prime there are still ways to contribute to the survival of your species, if you live in a society.
True, but your net contribution to the genes you sowed must be higher than the cost of competing for the resources, otherwise the genes of those who die earlier will be selected for.
These are all artificial means to extend life.
Those are all artificial means that increase the quality of life. Don't confuse quality of life with longevity. Even if the same remedies often increase both, they are two very different goals.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081664/?ref_=nv_sr_2
Grandparents help raise their children's children. Huge help in not only babysitting but passing along knowledge. How do you think we got to where we are technologically?
To be honest, there's little you can learn from your grandparents that you can't learn from your parents. And when someone pushes the 90s, what, exactly, do you learn from them?
Again, the net contribution to the genes that were passed on has to be positive. Unless the benefits the old animal gives exceeds the detrimentals (like competition for resources, time spent that could be spent obtaining resources, decreased mobility), nature will select against extended life. Those who die at the point where net benefit turns to zero will be selected for.
You are advancing a false dichotomy, and allude to this fact in your post. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed complementary.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
It wasn't from my grandparents, or even my parents; that much I can assure you.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
You are advancing a false dichotomy, and allude to this fact in your post. The two goals are not mutually exclusive, and are indeed complementary.
That doesn't imply that both are good. They don't have to be mutually exclusive - they can be orthogonal. Increased quality of life can be good without increased longevity being good. That's why it's a real dichotomy, not a false one.
âStop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.â(TM)
After you.
The rallying call of slavers seeing the population as laborers, in broken unicode.
But the question I want to ask is whether living longer is a good thing. Once past the age of reproduction, the genes do not benefit from people living on forever - then they become competitors for resources used by the offspring.
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills. As a society we're probably more productive and thus more evolutionary "fit" the more results we get after spending 20-25 years raising you. Besides, we've pretty much negated all natural selection by trying to save all genes no matter how poor they might be. And a larger resource footprint only means there's room for fewer, but there's always a sustainable size. It's exponential growth that's not sustainable, as long as we don't have more than ~2.1 kids we'll adjust fine. But when the average number of kids was like 5 and like two generation is 5*5 = 25, three generations 5*5*5 = 125... yeah that's not sustainable.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
If there weren't evolutionary advantages to long lifespans we'd all be mayflies. Raising a child is a huge commitment in time and resources, not just physically but we spend years in school learning all the basic skills.
True, and the human lifespan reflects that. Those who died early while still being net contributors were selected against, and so did those who lived overly long. Based on the human reproductive cycle, and a mix between living in hardship and living with surplus, evolution is at a point where it's beneficial to live past the reproductive cycle, but not too long past it.
And a larger resource footprint only means there's room for fewer, but there's always a sustainable size.
Yes, and no. Our biggest adversary is other humans, and if one group of people put an ever-growing ratio of their resources into prolonging life, while another doesn't, the latter will be rewarded, long term.
I think that in our quest to defeat evolution, we lose sight of "long term". Other species never had to deal with competitors that defy evolution; it's not something we are fully equipped to deal with either. I fear that the cruel laws of nature will catch up, as it always does, and that our refusal to adapt and try to impose "morals" on what's amoral will be our downfall.
Seriously? You think that old people have nothing to contribute to society? Even if my 90yo mother babysits my children, she can entertain them with stories, help teach them values and morality. Not to mention the economic benefits my wife and I would gain by not having to pay for daily care... Your arguments are weak on speak to your immaturity... Im gping to guess that your under 30 and have yet to contribute to the gene pool... Not surprising, though. This is /.
Semantics. I have free will. I want to live longer.
Seriously? You think that old people have nothing to contribute to society?
I never said that. I even put the significant word net in emphasis, so even the most feeble-minded wouldn't think I said that.
Even if my 90yo mother babysits my children, she can entertain them with stories, help teach them values and morality. Not to mention the economic benefits my wife and I would gain by not having to pay for daily care.
Be brutally honest - does the non-sentimental value of that exceed the ever-growing costs of keeping her around?
Also, you lost me at "teach ... morality". If morality doesn't come from within, but indoctrination is needed, your family is part of the problem, not the solution.
Im gping to guess that your under 30 and have yet to contribute to the gene pool...
Actually, no, I'm nearing the end of my productive life, and the genes go on, even if I won't. I'm fine with that.
You may be right, but such a statement is not any less unfalsifiable than the notion that god exists in the first place.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
âStop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.â(TM)
After you.
Not necessarily. For many, they leave an estate that serves society in a positive way. At least that's my intention.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
"Be brutally honest - does the non-sentimental value of that exceed the ever-growing costs of keeping her around?"
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
Spoken like a true (young and healthy) conservative.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
You may be right, but such a statement is not any less unfalsifiable than the notion that god exists in the first place.
The null hypothesis does not need to be falsifiable.
Sarah, we must keep them away from the Dyad Institute and Neolution! This gene SERPINE1 is what P.T. Westmorland has been searching for to extend his pitiful life.
Being a hedonist, I would prefer to live longer, so I can enjoy more. I have no interest in accepting a premature death just so the younger generation won't have to compete against me for resources. Nor do I consider it morally obligatory to do so.
It just so happens that I earned the resources that are under my control, and as such I feel quite justified in utilizing some of them to extend my lifespan, so I can use the rest to pursue joy.
Unlike you, however, I am not demanding that anyone else should lay down and die so that I might benefit. You are quite audacious.
Stop fearing death; once past your prime, and your net contributions are negative, accept death.
Sounds like someone's got a financial stake in the funeral business.
Sadly they'll probably never read this slashdot article. ;-(
Let's see how you feel about that once you've reached an age of costing more than you're worth. I bet you'll gain a whole new philosophy and become a total hypocrite. I doubt you will be the first in line at the Euthanasia Center.
I have contingency plans in place should I become a burden, and they don't involve spending huge amounts of money getting medical assistance to die, when my family can do better with that money than the leechers. Right now, I'm still reasonably productive, but still have a DNR.
Enough about me - how about you? You'll gladly be a burden for others, including your own children? Does that make you feel proud?
You should have looked up the word dichotomy before replying. You just again admitted it was not one and then claimed it was one again.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Sounds like someone's got a financial stake in the funeral business.
No, and you haven't thought this one through. Everybody dies. Those with a financial stake in the funeral business would be those who lobby against birth control. The more people that get born, the more people there are that undoubtedly will die.
You should look up the difference between dichotomy and false dichotomy. You seem to think that the two are the same.
Actually, the very essence of a null hypothesis demands falsifiable... a null hypothesis can always be disproven with a single counterexample. For example, a null hypothesis might be there are no elephants in my deep freezer. Finding a single elephant in my freezer would disprove the hypothesis, so the null statement is definitely falsifiable. Suggesting there is no hell, however, is not really falsifiable because the notion of hell, being no less abstractly defined than god, would not necessarily need to exist in a place or time that we can observe, and is thus immune to the every conceivable attempt to disprove it. It is isomorphically equivalent to saying that outside of the observable universe, nothing at all exists, which may very well be the case, but no self respecting scientist would ever claim it as anything more than the hypothesis that it is, and would never assert it as fact simply because it can't possibly ever be refuted.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Unless your plan is a bullet to the brain, your plan will leave as a burden to someone. Now, if only you realized that you stopped being productive 2 or 3 decades ago.
Finding a single elephant in my freezer would disprove the hypothesis
For very small amounts of elephant or very big forms of deep freezers.
I'm not sure, what scares me more :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You are a fucking moron.
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
They aren't older. They just LOOK way older than they really are.
And they don't live longer. It just seems to them that way because, well, have you ever spent a few weeks without TV, computer or anything that a normal person would consider entertaining? Time REALLY gets long.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
There is a genetic benefit for us to live longer and past our burning age.
Humans are communal animals so for those past child baring age role is to watch over the kids while their parents who are in their prime fight for supplies. They will also teach lessons from the past as each generation doesn’t have to make the same mistakes.
So with the elderly it makes sure the next generation is safe.
The Baby Boomers however culturally just recked the norm because they are afraid to get old and hord their success to themselves for their own purposes. So the melenials and late Gen X parents are going at it alone. As grandpa and grandma are too buisy with their lives to watch over the kids, because now both parents need to work to survive.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
just hard work, no booze, no phone, no tv, no internet, no electricity, no coffee for a couple of hundred years.
Two nephews/nieces = 1 your own son or daughter
Genetic distance = probability of finding your gene in that person = 0.5 for son/daughter/sibling
Distance to child= 0.5
Distance to child's child = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Distance to nephew = 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25
Number if nephew/niece you need to raise to get the equivalent of fathering/bearing a child yourself = 2 Gay uncle theory ; why/how gay genes persist in genepool
In early days when infant mortality was high, there is no guarantee popping off the dad/mom and diverting the resources they consumed to get more children is going to get more of your genes to next generation. If it costs less to keep mom/dad alive than to put the mother through another child birth and raise a child to adulthood, it is better to spend the resources on the parents.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
This is basically a society of "You young whipper snappers, get off my lawn with your fancy 'wheel'. In our days...", so the older they get the more they prove their point.
CRISPR gene editing is putting plausible biohacking on the agenda, so probably not necessary. It is only a matter of time before enhancement genes start entering our genome.
https://www.newscientist.com/a...
Paywalled but citing for source.
Hammer me all you want, but, mixing of races, can have some impact in genetics. Same as marrying your sister/cousins...it screws up the DNA.
Conservative? No. Conservatives (especially social conservatives) rail against liberals for exactly this. It's conservatives who are opposed to euthanasia and abortion. It's atheists (mostly progressive) who are in favor of "culling the herd."
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
Proud to steal your off-springs last meal ? A burden for the unburdened ya think ? Life's worth extending only if it gets me living long enough to observe somebody smash your smarmy bitchslut face. Ah ... nice, very nice ...
The gene increases telomeres length by 10%, the age increase is a secondary effect of that. Perhaps the blood disease is as well and they can be separated.
That is not how evolution works. There's no incentive to preserve identical genes, only direct lineages. Evolution works at the level of the individual, not the species or even family, other than as a mean to assist in propagating your genes. Not identical genes, but ones that actually came from and passed through the individual.
The belief that evolution works at a species level hails back to the early days of Darwin/Wallace, but has since been abandoned.
Here's proof. Married men do not live longer than men who stay single all their lives. They only outlived men who got married and then divorced.
Since getting married means you are taking a chance on divorce, then getting married means you are taking a chance on shortening your lifespan. And if you don't get divorced, you lifespan is back where it would have been if you never got married.
Where'd you get that idea? Population genetics is still 'a thing'
Richard Dawkins was too clever and too subtle in naming his book The Selfish Gene. He was trying to answer the question, Are genes our way of making more copies of ourselves? Or, our bodies are the gene's way for making more genes. Accepting of anthropomorphizing bits of DNA and attributing intelligence and purpose as shorthand, his point was, the genes selfishly replicate themselves using animal bodies, species or even genus. But the general press mistook it to mean "there is a gene that makes people selfish" and most people who did not read the book, and those who did not have the brainpower to understand the book criticized him so much and annointed him as the apostle of atheism.
But, his point is valid. Helping my brother have two kids is as good as me having one child.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Actually, my observation about conservatives is that they tend to love their elderly relatives a lot. It's the "liberals" who want to see them euthanised.
It has everything to do with lifestyle, namely that a city life entailing being doused in barely-tested chemicals all day is worse for your body than a rural existence.
Scrapple is a super food!
My life is of benefit to myself. I'm not going to be a sucker for your foul plan to make me feel guilty for living.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
It won't help me live longer, damn. Maybe the kids. Also have to start working on the swearing thing...
You're kidding right? In my experience, the people in favor of various flavors of genocide are US-Style "conservatives" by a ratio of about 10 to 1. Take Duterte, the guy from the Philippines that Trump was fawning all over. He literally sponsors the murder of drug addicts. Not just drug kingpins or street level dealers, but the actual customers. He has them murdered in the street. And he's obviously conservative, and his heavily conservative base love him.
Generally speaking, if it involves the death of another human (death penalty, war, wiping out entire races, etc.) the support is overwhelmingly conservative when there is. Pretty much the only exception to this is the very tricky subject of abortion. Even there, it's not exactly as if there are many liberals who are for abortion itself. It's about the rights of the mother, and pragmatism. The simple fact is that, when abortions are illegal, they're usually performed in greater number and much less safely than when they're legal. Also, liberals tend to believe that social ills can be reduced by reducing poverty and providing safety nets, while conservatives rail on about granting tacit permission for young people to have sex and welfare queens, etc. For conservatives, forbidding and shaming when that fails are the way to go. Liberals tend to recognize that human nature makes interdiction of certain things largely pointless (and it's weird that social conservatives don't foresee black markets arising to fulfill illicit needs considering the strong overlap with the free market economy fans) and that shame likewise just drives these things underground.
Wow. Ok. Can we throttle back on the partisan dehumanization of political opponents here? Maybe we can try recognizing that most people are human and not bloodthirsty monsters and that the vast majority of people, even if they're liberals (which appears to translate as "demon" to some people), love their families?
i can has splice plz ? the splice extends life ... arakkis
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
To find out what if anything the article has to say about cancer, I guess I'll just have to RTFA.
Because nobody's going to read it for me.
There's no time like the present. Well, the past used to be.