Posted on 08/01/2010 11:04:59 PM PDT by neverdem
Questions have focused on the analytic platform used to find about 150 genetic variations linked to longevity
Just like the fountain of youth, a study that purported to find genetic secrets to longevity may be a myth, critics say.
Researchers led by Thomas Perls and Paola Sebastiani from Boston University reported July 1 in an online publication in Science that they had identified 150 genetic markers that distinguish centenarians from people with average life spans with 77 percent accuracy.
Almost immediately the study came under fire because of a technical flaw. Most of the controversy stems from the devices used to take the genetic fingerprints of a small number of people in the study. Known as DNA or SNP chips, these devices probe thousands of genetic markers called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. These markers are places in the genome where most people have one letter of the four-letter DNA alphabet — such as an A — and a smaller percentage of people have a different letter — a G, C or T.
All of the chips used in the study were manufactured by Illumina, a San Diego-based biotech company. But one of the several lines of chip the study used, called the Illumina 610 array, has flaws that could prevent researchers from correctly identifying some SNPs. That may introduce bias into the study and throw off the results.
Ironically, the team’s statistical analysis of the data — commonly a trouble spot for SNP studies — was very careful, says Nicholas Schork, a statistical geneticist at the Scripps Translational Science Institute and the Scripps Research Institute, both in La Jolla, Calif.
“There are many things in the paper that they did to protect themselves against error, but this is one that slipped through the cracks and may not even have...,”
(Excerpt) Read more at sciencenews.org ...
From this I surmise that rather than depending upon one uncommon gene, longevity may be tied to uncommon combinations of common genes. When everything in a complex system of maybe a dozen things works right, one is likely to live a long time.
I don’t think, oddly enough, that longevity is the key to longevity.
That is, at the cellular level, there is an aging mechanism that as such does not seem to be reversible.
However, a jellyfish, Turritopsis nutricula, of all things, might have the start of an answer to this situation.
“Turritopsis nutricula or ‘immortal jellyfish’ can revert to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of an animal capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature stage after having reached sexual maturity.
On learning this, most people assume that only simple forms of life could do this. But in truth, some varieties of jellyfish have more genetic matter than do humans.
In people, it has been discovered that not only can stem cells replace specialized cells, whose timer is old, but that adult cells can revert to being stem cells.
So theoretically, at least, a person might behave as that jellyfish, and revert to some stage in their youth. And cellular replacement makes much more sense than maintenance or repair.
“That is, at the cellular level, there is an aging mechanism that as such does not seem to be reversible.”
.
If you are refering to loss of methyl caps, it has been proven to be fully reversible.
It is a whole chain of events, from fraying telomeres, to mitochondrial DNA deletion mutations. Likely there are any number of things that lead to cell degradation, and the processes are also likely to affect other cells as well. Even prions might be involved.
So while protection is certainly good, replacement is likely better.
Hiding in plain sight, I see.
INDEED.
Artificial long life is a major goal of the elites . . .
I guess they may realize God’s not going to bless them with such.
|
|
|||
Gods |
Thanks fanfan! (and LOL) I think this may have been posted before, and it isn't quite pingworthy, but definitely GGG-worthy. :')Researchers led by Thomas Perls and Paola Sebastiani from Boston University reported July 1 in an online publication in Science that they had identified 150 genetic markers that distinguish centenarians from people with average life spans with 77 percent accuracy. Almost immediately the study came under fire because of a technical flaw. Most of the controversy stems from the devices used to take the genetic fingerprints of a small number of people in the study. Known as DNA or SNP chips, these devices probe thousands of genetic markers called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. These markers are places in the genome where most people have one letter of the four-letter DNA alphabet -- such as an A -- and a smaller percentage of people have a different letter -- a G, C or T.Just adding to the catalog, not sending a general distribution. |
||
|
· Discover · Bronze Age Forum · Science Daily · Science News · Eurekalert · PhysOrg · · Nat Geographic · Texas AM Anthro News · Yahoo Anthro & Archaeo · Google · · Archaeology · The Archaeology Channel · Excerpt, or Link only? · cgk's list of ping lists · · History topic · history keyword · archaeology keyword · paleontology keyword · · Science topic · science keyword · Books/Literature topic · pages keyword · · |
|||
LOL, Just saying.
Plain sight. ....and all.
This exists in other cnidarian taxa, suggesting that it might be a more general property than previously thought.
see free article http://www.ijdb.ehu.es/web/paper.php?doi=10.1387/ijdb.062152js
Thanks AdmSmith.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.