Posted on 11/18/2005 4:05:32 AM PST by PatrickHenry
Deleting the ‘anti-aging’ gene from yeast greatly lengthens life span, say USC molecular scientists.
A counterintuitive experiment has resulted in one of the longest recorded life-span extensions in any organism and opened a new door for anti-aging research in humans.
Scientists have known for several years that an extra copy of the SIR2 gene can promote longevity in yeast, worms and fruit flies.
That finding was covered widely and incorporated into anti-aging drug development programs at several biotechnology companies.
Now, USC molecular geneticists suggest that SIR2 instead promotes aging.
Their study, titled “Sir2 Blocks Extreme Life-Span Extension,” appears in the Nov. 18 edition of the biology journal Cell. The lead author is Valter Longo, assistant professor in the Leonard Davis School of Gerontology and the USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences.
Rather than adding copies of SIR2 to yeast, Longo’s research group deleted the gene altogether.
The result was a dramatically extended life span – up to six times longer than normal – when the SIR2 deletion was combined with caloric restriction and/or a mutation in one or two genes, RAS2 and SCH9, that control the storage of nutrients and resistance to cell damage.
Human cells with reduced SIR2 activity also appear to confirm that SIR2 has a pro-aging effect, Longo said, although those results are not included in the Cell paper.
Since all mammals share key aging-related genes, the paper points to a new direction for human anti-aging research.
Longo proposes that SIR2 and possibly its counterpart in mammals, SIRT1, may block the organism from entering an extreme survival mode characterized by the absence of reproduction, improved DNA repair and increased protection against cell damage. Organisms usually enter this mode in response to starvation.
The long-lived organisms in Longo’s experiment showed extraordinary resilience under stress.
“We hit them with oxidants, we hit them with heat,” Longo said. “They are highly resistant to everything. What they’re doing is basically saying, ‘I cannot afford to age. I still have to generate offspring, but I don’t have enough food to do it now.”
Longo predicted that as molecular geneticists master the levers of aging, they will be able to design drugs that coax the body into entering chosen aspects of a starvation-response mode, such as stress resistance, even when food is plentiful.
If enough food is available, an organism might be programmed both to reproduce normally and to maximize its survival systems.
Longo urged caution in extrapolating the result to humans.
“We have been very successful with simple organisms,” he said. “Naturally, mammals are complex, and it will be a great challenge to get major life-span extension.”
A “really exciting” implication, Longo said, is that cells may be able to speed up their DNA repair efforts. All organisms have the ability to repair harmful mutations in their DNA, whether caused by age, radiation, diet or other environmental factors. Cancer often begins when DNA mutations outstrip a cell’s ability to remain differentiated.
Many researchers believe DNA repair systems are already running flat out. The organisms in Longo’s experiment say otherwise.
[Deleting a few paragraphs from the end. Geeky stuff. The newsy implications are above.]
So maybe we could live six times as long if we forced our bodies into this extreme crisis mode and simulated starvation
I wish I had read this before lunch
Even if you only lived the same time, it would seem like six times as long. If you did live six times as long, it would seem like 36 times as long, or like you died and went to Hell.
Don't fall for it! It is an enviromentalists scheme to rid the earth of people. :-)
Even if you only lived the same time, it would seem like six times as long. If you did live six times as long, it would seem like 36 times as long, or like you died and went to Hell.
and worse, what if you lived 36x longer and it seemed like Hell as you say, then you died and actually went to hell...I call that loose, loose
I should have had the extra fries at lunch
I don't know. You diddle your genes and starve yourself.I doubt that it'd actually feel like you were starving. I for one would take the pill. (As long as my body wasn't 6 times more frail than I would be at age 80 anyway!) But I don't think that's what happens in these cases. The very old animals in these tests look & act like they were in the prime of their lives, right up until the end.Even if you only lived the same time, it would seem like six times as long. If you did live six times as long, it would seem like 36 times as long, or like you died and went to Hell.
LOL, my 85-year old mom insists on a glass of good wine with dinner. But only because of the health benefits, of course. My 88-year old dad is happy to go along with that.
No kidding. If you thought useless welfare deadbeats are bad now, just wait until its a "civil right" for them to hang around and leech off of the rest of us forever.
That's right about perpetuating the deadbeats of society!
I "had" to watch a movie on the plane yesterday morning, called "Island". They produced clones to replace organs and tissue of "real" people. Only cost $6 million per clone. But, wouldn't you know it, the clones revolted!!! ROFL!
Well, I understand completely. Seriously. When the time comes please ping me and I will be happy to take that pill off your hands!
Cool! So I'm NOT wasting precious life on FR--there's so much more to come than I realized!
Sure it is. When God created Adam and Eve, they lived for hundreds of years. Over time, due to sin, genetics deteriorated and shortened our life spans. There's no evidence here of accidental improvement in life span.
Oh please. The Bible is not a scientific paper. The Old Testament was written approximately 2500 years ago. There is no mention of evolution, airplanes, computers, or football. As Krauthammer wrote today, why do some people create a conflict between science and religion, when none need exist?
What would you envision yourself doing at the age of 450, assuming you would live naturally for a further 50 years after that?
Okay, I'll bite: How did "genetic deterioration" *add* a gene?
For that matter, how does "sin" cause "genetic deterioration"?
And how did "sin" add this same gene to most (perhaps all) eukaryotic organisms? Does "genetic deterioration" add the same gene to millions of life forms at the same time?
I think your thesis needs work.
Yelling at those 300-year-old whippersnappers, telling them to get off my lawn!
Debiting my universal account for whatever treatment will keep me alive 500 more.
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.