I can nearly eliminate cholesterol in mice (well, they start out with very little to begin with) and my roommate can cure a Huntington's disease model in his lab mice. If media attention were given to every group to achieve something remarkable in mice, we would end up hearing about a lot of false starts. And false starts are a critical/inevitable part of science, so the only thing I'm really saying is that the media attention to this topic is most likely premature.
Mice are a useful model, but they are different enough from humans that we should be cautious when interpreting mouse data in a broader context.
Once repeated studies attacking the same problem from different angles in different institutions start to align, that's when my interest gets piqued. (Unless it's research within my field, in which case I feel better able to understand the strengths and limitations of early-stage studies.)
I also admit that, to a certain extent, this is akin to a "middlebrow dismissal" (though I'm not trying to dismiss their work), and I'd love to hear from an expert in their specific domain.
Finally the truth is plain to see - humans are merely the first step to the true masters of the planet - genetically engineered immortal mice. King Dangermouse will soon take his rightful place.
In all seriousness though, curing Huntingdons or cholesterol and many other research h vectors may seem old hat to you, in the industry as it were, but for the layperson you are at a cutting edge of science benefiting all of us - take some of my perspective and you should be far more proud of your work than perhaps your comment suggests
(Of course when the mice do inherit the Earth prepare to be kept as part of a slave army)
True. But a lot of studies show that enhancing telomerase activity is related to longer telomere length, which is related to lower risks of mortality and diseases. Induced in vivo gene expression is really hard to accomplish -- and you have good reason to be dubious of direct application to Homo sapiens. But one very good take away from the article is that it furthers the argument that telomerase activity is very very good for mammals. And it turns out there are some good ways of enhancing telomerase activity without inducing gene expression: exercise, stress-reduction, and a good diet.
Very nice paper from Science, "Extension of Life-Span by Introduction of Telomerase into Normal Human Cells." Similar to the article posted, but was done with cell in vitro
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5349/349.short
I've always been curious why mice were seen as a good filter for testing potential medications.
Isn't it just as likely that medications that seemed promising and would actually work in humans would be ineffective in mice, thus never making it to trials?
If, as you suggest, medications that work in mice don't usually work in humans, why should we expect the opposite to be true.
Of course I understand it may be the best we can do in some circumstances, but might it also be counterproductive to have such an unreliable signal?
>the media attention to this topic is most likely premature.
The media attention to this topic is most likely planned, not premature. The point is to get the discussion about this issue happening now, and - as you say this could possibly be a false start - but the purpose of media is to agitate the subject and motivate discussion of the issues at hand.
Its no small thing that technology to extend lifespan, who knows - 20%? - in humans, may well be within the grasp of our generation, or perhaps the next. This will be, absolutely, one of the major issues of the 21st Century if it turns out to be a real technology, applicable to the human animal.
The media are stirring this pot, and should continue to stir this pot well and truly in advance of any such achievements as giving rich, wealthy, technologically advanced societies and groups the ability to extend their life-spans, artificially ..
Just think of the consequences. Thats what the article is trying to make you do ..
Am I right in my understanding: that the reason things are easily cured in mice is that mice have "throw away" disposable soma metabolisms that don't do anywhere near as much error correction as human ones, and so there's a lot of low hanging fruit. Something badass enough to harm humans, on the other hand, has already dodged many error correction mechanisms and is intrinsically harder to fight.
> the media attention to this topic is most likely premature
Yeah, that's true; though, I don't think there's any harm. If it piques interest in science and isn't a scam then some good comes from the attention. What better way to grab the attention of the masses than to talk about treating a fatal condition from which all humans suffer?
So this one follows on from an earlier 2008 demonstration that claimed 50% life extension via much the same method. There is some annoyance from people in the know regarding that life span claim - it was apparently not very defensible based on the data to hand.
I really need to down at least one cup of coffee before I read HN in the morning; I was surprised by the headline because I couldn't imagine someone applying something to their computer mouse to increase its lifespan. {click the headline} OH! Those kind of mice. {facepalm}
This is cool. It reminds me of hearing that tortoises don't suffer from deleterious aging[1]. I sure hope we can start expanding into space, moons, and planets before we have every John and Jane living multiple centuries.
1) Time until use in humans: 6 months to 50 years. Probably anyone's guess... Would suggest that the likely path once this research has been vetted would be to trial in medical conditions known to be associated with short telomeres such as Werner Syndrome, Ataxia Telangiectasia and others before being more widely adopted if this proved both safe and effective in humans.
2) The gene in question is conserved between humans and mice so yes, theoretically any therapy which induces telomerase in mice will do so in humans as well. [1] -
3) medically speaking the downsides are mostly 'unknown unknowns' - but some of the known unknowns are - what are the chances that the virus may integrate with the host genome? If this happens what are the chances it causes cancer? What are the risks of an immune reaction? What are the chances of mutation?
It would seem that many of these risks are not borne out by the murine trial but it would remain to be seen.
- I Should point out that (2) may convey the impression that they are upregulating the existing cellular gene to achieve this outcome: they are actually ntroducing one on the virus. In my opinion this is may be less effective than being able to eventually upregulate the gene in all cells as a virus is unlikely to get to all 10^13 (approximately, give or take an order of magnitude) cells in the human body. It could be that the 24% and 13% rates of lifespan increase (representing treatment at approximately middle age and old age respectively) may be due to the down-chain propagation of those cells that received the treatment and that more effectively delivering the virus or activating telomerase may result in better increases. However this is just my opinion and at the moment my University journal access is under maintenance so I can't read the paper
Constant telomerase activation is one of the major steps in making cancer cells immortal and thus eventually metastatic. It's possible that controlled telomerase activation (via drugs or clever future gene therapies) might present a small enough increased cancer risk that it would be worth the increased health and longevity.
Last I heard, gene therapies currently have fairly high risks involved with them (cancer, mostly).
Blasco also published in Rejuvenation Research last year about a dietary supplement that activates telomerase. So, that + this makes for some interesting reading.
Early days, only mice so far, etc. etc. but this is pretty exciting. However ...
One of my greatest fears is that my body will outlive my brain function. Hopefully research into various forms of senility will keep pace with longevity research so I don't wind up buff and spry at 120, completely unable to recognise my friends and loved ones.
I have a family member in that state currently and it is heartbreaking to watch; I know that I'd prefer to die than live like that.
meh, just in my lifetime, I've seen the outsourcing of memorization. Would you be able to do your job without a search engine? I wouldn't.
Facial recognition (if you limit it to a limited number of faces) is already pretty good.
I mean, yeah, my cognitive abilities degrading is also about the scariest thing I can think of, too, but eh, we are developing new crutches at a reasonable rate.
As long as you don't get Alzheimer's or some other brain-specific disease, I would think anti-aging would keep your brain as spry as the rest of your body.
The telomeres are one of the cell's natural defenses against cancer. Telomerase makes it easier for a cell to divide uncontrollably, and most cancers have activated telomerases. Despite the claims that these mice don't have increased cancer, it would be wise to exercise much caution before pursuing this kind of treatment in a human.
> The telomeres are one of the cell's natural defenses against cancer. Telomerase makes it easier for a cell to divide uncontrollably, and most cancers have activated telomerases.
These juxtaposed sentences come across as a bit contradictory. If telomeres are one of the cell's defenses against cancer, then telomerase activation should defend against cancer.
Most cancers do activate telomerase, but telomerase is not an oncogene.[1]
"...aging is not currently regarded as a disease, but researchers tend increasingly to view it as the common origin of conditions like insulin resistance or cardiovascular disease, whose incidence rises with age. In treating cell aging, we could prevent these diseases."
Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Are there other benefits associated with this treatment? The above explanation of the research doesn't sit well with me.
Interfering with telomere activity is a critical step for cancer progression (see the halmarks of cancer, limitless reproductive potential), so this procedure essentially makes every cell in your body pre-cancerous.
In my opinion, the most amazing part about this is that the way in which telomerase is delivered is via a retrovirus, typically a relative of HIV.
Since telomerase is not really an oncogene, I'm not sure that the notion of "pre-cancerous" that you're advocating has any meaning. By that token, nearly every cell is pre-cancerous, and in a fetus even more so.
[+] [-] carbocation|13 years ago|reply
Mice are a useful model, but they are different enough from humans that we should be cautious when interpreting mouse data in a broader context.
Once repeated studies attacking the same problem from different angles in different institutions start to align, that's when my interest gets piqued. (Unless it's research within my field, in which case I feel better able to understand the strengths and limitations of early-stage studies.)
I also admit that, to a certain extent, this is akin to a "middlebrow dismissal" (though I'm not trying to dismiss their work), and I'd love to hear from an expert in their specific domain.
[+] [-] lifeisstillgood|13 years ago|reply
In all seriousness though, curing Huntingdons or cholesterol and many other research h vectors may seem old hat to you, in the industry as it were, but for the layperson you are at a cutting edge of science benefiting all of us - take some of my perspective and you should be far more proud of your work than perhaps your comment suggests
(Of course when the mice do inherit the Earth prepare to be kept as part of a slave army)
[+] [-] leoh|13 years ago|reply
Here's some background literature:
The Nobel Prize in 2009 was related to work in this area! http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/20...
Good NEJM Review about Telomeres http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra0903373
Very nice paper from Science, "Extension of Life-Span by Introduction of Telomerase into Normal Human Cells." Similar to the article posted, but was done with cell in vitro http://www.sciencemag.org/content/279/5349/349.short
Finally, an article from PNAS "Accelerated telomere shortening in response to life stress" http://www.pnas.org/content/101/49/17312.short
Enjoy!
[+] [-] aneth4|13 years ago|reply
Isn't it just as likely that medications that seemed promising and would actually work in humans would be ineffective in mice, thus never making it to trials?
If, as you suggest, medications that work in mice don't usually work in humans, why should we expect the opposite to be true.
Of course I understand it may be the best we can do in some circumstances, but might it also be counterproductive to have such an unreliable signal?
[+] [-] awolf|13 years ago|reply
"Cholesterol" is an organic compound that is essential for life. What exactly do you mean you can nearly eliminate it in mice?
[+] [-] primitur|13 years ago|reply
The media attention to this topic is most likely planned, not premature. The point is to get the discussion about this issue happening now, and - as you say this could possibly be a false start - but the purpose of media is to agitate the subject and motivate discussion of the issues at hand.
Its no small thing that technology to extend lifespan, who knows - 20%? - in humans, may well be within the grasp of our generation, or perhaps the next. This will be, absolutely, one of the major issues of the 21st Century if it turns out to be a real technology, applicable to the human animal.
The media are stirring this pot, and should continue to stir this pot well and truly in advance of any such achievements as giving rich, wealthy, technologically advanced societies and groups the ability to extend their life-spans, artificially ..
Just think of the consequences. Thats what the article is trying to make you do ..
[+] [-] JulianMorrison|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinky613|13 years ago|reply
Yeah, that's true; though, I don't think there's any harm. If it piques interest in science and isn't a scam then some good comes from the attention. What better way to grab the attention of the masses than to talk about treating a fatal condition from which all humans suffer?
[+] [-] nine_k|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pasbesoin|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] reasonattlm|13 years ago|reply
Comments on the 2012 work here:
http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/05/telomerase-gene-t...
And here is the full paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/emmm.201200245/fu...
[+] [-] zone411|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Camillo|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stinky613|13 years ago|reply
This is cool. It reminds me of hearing that tortoises don't suffer from deleterious aging[1]. I sure hope we can start expanding into space, moons, and planets before we have every John and Jane living multiple centuries.
[1]http://io9.com/5618046/the-mystery-of-why-turtles-never-grow...
[+] [-] RandallBrown|13 years ago|reply
Does the therapy used to treat the mice with these genes work with humans?
What could the possible downsides of this be (other than things like overpopulation)?
[+] [-] robbiep|13 years ago|reply
2) The gene in question is conserved between humans and mice so yes, theoretically any therapy which induces telomerase in mice will do so in humans as well. [1] -
3) medically speaking the downsides are mostly 'unknown unknowns' - but some of the known unknowns are - what are the chances that the virus may integrate with the host genome? If this happens what are the chances it causes cancer? What are the risks of an immune reaction? What are the chances of mutation? It would seem that many of these risks are not borne out by the murine trial but it would remain to be seen.
- I Should point out that (2) may convey the impression that they are upregulating the existing cellular gene to achieve this outcome: they are actually ntroducing one on the virus. In my opinion this is may be less effective than being able to eventually upregulate the gene in all cells as a virus is unlikely to get to all 10^13 (approximately, give or take an order of magnitude) cells in the human body. It could be that the 24% and 13% rates of lifespan increase (representing treatment at approximately middle age and old age respectively) may be due to the down-chain propagation of those cells that received the treatment and that more effectively delivering the virus or activating telomerase may result in better increases. However this is just my opinion and at the moment my University journal access is under maintenance so I can't read the paper
[1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/homologene/31141
[+] [-] grey413|13 years ago|reply
Last I heard, gene therapies currently have fairly high risks involved with them (cancer, mostly).
[+] [-] kenthorvath|13 years ago|reply
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/rej.2010.1085
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] duncan_bayne|13 years ago|reply
One of my greatest fears is that my body will outlive my brain function. Hopefully research into various forms of senility will keep pace with longevity research so I don't wind up buff and spry at 120, completely unable to recognise my friends and loved ones.
I have a family member in that state currently and it is heartbreaking to watch; I know that I'd prefer to die than live like that.
[+] [-] lsc|13 years ago|reply
Facial recognition (if you limit it to a limited number of faces) is already pretty good.
I mean, yeah, my cognitive abilities degrading is also about the scariest thing I can think of, too, but eh, we are developing new crutches at a reasonable rate.
[+] [-] DennisP|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] michaelhoffman|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] carbocation|13 years ago|reply
These juxtaposed sentences come across as a bit contradictory. If telomeres are one of the cell's defenses against cancer, then telomerase activation should defend against cancer.
Most cancers do activate telomerase, but telomerase is not an oncogene.[1]
1 = http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/v21/n4/abs/1205076a.html
[+] [-] kenthorvath|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] qiqing|13 years ago|reply
We've also cured cancer in mice around 200 times already.
[+] [-] xenophanes|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrewfelix|13 years ago|reply
Preventing disease by preventing age could be an unending justification for prolonging life. Are there other benefits associated with this treatment? The above explanation of the research doesn't sit well with me.
[+] [-] tolmasky|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] orangecat|13 years ago|reply
Yes, I hope so. How on earth is that a bad thing?
[+] [-] thisisnotmyname|13 years ago|reply
In my opinion, the most amazing part about this is that the way in which telomerase is delivered is via a retrovirus, typically a relative of HIV.
[+] [-] carbocation|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ceej|13 years ago|reply
Learn the real science behind telomere research: http://www.sierrasci.com/?p=telomere_basics
Proof of concept: http://www.sierrasci.com/?p=proof_of_concept
[+] [-] hayksaakian|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kingkawn|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DigitalSea|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] someperson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjhoops1|13 years ago|reply