Aging, DNA, and deregulation (of a sort)

[Tiassa]

Source: Science Daily
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081126122203.htm
Title: "Potentially Universal Mechanism Of Aging Identified"
Date: November 27, 2008


Well, this is certainly interesting.

Researchers have uncovered what may be a universal cause of aging, one that applies to both single cell organisms such as yeast and multicellular organisms, including mammals. This is the first time that such an evolutionarily conserved aging mechanism has been identified between such diverse organisms.

The mechanism probably dates back more than one billion years. The study shows how DNA damage eventually leads to a breakdown in the cell's ability to properly regulate which genes are switched on and off in particular settings.

Like our current financial crisis, the aging process might also be a product excessive deregulation.

Researchers have discovered that DNA damage decreases a cell's ability to regulate which genes are turned on and off in particular settings. This mechanism, which applies both to fungus and to us, might represent a universal culprit for aging.

(Science Daily)

I suppose the question is whether or not this is something we can tamper with. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be excited. On the one hand, we shouldn't yet celebrate the idea of living forever; to the other, though, can you imagine the population crisis?

"According to this specific mechanism, while DNA damage exacerbates aging, the actual cause is not the DNA damage itself but the lack of gene regulation that results," says Oberdoerffer. "Lots of research has shown that this particular process of regulating gene activity, otherwise known as epigenetics, can be reversed—unlike actual mutations in DNA. We see here, through a proof-of-principal demonstration, that elements of aging can be reversed."

(ibid)

This is going to be interesting.

 

[DeepThought]

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research. David Sinclair is a consultant to Genocea, Shaklee and Sirtris, a GSK company developing sirtuin based drugs.
Link.

Very interesting indeed, but more to the point very lucrative for these pharmaceutical companies.

I see many more articles in the mainstream press, on television news channels and on popular science programs to drum up interest, followed by a gradual roll out of very expensive drugs - with a nationwide advertising campaign - which promise nothing except the potential for longer life if you already have the right lifestyle.

Ker-chingg!

 

[EndLightEnd]

BAM there it is. I always knew I was going to live to be 150 at least, assuming no WWIII.

 

[S.A.M.]

You know what we call cells that don't die naturally, ie are immortal and have to be killed with chemicals and radiation? Cancer cells.

 

[Simon Anders]

I suppose the question is whether or not this is something we can tamper with. I'm not sure whether I'm supposed to be excited. On the one hand, we shouldn't yet celebrate the idea of living forever; to the other, though, can you imagine the population crisis?
This is going to be interesting.

It seems to this layperson that there is a process of ongoing damage of the DNA, so any solutions to this will either prevent this ongoing damage or fix it on a regular basis. Rather than, say, you go in at age 21 and they tweak your DNA and you don't age, but rather you would need regular tune ups.

 

[Simon Anders]

You know what we call cells that don't die naturally, ie are immortal and have to be killed with chemicals and radiation? Cancer cells.

I am sure many of the animal species, were they articulate enough, would name us 'cancer'.

'Look at them metasticize.'

 

[Hercules Rockefeller]

You know what we call cells that don't die naturally, ie are immortal.....

Stem cells.

....and have to be killed with chemicals and radiation?

Ooooh, you don't want to go killing off your stem cells with chemicals and radiation.

 

[S.A.M.]

Stem cells.




Ooooh, you don't want to go killing off your stem cells with chemicals and radiation.

That too, but I was talking in terms of ageing reversal/

 

[Roman]

Is this really news? I thought this was pretty well established.

Preventing the damage would be the best way to "live forever". As SAM pointed out, having immortal, damage riddled cells are a few hits from cancer.

 

[S.A.M.]

Isn't there some research involving inactivation of retinoblastoma [tumor suppressor] protein?