SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the "who-wants-to-live-forever?" dept.
Biologists identify pathways that extend lifespan by 500%:
Scientists at the MDI Biological Laboratory, in collaboration with scientists from the Buck Institute for Research on Aging in Novato, Calif., and Nanjing University in China, have identified synergistic cellular pathways for longevity that amplify lifespan fivefold in C. elegans, a nematode worm used as a model in aging research.
The increase in lifespan would be the equivalent of a human living for 400 or 500 years, according to one of the scientists.
The research draws on the discovery of two major pathways governing aging in C. elegans, which is a popular model in aging research because it shares many of its genes with humans and because its short lifespan of only three to four weeks allows scientists to quickly assess the effects of genetic and environmental interventions to extend healthy lifespan. Because these pathways are "conserved," meaning that they have been passed down to humans through evolution, they have been the subject of intensive research. A number of drugs that extend healthy lifespan by altering these pathways are now under development. The discovery of the synergistic effect opens the door to even more effective anti-aging therapies.
The new research uses a double mutant in which the insulin signaling (IIS) and TOR pathways have been genetically altered. Because alteration of the IIS pathways yields a 100 percent increase in lifespan and alteration of the TOR pathway yields a 30 percent increase, the double mutant would be expected to live 130 percent longer. But instead, its lifespan was amplified by 500 percent.
"Despite the discovery in C. elegans of cellular pathways that govern aging, it hasn't been clear how these pathways interact," said Hermann Haller, M.D., president of the MDI Biological Laboratory. "By helping to characterize these interactions, our scientists are paving the way for much-needed therapies to increase healthy lifespan for a rapidly aging population."
The elucidation of the cellular mechanisms controlling the synergistic response is the subject of a recent paper in the online journal Cell Reports entitled "Translational Regulation of Non-autonomous Mitochondrial Stress Response Promotes Longevity." The authors include Jarod A. Rollins, Ph.D., and Aric N. Rogers, Ph.D., of the MDI Biological Laboratory.
[...] The paper focuses on how longevity is regulated in the mitochondria, which are the organelles in the cell responsible for energy homeostasis. Over the last decade, accumulating evidence has suggested a causative link between mitochondrial dysregulation and aging. Rollins' future research will focus on the further elucidation of the role of mitochondria in aging, he said.
More information:
Jianfeng Lan et al. Translational Regulation of Non-autonomous Mitochondrial Stress Response Promotes Longevity, Cell Reports (2019). DOI: 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.06.078
Journal information: Cell Reports
(Score: 2) by takyon on Saturday January 11 2020, @03:39PM (10 children)
Treatment X is a one pill cure for atherosclerosis, arthritis, osteoporosis, dementia, macular degeneration, benign prostatic hyperplasia, organ failure, and cancer.
You are in charge of banning Treatment X. Godspeed!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by SparkyGSX on Saturday January 11 2020, @03:54PM (8 children)
Several of the diseases you name are debilitating and affecting the quality of life of (elderly) people. I specifically said I strongly support medicine that improved quality of life, but significantly extending the lifespan of a significant part of the population, especially the richer parts which already consume and pollute way more than their fair share, would have a huge negative impact on the resources and environment.
If you do what you did, you'll get what you got
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Saturday January 11 2020, @04:36PM (6 children)
Treat the diseases of aging, and you are treating the underlying causes. The end result is likely to be a reversal of even the cosmetic effects of aging, and an indefinite increase of the productive and creative lifespan of the individual.
Jevons paradox is being falsified with recent efficiency increases [spectator.us]. Newer technologies will probably continue to reduce resource consumption and environmental damage for a given standard of living. Advanced robots, strong AI, fusion power, and asteroid mining (orbit-to-surface) could have a major impact.
Birth rates are declining and population may plateau in the 11-14 billion range. Birth rates have declined more in countries that have higher standards of living and resource consumption.
Anti-aging does not eliminate sources of death. It would allow for a lot of people to work to address any resulting problems. Give it a century.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 11 2020, @05:18PM (3 children)
That article you cite is bunk, Completely ignoring global warming and not a word towards the 6th mass extinction.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Saturday January 11 2020, @05:58PM (2 children)
Any void left by the Anthropocene's mass extinctions will be filled by more adaptable life forms. But for those craving a little more biodiversity, DNA collection and de-extinction is on the table. Whole genome sequencing is becoming cheaper than ever.
If you want massively reduced emissions in the near term, than we need something like fusion power sooner than the ITER plan, and cheaper electric vehicles with better battery technology.
There is a possibility of reversing warming using stratospheric aerosol injection.
The world has only agreed to cut emissions to a certain extent [prospect.org]. Standard of living trumps the possibility of future harm. Luckily, it looks like aerosol injection will cost relatively little compared to the scale of the world economy. So the problem can actually be ignored until it needs to be fixed. And if that doesn't work, then maybe the Malthusians around here will get what they wanted.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday January 11 2020, @09:55PM (1 child)
I haven't heard of any proposal for geoengineering that didn't have the possibility of making things *much* worse, and the nations haven't been adhering to the (insufficient) reductions that they have already agreed to. Some have, but I'd need to look closely before I'd be certain that they weren't just exporting their pollution.
Also resource consumption is, in and of itself, not sustainable. And it hasn't been declining much, it's just been shifting around as costs have changed.
Also, I don't think you have a good grasp of the evolutionary time scale. Yes, species will, eventually, be replaced by something else. In a few million years. The replacement will be developed in parallel, so it's not "a few million years/species", but it's still longer than humanity has thus far existed. And don't expect the new forms to be "more adaptable", merely adapted to different conditions.
For the short term fusion power is an infeasible solution. Perhaps if we'd gotten it working a decade ago. At the moment we've got to depend on a mix of small fission reactors, solar, wind, and specialized for local conditions. And the "small fission reactors" haven't yet been proven...though some are in advanced design approval state.
Aerosol injection into the stratosphere is a really bad idea whose saving grace is that you need to keep doing it, or it will go away. It cools the equator and temperate areas more than the poles, and thus weakens the jet stream even more (and it's already been weakened by polar warming). Actually, the best geoengineering idea I've encountered derived from a failed attempt at wave-power: Basically it was you take a very long pipe, and pump water in at the bottom, carrying with it a bit of bottom mud to bring to the top and spread it about as fertilizer. This *might* work, and there aren't any obvious (to me) problems with it. It could result in lots of plankton growth at the surface, some of which would sink to the bottom as it died, taking carbon with it, and some of which would be food for fish and whales. It would be a bit expensive, but it wouldn't take much power, so it could be solar powered, it wouldn't matter if it occasionally stopped flowing, etc. Actually it might even generate a bit of power if you hooked it to a generator, but not enough to pay for maintenance, and the generator would add to the maintenance, and for this purpose you want to maximize flow for input effort. (Note that you'd need lots of these, and they'd be most effective in "ocean deserts" which can be recognized because the water is blue.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Sunday January 12 2020, @07:10AM
That's true of any action, including doing nothing or going the currently approved mitigation pathway. It all has the possibility of making things *much* worse. Would be nice to get some evidence with that conjecture so we could start to make some educated decisions.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Saturday January 11 2020, @09:29PM (1 child)
This is only true if you're recommending something like mitochondria replacement therapy, as well as arthritis and other blatantly obvious diseases. Even then there may be a problem similar to that experienced by over-trained neural networks.
And you're only looking at a fraction of the problems caused by increased population. Even if per capita consumption of resources were to decline to the current mean accompanying rising standard of living, the current rate of use would destroy the planet. And an increased population would mean that the current rate of use would not be maintained. (Also, I don't think ephemeralization will be that successful. That's a really extreme position.)
That said, birth rates *have* been declining...but it's been largely constrained by economic factors. (Should I get a new car or another kid.) Lots of things to spend your money on has a tendency to decrease population growth rates, but mainly for those on a limited income. Increase wealth and this decreases. Similarly Social Security and retirement programs act to reduce population growth because now parents don't need to depend on their children to support them in their old age. (Not that they could in this society, but...)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Sunday January 12 2020, @12:58AM
Sorry, this is blatantly false. Birth rates aren't declining because people don't have money, otherwise we wouldn't have so many children in poverty in the US. The simple fact is that, as standards of living rise, and people get access to reliable contraception, they willingly have fewer children. This is almost an epidemic in places like Japan and South Korea. It's very simple: kids are not only expensive in modern society, but they also require a lot of work. Why bother pulling your hair out trying to deal with 6 kids when you can have none at all, or just 1 or maybe 2 (even 2 is still below replacement level remember). Exactly how many couples do you know with more than 2 kids? Have you ever asked them why they don''t have 4 or 6 or 8 or 12? Hint: it's not just the money.
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Sunday January 12 2020, @03:23AM
But when aging vs diseases of aging are compared... turns out the people who live the longest also are sick the least, and the extremely long-lived are the healthiest. So extending life (reasonably, not hundreds of years) and improving health are probably one and the same.
This is where I should note that if you treat age-related thyroid decline (which we can do today, but usually don't) probably half of the "symptoms of aging" go away, and both health and longevity are much improved.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday January 12 2020, @11:51PM
So basically you want one substance that will help with diseases involving degenerating connective tissue and inflammation?