The
fountain of youth, the elixir of life and the power of immortality were once
only things of science fiction but are now a reality. Well, maybe not quite yet but in an article
from The Scientific American, researchers are claiming to be three steps closer. Researchers at the Salk Institute for
Biological Sciences have completed a study where they were able to reverse
aging, extend life and prevent a middle-age injury. The reverse aging was done only in vitro,
outside a living organism and in a controlled environment, however it was
successful in mice and human cells. The
life extended was in that of a mouse only and also that mouse had
Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome where children age at an increased
rate. Finally, in a mouse only, injury
to the pancreas and muscles were treated.
It is also important to note that in their study the subjects were
treated for seven days and in the end, developed fatal tumors. However, the treatment was cut down to two
days and the tumors ceased to be an issue.
It is important to know that there
is an ongoing argument that aging is caused greatly by “epigenetic changes”
which make genes either more or less active.
The argument states that the genes that regulate the activity or, lack
of, come from our environment while we age such as diet, air quality or
recreational activities. The Yamanaka
factors, four genes that reverse changes made to these gene regulators, were
activated in this study and therefore one additional result from their study is
adding some proof to this argument on the cause of aging. Many other research partners and academics
familiar with the study expressed their interest in the study and it showing
the epigenetic shift being in part responsible for aging.
This study
was very interesting to me for its medical advances in the health sciences and
also the possibility of changing something we once saw as a fact of life. Although this study doesn’t make the science
fiction stories come true, it very well could be that successful step in the
right direction that sets the pace or inspires others to come closer to that
point. The most exciting thing about
this study, and perhaps the angle they should have taken, was they have come
very close to finding a treatment for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome. With more research, perhaps a treatment plan
for age related damage to muscles and the pancreas. I think the developed tumors are part of the
scientific process of trial and error and an example of why we run non-human
trials and have a legal approving system for drugs. The study was interesting and I believe shows
breakthroughs and success on many levels.
As I was reading through this article in got me excited and really drew me in. The one question I have is how it all works? What is this treatment and why is it working?
ReplyDeleteCuring aging is incredibly complicated, and at the moment we cant quite agree why aging exists in the first place. For example, many studies have shown that usually animals with very short maximum lifespans die for the same reasons as animals who live for much longer. For example, cancer is as likely to kill insects with lifespans of a few weeks and months as humans or elephants who can live for many decades. (given that they both avoid death via predators, starvation, accident etc.) So it is really a matter of why bodies stop repairing themselves, the explanation of which has 4 mainstream theories.
DeleteFirst is Mutation Accumulation, which is the simplest explanation. According to this theory, because evolution is a gradual process which can only act in limited ways on genes that already exist (it can't refactor code and change very quickly, all new organisms based on small variations of prior organisms) animals bodies evolve processes to keep them alive/avoid aging only for as long as they are likely to survive anyway. So if you are a fly, what is the likelihood you don't die of predator or disease within a day or two? Not high. That is why animals with a greater ability to avoid predators, starvation, or disease are more likely to evolve longer lifespans. If you don't live long enough for it to matter, there will not be any evolutionary pressure to avoid cancer at a long age. Animals like Turtles, elephants, and humans are believed to have longer natural lifespans because all of the organisms survive predators, starvation, and disease long enough for it to matter. Of course this theory isn't perfect.
The second theory is called "Antagonistic Pleiotropy" which more or less is that given the choice between long term health or short term reproductive advantages evolution will favor short term reproduction, even at a cost to long term health. According to this theory long term health and short term reproductive fitness and long term health are at least partially mutually exclusive. If this theory is accurate, countering aging will be very difficult if not impossible. The fact that our bodies use oxygen may be evidence of this, since although aerobic cellular respiration gives animals a huge advantage in there ability to exert huge amounts of energy, it makes them far more susceptible to the free radicals and the following problems like cancer that result. It is possible that the evolutionary split between long lifespan low reproductive ability and high reproductive ability low lifespan is the split between plants and animals, who typically fit these categories pretty well.
The third theory is called "Disposable Soma" theory, which is actually very similar to Antagonistic Plieotropy, except it is instead based on energy use. Quite simply, animals have limited energy intake, and given the choice between using that energy for reproduction or long life evolution picks reproduction. That said, this theory has the least support since many studies have shown that when put on caloric restriction, almost all animals actually have significantly increased lifespans and significantly reduced reproductive activity, the opposite of what this theory predicts. However there are many factors at play.
The final mainstream theory is "programmed death" which is the idea that whether because reproduction is more effective in cycles, environmental factors, or because organisms who live too long can put the species at a disadvantage in genetic variability, organisms are programmed to die genetically. This one is counter-intuitive and not widely supported, but there is some evidence in species like May Flies, Cicadas, and annuals (flowers that live or die on a annual basis. In the case of flowers, scientists have managed to identify and deactivate the gene responsible for their annual death, making them into a perennial (or without death) flower.
-Tyler Henderson
I highly recommend researching this as it is fascinating, and until we understand why aging happens in the first place it will be quite a bit harder to actually cure it. -Tyler Henderson
DeleteHaha killer intro...I had to read this article when I read the first two sentences. I would have never thought it to be possible to reverse aging! It would be incredible to look young forever and frankly start entertaining the thought of it being possible to live forever. This is an interesting article/study thanks for sharing. AT
ReplyDeleteHow often would you have to take the treatment? Does it just stop the aging process? Or is it actually "reversing" it, which wouldn't this cause us to get too young? AL
ReplyDeleteAfter doing some research and looking into the actual publishing from this study I was able to identify the exact inner workings of this and can answer your questions. In short and simply put the epigenetic changes are best thought of as our natural aging process. What they did in the research was alter those genes to slow them down. So it is a one time thing because those genes are altered. However it was unclear due to lack of long-term multiple trials if those genes will be cycled out over time and new altered genes will need to be made. To answer your second question it does not reverse aging and make us revert to becoming too young. In summary to your great questions it is a temporary solution to aging that has actually shown some results to support it but is much more beneficial and effective in slowing disease processes. Clearly much more research is required with more trials over long periods of time and eventually moving out of mice and into humans.
ReplyDelete-KK