4 ms·

The key aging problem is that DNA damage is accumulating over the lifetime. Some cells reach apoptosis, some reach senescence, some reach cancer, some keep on b

by DenisM 8y ago

The key aging problem is that DNA damage is accumulating over the lifetime. Some cells reach apoptosis, some reach senescence, some reach cancer, some keep on being normal for a while. Culling senescent cells does not undo the accumulated damage. You are making room both for cancerous and normal cells. Normal cells are still damaged though. I'm guessing the net contribution is still positive, but the specter of cancer is still looming. On the bright side, I hope that cancer can be managed purely mechanically. Imagine dropping by for your weekly ultra-targeted radiation therapy to kill this week's tumors before going for lunch.

mettamage 8y ago
Silly question: how difficult would it be to extract your DNA code into digital format and then create cells based on that digital formatted DNA and put them into your body? Note: not at all a biologist as you can probably see from the way I phrase things :)
- Koshkin 8y ago
  I'd rather have my cells replaced with transistors - one by one. That way I might have a chance to outlive that radio made in 1960...
- derefr 8y ago
  I imagine it'd be far easier to just extract existing stem cells from the body, freeze them, and then every once in a while wake them up, culture some, and re-seed the body with them.
meowface 8y ago
> Imagine dropping by for your weekly ultra-targeted radiation therapy to kill this week's tumors before going for lunch. I suspect if we ever reach such a distant future, we'll consider most radiation therapy to be a very blunt and barbaric instrument (even if ultra-targeted) and use some kind of nanotechnology instead. Some engineered virus or bacterium or nanomachine that hunts down the carcinogenic cells.
738472527784 8y ago
Do you have a source on the claim, that accumulated DNA damage is key? As far as I know, DNA damage happens all the time, is usually no threat at youth, and the real problem is rather the ever increasing inability to repair, or kill defective cells with age. (Getting a tan comes from the signaling of DNA damage, so cells are well prepared for this, to some extent) This is were senescence becomes very important. It's not the senescent cells themselves that become cancerous, but other dysfunctional cells which can flourish in a "fog" brought on by senescence signaling havoc and intracellular trash, obstructing internal and external kill commands. The weakening immune system is part of this too. There are other parts which become cancerous just by chance, like the endless recombinations in antibody creation will ultimately result in rogue lymphocytes. But usually cells can detect damage and repair it, kill themselves when unable to, or get killed when misbehaving.
- DenisM 8y ago
  There’s this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging Damage happens all the time, and unrepaired damage accumulated over the lifetime, hence aging. You have an interesting point with prevalence of senescent cells can interfere with natural immune response to cancer.
  - 738472527784 8y ago
    Thanks. I think we meant the same, and it's rather a question where your argumentation's starting point is set, because Wikipedia concurs, that DNA damage is caused by decreasing repair or apoptosis. Anyway, I think this is where some lifestyle fads can become interesting. Sure, there are definitely some aspects to aging that are unaffected by this, but I think better chances of reaching current max human age are in our hands somewhat. Balancing IGF1 and frequently giving the body a break to repair, kill, and remove trash, are sound targets IMHO. So for me that is: restriction of certein makros, in particular animal proteins and refined carbs, early and midlife to lower IGF1 (raising it seems beneficial in old people); short term fasting every now and then. Both have shown to increase apoptosis and repair. It's not even hard to do, if you stick to a blue zone typical diet (plantbased diets are associated with double digit reduction in overall cancer risk, which is huge considering lifetime death by cancer risk is 1/5) and have a daily fasting window of 13+ h (eg. Shown to reduce reoccurrence of breast cancer). I focused on cancer here, because intuitively it seems like a good marker for DNA maintenance.

by DenisM 8y ago

mettamage 8y ago

Silly question: how difficult would it be to extract your DNA code into digital format and then create cells based on that digital formatted DNA and put them into your body? Note: not at all a biologist as you can probably see from the way I phrase things :)

Koshkin 8y ago
I'd rather have my cells replaced with transistors - one by one. That way I might have a chance to outlive that radio made in 1960...
derefr 8y ago
I imagine it'd be far easier to just extract existing stem cells from the body, freeze them, and then every once in a while wake them up, culture some, and re-seed the body with them.

meowface 8y ago

> Imagine dropping by for your weekly ultra-targeted radiation therapy to kill this week's tumors before going for lunch. I suspect if we ever reach such a distant future, we'll consider most radiation therapy to be a very blunt and barbaric instrument (even if ultra-targeted) and use some kind of nanotechnology instead. Some engineered virus or bacterium or nanomachine that hunts down the carcinogenic cells.

738472527784 8y ago

Do you have a source on the claim, that accumulated DNA damage is key? As far as I know, DNA damage happens all the time, is usually no threat at youth, and the real problem is rather the ever increasing inability to repair, or kill defective cells with age. (Getting a tan comes from the signaling of DNA damage, so cells are well prepared for this, to some extent) This is were senescence becomes very important. It's not the senescent cells themselves that become cancerous, but other dysfunctional cells which can flourish in a "fog" brought on by senescence signaling havoc and intracellular trash, obstructing internal and external kill commands. The weakening immune system is part of this too. There are other parts which become cancerous just by chance, like the endless recombinations in antibody creation will ultimately result in rogue lymphocytes. But usually cells can detect damage and repair it, kill themselves when unable to, or get killed when misbehaving.

DenisM 8y ago
There’s this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging Damage happens all the time, and unrepaired damage accumulated over the lifetime, hence aging. You have an interesting point with prevalence of senescent cells can interfere with natural immune response to cancer.
- 738472527784 8y ago
  Thanks. I think we meant the same, and it's rather a question where your argumentation's starting point is set, because Wikipedia concurs, that DNA damage is caused by decreasing repair or apoptosis. Anyway, I think this is where some lifestyle fads can become interesting. Sure, there are definitely some aspects to aging that are unaffected by this, but I think better chances of reaching current max human age are in our hands somewhat. Balancing IGF1 and frequently giving the body a break to repair, kill, and remove trash, are sound targets IMHO. So for me that is: restriction of certein makros, in particular animal proteins and refined carbs, early and midlife to lower IGF1 (raising it seems beneficial in old people); short term fasting every now and then. Both have shown to increase apoptosis and repair. It's not even hard to do, if you stick to a blue zone typical diet (plantbased diets are associated with double digit reduction in overall cancer risk, which is huge considering lifetime death by cancer risk is 1/5) and have a daily fasting window of 13+ h (eg. Shown to reduce reoccurrence of breast cancer). I focused on cancer here, because intuitively it seems like a good marker for DNA maintenance.