17 ms·

Ageing in human cells successfully reversed in the lab (2018)

97 points by novalis78 7y ago

ilaksh 7y ago
Looks interesting, but very misleading headline. "Mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide attenuates endothelial senescence by selective induction of splicing factors" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026406 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026406
- k_ 7y ago
  In what way is it misleading? The original title and abstract are beyond my knowledge.
  - ilaksh 7y ago
    In that they did not reverse aging. They affected one aspect of aging in a significant way, but did not completely stop or reverse it. And it was only in one type of tissue, and they don't know that there won't be dangerous side effects. There are still many other aspects of aging that they did not affect.
shifto 7y ago
> By using a “molecular postcode” we have been able to deliver the molecule directly to the mitochondria, the structures that produce energy in cells, where we think it acts, allowing us to use tiny doses, which are less likely to cause side effects. Is there more information on this? I want to know when I can expect a pill for this. :)
- rasengan 7y ago
  Definitely interesting and waiting for the pill as well. Currently, there are a few pills you can take to capture a similar effect (slow down but not reverse): 1. DHEA 2. Niagen 3. CoQ10 YMMV - Please consult a physician before adding any pill/altering diet in your regimen.
  - rwmurrayVT 7y ago
    Are these three typically taken in a cocktail or individually?
  - echelon 7y ago
    CAUTION I am not a doctor, but I want to caution against blindly taking supplements like this. DEHA is a steroid hormone. These are key components of signalling networks in your body, and they can up or down regulate many different things. It could definitely be pro-cancer [1] Niagen is a precursor to NAD+. Screwing with the NAD+ metabolism might promote cancer [2] There seems to be good concensus on CoQ10. It may not have an associated cancer risk (I couldn't find any literature), but it may lower blood pressure and that should be carefully considered [3] Please do your homework and ask your doctor before taking any of these. There are pros and cons and a whole lot of uncertainties. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-dhea/art-20364199 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-dhea/art-203641... [2] https://siteman.wustl.edu/pathway-linked-slower-aging-also-fuels-brain-cancer/ https://siteman.wustl.edu/pathway-linked-slower-aging-also-f... [3] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-coenzyme-q10/art-20362602 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-coenzyme-q10/ar...
    - lgats 7y ago
      rasengan posted about DHEA, a compound often found in Fish Oil, not the steroid hormone DEHA.
      - echelon 7y ago
        Sorry, that was a typo. The link I cited is on DHEA. DEHA is an organic compound, not a hormone.
    - LinuxBender 7y ago
      That is why I also cycle up/down Sulforaphane to up-regulate NRF2 and activate several genetic expressions that increase cell autophagy and apoptosis. I also use Berberine (some use metformin) to modify p53. I also take aged garlic extract to break down the biofilm on cancer cells and bio-availability enhanced Curcumin to block metastases or the process. I also do not consume glucose, as cancer cells and tumors require glucose. Operating off Ketones is very beneficial to starving cancer cells. All of that said, based on the studies I have read, the results of CoQ10 only start to become more beneficial at older ages or in people that have had heart damage. It also helps to ensure you are not deficient in potassium and magnesium, as those are very important for mitochondria. Dr. Bruce Ames has done a lot of research in this area and has theories about "conservation" and how various longevity functions in our bodies are muted when we only get the RDA or lower of critical components. I don't have an opinion on NAD+ precursors for humans. Mice studies have produce great results, but it isn't clear yet if NR/NMN help humans AFAIK.
xwdv 7y ago
IMO there is no point in undergoing age reversal if you haven’t already been maintaining a fit and healthy lifestyle. If you’re fat and 65 and treated your body like a dumpster your whole life I see no point in going back to being a slightly younger fat blob. I also think that true age reversal will never be achievable anyway the way people think, but stopping aging may be possible. I have met some individuals who seem to exhibit qualities of negligible senescence, the only physical thing that gives away their true age is probably the quality of their skin and hair, which does not look as fresh (but still pretty good) as someone much younger.
- techsin101 7y ago
  Baseless claims. Doesn't matter how good your lifestyle was, by 80 it's genetics. Science will continue to progress despite what you believe. There are biological organisms who don't age like we do or even go back and forth; young to old then young.
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    >There are biological organisms who don't age like we do or even go back and forth; young to old then young. Citations please? If we're talking about slime molds or amoebas this might be interesting trivia, but is completely irrelevant. Multicellular animal models would be more interesting.
    - shadowprofile77 7y ago
      Look into the Turritopsis dohrnii. It's a species of Mediterranean jellyfish (very definitely a macroscopic, multicellular animal) that is essentially immortal, and periodically ages in reverse, for lack of a better description.
    - magduf 7y ago
      Google for "naked mole rat".
JSeymourATL 7y ago
Related: Recent podcast: Why We Age - And Why We Don't Have To > https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/492-david-sinclair/ https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/492-david-sinclair/
Aperocky 7y ago
It remain to be seen if this doesn't cause the cell (even if 1 in 10 million) to start behaving like cancer. Great hopes! But I still think maybe it's easier for programmable nanobots with MHC complex attached to it to fix individual cells to allow us to live longer. Or maybe even change the hardware for $BRAIN_SOFTWARE.
- echelon 7y ago
  One of the reasons cells die is to fend off cancer. A hallmark of cancer is cell immortalization. The body has a multitude programmed cell death pathways for this reason. And if the cells themselves decide not to die, the immune system kicks in to help (so long as the cancer doesn't out-evolve detection). We must be very careful here. I am not a doctor, but my advice for those looking to live longer in an age where we don't have a magic pill : - eat right - get plenty of cardiovascular exercise - avoid stess - avoid inflammation, especially chronic
- kypro 7y ago
  If it were actually reversing the ageing process shouldn't cancer be less likely? Cancer rates increase with age so younger cells in theory should mean a lower likelihood of cancer.
  - czbond 7y ago
    Or - intermittent fasting could be used for cell regeneration. http://news.mit.edu/2018/fasting-boosts-stem-cells-regenerative-capacity-0503 http://news.mit.edu/2018/fasting-boosts-stem-cells-regenerat...
j9461701 7y ago
I believe so many problems in our society would be solved by lifespan increasing technology. It would make people have to seriously consider the long-term ramifications of their actions, and I imagine adopt a kinder, gentler, more sustainable attitude. Climate change is a personal threat to you if you're immortal, not your children or your children's children. Crime goes down, as the risks of having jail time on your record grow and grow - it's one thing to be a felon for 60 years, but to be a felon for 500 years? 1000 years? No one would risk that just for the contents of a 7/11 cash register. Being nice and kind to everyone you see makes more and more sense, because the longer your lifespan the higher the probability you'll meet some of those people again and get your kindness repaid. The only downside is potential overpopulation issues, but (perhaps this is naive of me) I imagine most people would accept sterilization in exchange for eternity.
- osobo 7y ago
  If watching the Boomer generation has taught me one thing, it's that people do not necessarily grow milder and wiser with age. I think it would be catastrophic if society gets locked down in its current model because people simply will not vacate their place (in work, in housing, in use of resources) by dying.
  - magduf 7y ago
    People will still die, due to accidents etc., just not as quickly. History has shown that younger generations aren't always better than older ones. The rise of Naziism in the 30s wasn't because of a bunch of elderly people.
    - nwah1 7y ago
      Accidents are a small percent of overall mortality, and the likelihood of accidents has been decreasing over time, and can be decreased further with lifestyle choices that reduce such risks. Warfare can and will kill many, but the rich are generally the least likely to die, because they are the most mobile and can afford the best defense.
mLuby 7y ago
Related: Fable of the Dragon Tyrant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY Ways to improve life expectancy: A. keep children alive till adulthood (mostly done) B. keep adults disease-free/healthy (somewhat done) C. keep old people alive till natural death (little done) D. stop natural death (possible?) E. reverse aging (possible?) If natural death is just rolling constitution checks long enough to get a critical miss, then perhaps it's enough to complete C. If natural death is some sort of cellular countdown, it may suffice to stop the time, as in D. I think for most people, what they really want is not eternal life in a 90+ year-old body, but to be able to live in a young body, which necessitates E. It's interesting to consider scenarios where we accomplish some but not all of these, especially where C and/or D are possible but E is not.
- LeanderK 7y ago
  yeah, an interesting thought experiment would be a scenario where one could stop, but not reverse aging. The people young enough would probably stop at their prime, with the upper part of the society (those past their prime) being stuck in their respective age. I would look at life very, very differently if I would know that I would have a significant longer life-span. I would just chill and live more in the moment and not worry about time so much (I worry about time quite a lot right now, probably because a chapter in my life just (a day ago!) ended).
  - mLuby 7y ago
    Agreed. Happy birthday!
    - LeanderK 7y ago
      Thanks, but near miss :) I moved cities to start my masters, so my chapter of living in karlsruhe (where I moved for my bachelors) is closed, especially since I won't be coming back. I have not done everything I've wanted, stayed longer than I've thought and left some things unfinished. If only there would be more time, but your twenties unfortunatly don't have more years in them than the other decades. I probably wouldn't have started my masters yet but instead take a break and do something crazy. Like move to berlin, try to survive as a DJ and maybe get into producing music. Maybe study some philosophy. I feel like some opportunities just rush by and some doors just slowly but steadily close. And you have to decide for one, maybe two.
manbearpiggy 7y ago
Eric Cantona was right https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1167168051525095424 https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1167168051525095424

97 points by novalis78 7y ago

Looks interesting, but very misleading headline. "Mitochondria-targeted hydrogen sulfide attenuates endothelial senescence by selective induction of splicing factors" https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026406 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30026406

k_ 7y ago
In what way is it misleading? The original title and abstract are beyond my knowledge.
- ilaksh 7y ago
  In that they did not reverse aging. They affected one aspect of aging in a significant way, but did not completely stop or reverse it. And it was only in one type of tissue, and they don't know that there won't be dangerous side effects. There are still many other aspects of aging that they did not affect.

shifto 7y ago

> By using a “molecular postcode” we have been able to deliver the molecule directly to the mitochondria, the structures that produce energy in cells, where we think it acts, allowing us to use tiny doses, which are less likely to cause side effects. Is there more information on this? I want to know when I can expect a pill for this. :)

rasengan 7y ago
Definitely interesting and waiting for the pill as well. Currently, there are a few pills you can take to capture a similar effect (slow down but not reverse): 1. DHEA 2. Niagen 3. CoQ10 YMMV - Please consult a physician before adding any pill/altering diet in your regimen.
- rwmurrayVT 7y ago
  Are these three typically taken in a cocktail or individually?
- echelon 7y ago
  CAUTION I am not a doctor, but I want to caution against blindly taking supplements like this. DEHA is a steroid hormone. These are key components of signalling networks in your body, and they can up or down regulate many different things. It could definitely be pro-cancer [1] Niagen is a precursor to NAD+. Screwing with the NAD+ metabolism might promote cancer [2] There seems to be good concensus on CoQ10. It may not have an associated cancer risk (I couldn't find any literature), but it may lower blood pressure and that should be carefully considered [3] Please do your homework and ask your doctor before taking any of these. There are pros and cons and a whole lot of uncertainties. [1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-dhea/art-20364199 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-dhea/art-203641... [2] https://siteman.wustl.edu/pathway-linked-slower-aging-also-fuels-brain-cancer/ https://siteman.wustl.edu/pathway-linked-slower-aging-also-f... [3] https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-coenzyme-q10/art-20362602 https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements-coenzyme-q10/ar...
  - lgats 7y ago
    rasengan posted about DHEA, a compound often found in Fish Oil, not the steroid hormone DEHA.
    - echelon 7y ago
      Sorry, that was a typo. The link I cited is on DHEA. DEHA is an organic compound, not a hormone.
  - LinuxBender 7y ago
    That is why I also cycle up/down Sulforaphane to up-regulate NRF2 and activate several genetic expressions that increase cell autophagy and apoptosis. I also use Berberine (some use metformin) to modify p53. I also take aged garlic extract to break down the biofilm on cancer cells and bio-availability enhanced Curcumin to block metastases or the process. I also do not consume glucose, as cancer cells and tumors require glucose. Operating off Ketones is very beneficial to starving cancer cells. All of that said, based on the studies I have read, the results of CoQ10 only start to become more beneficial at older ages or in people that have had heart damage. It also helps to ensure you are not deficient in potassium and magnesium, as those are very important for mitochondria. Dr. Bruce Ames has done a lot of research in this area and has theories about "conservation" and how various longevity functions in our bodies are muted when we only get the RDA or lower of critical components. I don't have an opinion on NAD+ precursors for humans. Mice studies have produce great results, but it isn't clear yet if NR/NMN help humans AFAIK.

xwdv 7y ago

IMO there is no point in undergoing age reversal if you haven’t already been maintaining a fit and healthy lifestyle. If you’re fat and 65 and treated your body like a dumpster your whole life I see no point in going back to being a slightly younger fat blob. I also think that true age reversal will never be achievable anyway the way people think, but stopping aging may be possible. I have met some individuals who seem to exhibit qualities of negligible senescence, the only physical thing that gives away their true age is probably the quality of their skin and hair, which does not look as fresh (but still pretty good) as someone much younger.

techsin101 7y ago
Baseless claims. Doesn't matter how good your lifestyle was, by 80 it's genetics. Science will continue to progress despite what you believe. There are biological organisms who don't age like we do or even go back and forth; young to old then young.
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  >There are biological organisms who don't age like we do or even go back and forth; young to old then young. Citations please? If we're talking about slime molds or amoebas this might be interesting trivia, but is completely irrelevant. Multicellular animal models would be more interesting.
  - shadowprofile77 7y ago
    Look into the Turritopsis dohrnii. It's a species of Mediterranean jellyfish (very definitely a macroscopic, multicellular animal) that is essentially immortal, and periodically ages in reverse, for lack of a better description.
  - magduf 7y ago
    Google for "naked mole rat".

JSeymourATL 7y ago

Related: Recent podcast: Why We Age - And Why We Don't Have To > https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/492-david-sinclair/ https://jamesaltucher.com/podcast/492-david-sinclair/

Aperocky 7y ago

It remain to be seen if this doesn't cause the cell (even if 1 in 10 million) to start behaving like cancer. Great hopes! But I still think maybe it's easier for programmable nanobots with MHC complex attached to it to fix individual cells to allow us to live longer. Or maybe even change the hardware for $BRAIN_SOFTWARE.

echelon 7y ago
One of the reasons cells die is to fend off cancer. A hallmark of cancer is cell immortalization. The body has a multitude programmed cell death pathways for this reason. And if the cells themselves decide not to die, the immune system kicks in to help (so long as the cancer doesn't out-evolve detection). We must be very careful here. I am not a doctor, but my advice for those looking to live longer in an age where we don't have a magic pill : - eat right - get plenty of cardiovascular exercise - avoid stess - avoid inflammation, especially chronic
kypro 7y ago
If it were actually reversing the ageing process shouldn't cancer be less likely? Cancer rates increase with age so younger cells in theory should mean a lower likelihood of cancer.
- czbond 7y ago
  Or - intermittent fasting could be used for cell regeneration. http://news.mit.edu/2018/fasting-boosts-stem-cells-regenerative-capacity-0503 http://news.mit.edu/2018/fasting-boosts-stem-cells-regenerat...

j9461701 7y ago

I believe so many problems in our society would be solved by lifespan increasing technology. It would make people have to seriously consider the long-term ramifications of their actions, and I imagine adopt a kinder, gentler, more sustainable attitude. Climate change is a personal threat to you if you're immortal, not your children or your children's children. Crime goes down, as the risks of having jail time on your record grow and grow - it's one thing to be a felon for 60 years, but to be a felon for 500 years? 1000 years? No one would risk that just for the contents of a 7/11 cash register. Being nice and kind to everyone you see makes more and more sense, because the longer your lifespan the higher the probability you'll meet some of those people again and get your kindness repaid. The only downside is potential overpopulation issues, but (perhaps this is naive of me) I imagine most people would accept sterilization in exchange for eternity.

osobo 7y ago
If watching the Boomer generation has taught me one thing, it's that people do not necessarily grow milder and wiser with age. I think it would be catastrophic if society gets locked down in its current model because people simply will not vacate their place (in work, in housing, in use of resources) by dying.
- magduf 7y ago
  People will still die, due to accidents etc., just not as quickly. History has shown that younger generations aren't always better than older ones. The rise of Naziism in the 30s wasn't because of a bunch of elderly people.
  - nwah1 7y ago
    Accidents are a small percent of overall mortality, and the likelihood of accidents has been decreasing over time, and can be decreased further with lifestyle choices that reduce such risks. Warfare can and will kill many, but the rich are generally the least likely to die, because they are the most mobile and can afford the best defense.

mLuby 7y ago

Related: Fable of the Dragon Tyrant https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZYNADOHhVY Ways to improve life expectancy: A. keep children alive till adulthood (mostly done) B. keep adults disease-free/healthy (somewhat done) C. keep old people alive till natural death (little done) D. stop natural death (possible?) E. reverse aging (possible?) If natural death is just rolling constitution checks long enough to get a critical miss, then perhaps it's enough to complete C. If natural death is some sort of cellular countdown, it may suffice to stop the time, as in D. I think for most people, what they really want is not eternal life in a 90+ year-old body, but to be able to live in a young body, which necessitates E. It's interesting to consider scenarios where we accomplish some but not all of these, especially where C and/or D are possible but E is not.

LeanderK 7y ago
yeah, an interesting thought experiment would be a scenario where one could stop, but not reverse aging. The people young enough would probably stop at their prime, with the upper part of the society (those past their prime) being stuck in their respective age. I would look at life very, very differently if I would know that I would have a significant longer life-span. I would just chill and live more in the moment and not worry about time so much (I worry about time quite a lot right now, probably because a chapter in my life just (a day ago!) ended).
- mLuby 7y ago
  Agreed. Happy birthday!
  - LeanderK 7y ago
    Thanks, but near miss :) I moved cities to start my masters, so my chapter of living in karlsruhe (where I moved for my bachelors) is closed, especially since I won't be coming back. I have not done everything I've wanted, stayed longer than I've thought and left some things unfinished. If only there would be more time, but your twenties unfortunatly don't have more years in them than the other decades. I probably wouldn't have started my masters yet but instead take a break and do something crazy. Like move to berlin, try to survive as a DJ and maybe get into producing music. Maybe study some philosophy. I feel like some opportunities just rush by and some doors just slowly but steadily close. And you have to decide for one, maybe two.

manbearpiggy 7y ago

Eric Cantona was right https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1167168051525095424 https://twitter.com/brfootball/status/1167168051525095424