8 ms·

Why Do Cells Age? Extremely Long-Lived Proteins

69 points by llambda 15y ago

z0ot 15y ago
This reminds me of a paper I read a few days ago. Melatonin, when bonded to MT1 receptors, can prevent cell death from neurodegenerative such as Huntingtons and Alzheimer's. The melatonin prevents the mitochondria from releasing an enzyme which lights the fuse on cell death mechanisms. Very, very cool.
- brador 15y ago
  Link to paper please...
  - carbocation 15y ago
    Probably http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21994366 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21994366
nazar 15y ago
Cells age mostly because of telomere shortening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomere_shortening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomere_shortening
- polyfractal 15y ago
  Sorta, but I wouldn't classify it as "aging". It's more akin to automated self-destruction after a certain amount of time. Aging implies a slow breakdown of function, whereas the limit imposed by telomeres is more of a binary event. You're good until you run out of telemoeres, then shit gets crazy and you enter apoptosis because your cell is no longer functioning correctly.
  - nazar 15y ago
    Yes, thank you for correction, I used the wrong word. What I tried to say is that telomere shortening is the main cause of cell destruction, and unless its solved, cell death is inevitable
    - ars 15y ago
      I think the idea is that cell death isn't the problem. Cells die all the time and get replaced, that's not really a problem. A problem is cells that don't die, but instead start working poorer.
      - nazar 15y ago
        Or maybe the cells that should die but fail to do so?(cancer cells)
        solnyshok 15y ago
        omg, so by achieving immortality we would become a sort of cancer in the grand scheme of things?
    - polyfractal 15y ago
      Sorry to correct you again (I'm a biologist...I can't help it!), but cell death is actually a very good thing. Your cells are programmed to die so they don't turn into cancer, or start degenerating into something equally unpleasant. Aging occurs because your body becomes less capable of replacing these cells over time, and either replaces with less robust cells or stops entirely. Or you get cancer.
      - nazar 15y ago
        Hey, I always welcome constructive corrections. Btw, I actually attended International Biology Olympiads twice, but it was too long ago for me to remember the details.(Ever since I was too remote from biology)
        15y ago
  - samstave 15y ago
    Thats why I think we were built by aliens. They put an expiration date in our DNA. :) We just need to figure out how to diffuse the bomb!
    - jakeonthemove 15y ago
      It is pretty amazing how complicated our bodies are, but I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation - if our ancestors didn't die, the planet would be overpopulated with lazy apes who don't evolve cause there's no need to :-). Once we're smart enough to fully control ourselves and our environment, immortality becomes an advantage - sadly, I don't think we're there yet... Edit: by immortality, I always mean living longer than ~400 years. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to live forever (sooner or later, you'll die of an accident anyway), but living longer and living without any disease should be great...
      - berntb 15y ago
        >>It is pretty amazing how complicated our bodies are, but I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation - if our ancestors didn't die, the planet would be overpopulated That is an argument based on group evolution, largely disproved (some unusual edge cases might exist). I'd recommend reading "The Selfish Gene", it is an incredibly fun journey in beautiful English (Disclaimer: I'm a non-native English speaker.) It will probably change your world view.
        jakeonthemove 15y ago
        I was assuming, of course, that the drive to reproduce would still be there - but, yes, on a closer look, the reproduction rate would diminish, while evolution would continue for the existing individuals...
      - gte910h 15y ago
        1> Current actuarial tables have us dying by 550-650 even if there was no aging. Stuff like car accidents, slipping in the shower, etc. 2> "I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation" implies evolution has a purpose. You know when you work at a company, and the processes just change over time and change over time and 5 years in no one remembers why you file a tps report before going on vacation? That's what evolution is like: Whatever processes happened to survive. That TPS report may have some value, it may be easily replaced by a more logical item, or it may be completely useless. Just the fact the process of filing a TPS report before leaving for vacation exists, doesn't mean it's necessary for the health of the organization. 3> Populations the world over are manually dropping their procreation rates to near replacement levels. I'm sure many people would drop it further if they had a few hundred extra years. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.html http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.html
mkramlich 15y ago
Want to create a startup that truly has an impact on the world? Make the breakthroughs needed to deliver immortality.
- pyre 15y ago
  The problem is that there is no immediate solution. You could bang away at the problem for the better part of a decade and still be 'almost there.'
  - publicus 15y ago
    The real problem is nobody is even trying. Then they all die.
  - pjscott 15y ago
    You'll be doing fine if you manage to extend people's lives by at least one year per year. Think of it as lowering your burn rate. :-) Of course, that's easier said than done, but living longer, healthier lives is important.
    - pyre 15y ago
      Solving the 'immortality problem' isn't like grinding in an RPG. You don't slowly increase the maximum lifespan at regular intervals. Immortality would probably involve solving various different, discrete problems. When I said 'almost there' I meant in solving one of these issues.
- doubleconfess 15y ago
  I think mankind should treat aging as the biggest threat it faces, and pour our every last resource into delivering us from its tyranny. It's like we all have this really slow and really insidious fatal disease (aging) and no one wants to admit that it's beatable. The downside to immortality is that the wealthy would just keep getting wealthier (since building wealth is at least partly a function of having wealth and having experience accumulating wealth) until eventually they are more important than governments. And the great War of 2188 will be of the nation of Zuckerberg vs the nation of the United States of Buffett, winner gets Earth, loser is expelled to roam space for all time. Ok, I should drink less coffee. :)
reasonattlm 15y ago
This is most likely a lesser contribution - and remember this is only of practical interest in very long-lived cells, such as the neurons that never turn over and are as old as you are. Compare this mechanism with failure of the lysosome due to buildup of indigestible lipofuscin, or mitochondrial DNA damage, or the cell being battered by higher levels of surrounding AGEs and amyloid or other aggregates, and so forth. What this does tend to point out, however, is the very long term need for ways to replace or completely repair currently irreplacable cells. That isn't the low-hanging fruit, but it's the sort if thing to be working in once SENS is realized. By then, of course, the options will be veering off into the space of molecular manufacturing and medical nanorobotics and synthetic replacements for biological molecular machinery.
- polyfractal 15y ago
  As a biologist, this is a major pet-peeve of mine: we don't need "medical nanorobotics". Not only is this a nonsense term, but nature has already provided a much better solution. It's called an enzyme. Enzymes are hugely efficient "nanorobots" that don't require science fiction. They "manufacture molecules" all the time, every day, at catalytic rates that would make high-tech manufacturing factories blush.
  - jakeonthemove 15y ago
    I always wonder why creating synthetic nanorobots to replace organic ones seems more attractive than learning to control what we already have inside. Maybe it's because of the natural repulsion to biology that most people have...
    - moonchrome 15y ago
      >I always wonder why creating synthetic nanorobots to replace organic ones seems more attractive than learning to control what we already have inside. Would you like to reuse a result of a process that went on for millions of years and reverse engineer all evolutionary accretions created by a random mutation process ? It's not hard to figure out why developers don't like that option, if they work maintaining a large codebase they probably have hands on expirience with that kind of work. It's not something I would unleash on my brain.

69 points by llambda 15y ago

z0ot 15y ago

This reminds me of a paper I read a few days ago. Melatonin, when bonded to MT1 receptors, can prevent cell death from neurodegenerative such as Huntingtons and Alzheimer's. The melatonin prevents the mitochondria from releasing an enzyme which lights the fuse on cell death mechanisms. Very, very cool.

brador 15y ago
Link to paper please...
- carbocation 15y ago
  Probably http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21994366 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21994366

nazar 15y ago

Cells age mostly because of telomere shortening. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomere_shortening http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomere_shortening

polyfractal 15y ago
Sorta, but I wouldn't classify it as "aging". It's more akin to automated self-destruction after a certain amount of time. Aging implies a slow breakdown of function, whereas the limit imposed by telomeres is more of a binary event. You're good until you run out of telemoeres, then shit gets crazy and you enter apoptosis because your cell is no longer functioning correctly.
- nazar 15y ago
  Yes, thank you for correction, I used the wrong word. What I tried to say is that telomere shortening is the main cause of cell destruction, and unless its solved, cell death is inevitable
  - ars 15y ago
    I think the idea is that cell death isn't the problem. Cells die all the time and get replaced, that's not really a problem. A problem is cells that don't die, but instead start working poorer.
    - nazar 15y ago
      Or maybe the cells that should die but fail to do so?(cancer cells)
      - solnyshok 15y ago
        omg, so by achieving immortality we would become a sort of cancer in the grand scheme of things?
  - polyfractal 15y ago
    Sorry to correct you again (I'm a biologist...I can't help it!), but cell death is actually a very good thing. Your cells are programmed to die so they don't turn into cancer, or start degenerating into something equally unpleasant. Aging occurs because your body becomes less capable of replacing these cells over time, and either replaces with less robust cells or stops entirely. Or you get cancer.
    - nazar 15y ago
      Hey, I always welcome constructive corrections. Btw, I actually attended International Biology Olympiads twice, but it was too long ago for me to remember the details.(Ever since I was too remote from biology)
      - 15y ago
- samstave 15y ago
  Thats why I think we were built by aliens. They put an expiration date in our DNA. :) We just need to figure out how to diffuse the bomb!
  - jakeonthemove 15y ago
    It is pretty amazing how complicated our bodies are, but I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation - if our ancestors didn't die, the planet would be overpopulated with lazy apes who don't evolve cause there's no need to :-). Once we're smart enough to fully control ourselves and our environment, immortality becomes an advantage - sadly, I don't think we're there yet... Edit: by immortality, I always mean living longer than ~400 years. I'm pretty sure it's impossible to live forever (sooner or later, you'll die of an accident anyway), but living longer and living without any disease should be great...
    - berntb 15y ago
      >>It is pretty amazing how complicated our bodies are, but I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation - if our ancestors didn't die, the planet would be overpopulated That is an argument based on group evolution, largely disproved (some unusual edge cases might exist). I'd recommend reading "The Selfish Gene", it is an incredibly fun journey in beautiful English (Disclaimer: I'm a non-native English speaker.) It will probably change your world view.
      - jakeonthemove 15y ago
        I was assuming, of course, that the drive to reproduce would still be there - but, yes, on a closer look, the reproduction rate would diminish, while evolution would continue for the existing individuals...
    - gte910h 15y ago
      1> Current actuarial tables have us dying by 550-650 even if there was no aging. Stuff like car accidents, slipping in the shower, etc. 2> "I think the expiration date is there to prevent overpopulation" implies evolution has a purpose. You know when you work at a company, and the processes just change over time and change over time and 5 years in no one remembers why you file a tps report before going on vacation? That's what evolution is like: Whatever processes happened to survive. That TPS report may have some value, it may be easily replaced by a more logical item, or it may be completely useless. Just the fact the process of filing a TPS report before leaving for vacation exists, doesn't mean it's necessary for the health of the organization. 3> Populations the world over are manually dropping their procreation rates to near replacement levels. I'm sure many people would drop it further if they had a few hundred extra years. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.html http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3201400.html

mkramlich 15y ago

Want to create a startup that truly has an impact on the world? Make the breakthroughs needed to deliver immortality.

pyre 15y ago
The problem is that there is no immediate solution. You could bang away at the problem for the better part of a decade and still be 'almost there.'
- publicus 15y ago
  The real problem is nobody is even trying. Then they all die.
- pjscott 15y ago
  You'll be doing fine if you manage to extend people's lives by at least one year per year. Think of it as lowering your burn rate. :-) Of course, that's easier said than done, but living longer, healthier lives is important.
  - pyre 15y ago
    Solving the 'immortality problem' isn't like grinding in an RPG. You don't slowly increase the maximum lifespan at regular intervals. Immortality would probably involve solving various different, discrete problems. When I said 'almost there' I meant in solving one of these issues.
doubleconfess 15y ago
I think mankind should treat aging as the biggest threat it faces, and pour our every last resource into delivering us from its tyranny. It's like we all have this really slow and really insidious fatal disease (aging) and no one wants to admit that it's beatable. The downside to immortality is that the wealthy would just keep getting wealthier (since building wealth is at least partly a function of having wealth and having experience accumulating wealth) until eventually they are more important than governments. And the great War of 2188 will be of the nation of Zuckerberg vs the nation of the United States of Buffett, winner gets Earth, loser is expelled to roam space for all time. Ok, I should drink less coffee. :)

reasonattlm 15y ago

This is most likely a lesser contribution - and remember this is only of practical interest in very long-lived cells, such as the neurons that never turn over and are as old as you are. Compare this mechanism with failure of the lysosome due to buildup of indigestible lipofuscin, or mitochondrial DNA damage, or the cell being battered by higher levels of surrounding AGEs and amyloid or other aggregates, and so forth. What this does tend to point out, however, is the very long term need for ways to replace or completely repair currently irreplacable cells. That isn't the low-hanging fruit, but it's the sort if thing to be working in once SENS is realized. By then, of course, the options will be veering off into the space of molecular manufacturing and medical nanorobotics and synthetic replacements for biological molecular machinery.

polyfractal 15y ago
As a biologist, this is a major pet-peeve of mine: we don't need "medical nanorobotics". Not only is this a nonsense term, but nature has already provided a much better solution. It's called an enzyme. Enzymes are hugely efficient "nanorobots" that don't require science fiction. They "manufacture molecules" all the time, every day, at catalytic rates that would make high-tech manufacturing factories blush.
- jakeonthemove 15y ago
  I always wonder why creating synthetic nanorobots to replace organic ones seems more attractive than learning to control what we already have inside. Maybe it's because of the natural repulsion to biology that most people have...
  - moonchrome 15y ago
    >I always wonder why creating synthetic nanorobots to replace organic ones seems more attractive than learning to control what we already have inside. Would you like to reuse a result of a process that went on for millions of years and reverse engineer all evolutionary accretions created by a random mutation process ? It's not hard to figure out why developers don't like that option, if they work maintaining a large codebase they probably have hands on expirience with that kind of work. It's not something I would unleash on my brain.