4 ms·

That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well. You can read more about it by searching for "DNA damage theory of aging". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_dam

That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well. You can read more about it by searching for "DNA damage theory of aging". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_damage_theory_of_aging As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging. The body will repair if it can. Even things like re-growing limbs are theoretically possible but are prevented by tissue damage such that the body doesn't "remember" what used to be there. Aka scar tissue. https://www.livescience.com/59194-could-humans-ever-regenerate-limbs.html https://www.livescience.com/59194-could-humans-ever-regenera...

hobofan 4y ago
> That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well. No it is not. Sure, you could try to frame everything as DNA errors, but at some point that just becomes so convoluted and out of touch with what's actually happening that it fails to be a useful model. Wikipedia article you link also doesn't state that DNA errors are the _only_ cause of aging. Overall I would say that the article mostly represents the view from 15-20 years ago. That's ages in biochemical research times. I would in part ascribe that view to the fact that DNA sequencing was a hot research topic back then and for the first time became accessible to a wide audience of researchers. That hype cooled off a bit once it was recognized that mostly static snaphots of DNA only offer a limited picture of what happens in organisms, and research focus shifted more towards all the more dynamic processes in organisms (some of which are quite far removed from DNA interactions). > As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging. As mentioned in a sibling comment, the "current" most widely accepted framework is the "hallmarks of aging"[0], where DNA errors and epigentic alterations (points accounted for in the DNA damage theory), cover only 2 out of 9 hallmarks. That paper is cited in basically every introduction of a paper that is tangentially related to longevity research and their mechanisms nowadays. The same authors also recently published an updated list of hallmarks[1], adding 3 new ones (also all non-DNA error related). [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174 [1]: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0 https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0

hobofan 4y ago

> That's ultimately related to DNA errors as well. No it is not. Sure, you could try to frame everything as DNA errors, but at some point that just becomes so convoluted and out of touch with what's actually happening that it fails to be a useful model. Wikipedia article you link also doesn't state that DNA errors are the _only_ cause of aging. Overall I would say that the article mostly represents the view from 15-20 years ago. That's ages in biochemical research times. I would in part ascribe that view to the fact that DNA sequencing was a hot research topic back then and for the first time became accessible to a wide audience of researchers. That hype cooled off a bit once it was recognized that mostly static snaphots of DNA only offer a limited picture of what happens in organisms, and research focus shifted more towards all the more dynamic processes in organisms (some of which are quite far removed from DNA interactions). > As far as I know, this is the most widely accepted theory for aging. As mentioned in a sibling comment, the "current" most widely accepted framework is the "hallmarks of aging"[0], where DNA errors and epigentic alterations (points accounted for in the DNA damage theory), cover only 2 out of 9 hallmarks. That paper is cited in basically every introduction of a paper that is tangentially related to longevity research and their mechanisms nowadays. The same authors also recently published an updated list of hallmarks[1], adding 3 new ones (also all non-DNA error related). [0]: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174 [1]: https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0 https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(22)01377-0