8 ms·
Naked Mole Rat’s Longevity Gene Gives Mice a Longer Life
- aetherspawn 3y agoBy 4% which may as well be experimental error, right? The mice could have very well just lived longer due to increased interest/handling/measurement of their welfare. This seems insignificant when compared with other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y, which could potentially double or halve subjects life span depending on environmental factors.
- riedel 3y agoI would hope that they controlled for such systematic effects in the experiment (did not read the paper) by mixing individuals from both groups (my guess would be that they do not look different). I guess they should have also modified some other random gene in the control. Did they actually? However, I find it very interesting that all those important details seem somewhere hidden in the paper. Also I guess if you consider a 10x increase between the species and then end up with 4% this sound really far less spectacular.
- flobosg 3y ago> other selector genes such as H63D and C282Y A nitpick: Those are not genes, but mutations, probably describing variants of the HFE gene (according to a quick search).
- davedx 3y agoI know there's the replication crisis and everything, but let's not be over cynical - I don't think Nature would publish a study that didn't use basic statistics and didn't have a control group for its experiment?
- chaxor 3y agoTypically Nature or high impact journals are specifically more likely to publish irreproducible studies. It's very similar to the well established fact that students with good grades are the most likely to cheat. If you want to look for solid research, don't look to Nature, look to the so called "mid tier" journals. Also, similar observations are true for research groups. Research from ivy-league universities follows similar principles as above.
- luminen 3y agoDoubling lifespan is definitely a bigger impact than 4%, but let's explore what the hypothetical "perfect application" of this study to a human life. A fairly average lifespan is 80 years, so a 4% increase would be about 3.2 years. If I were offered a "wonder drug" that would give me 1,168 more days with a loved one, I would take it. Obviously that is not how science like this works, but stacking small victories over time is a way to achieve "significant" impact.
- aetherspawn 3y agoHm, would you go through the process of GM your (otherwise naturally conceived) kid on the chance that their lifespan would increase by 4%? For me personally, OK, 10% ... maybe, 20% definitely. But what stigma and complications/risks could they live with for a 4% increase in lifespan? What if they find out in 30 years time that their GM means that they can't have kids with their partner or something because there is some biological incompatibility that wasn't anticipated and it just miscarriages. What if some country is Xenophobic to the idea and won't grant them residency or a passport because they are GM, or they are eventually targeted by some kind of anti-GM hate group? Would that 4% be worth it? Like everything it's a risk-reward value prop.
- Out_of_Characte 3y agoBiologic incompatibility isn't as much of a concern. At least not with the modification in the article. Our genes encode a wide variety of proteins and enzymes that differ from person to person. Even people with significantly debilitating mutations havent had trouble conceiving. Even people with extra x or y chromosones do not have to worry about the matter. Though some men do have strange mutations like only being able to conceive girls with their partner.
- bathtub365 3y agoAnyone else envious of mice always being on the cutting edge of science?
- HWR_14 3y agoAs I understand it, you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. Eliminating confounds, easy access, quick lifespans (for iteration) and mammals with at least some transferability to humans is the primary reason. Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares.
- Someone 3y ago> you can order 400 genetically identical mice very easily. And in many variants, for example one’s likely to be diabetic, get Alzheimer’s disease, etc. If you want to know more of mouse dystopia, visit https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services https://www.jax.org/jax-mice-and-services > Plus, unlike monkeys, no one cares. Animal welfare groups do, as does the law in some (most, I hope) countries. I do, too, but I do realize I benefit from that mouse dystopia, too.
- aydyn 3y agoNo one cares = the vast majority of people dont care fyi.
- HWR_14 3y agoSome groups care, and I certainly don't want the mice treated cruelly. But I also am willing to let some mice get experimented on to save human lives. I feel most people are. I've seen protests against and heard about attempts to free lab monkeys. To the best of my knowledge, there are no similar issues around mice in any significant numbers.
- nine_k 3y agoThe cutting edge most literally, that is, the scalpel, and other sharp tools. I don't know how enviable is that on average. Most experiments don't end up with a discovery, let alone a discovery of something beneficial.
- pazimzadeh 3y agoHow does it affect susceptibility to cancer?
- pimpampum 3y ago"Naked mole rats also resist age-related diseases like cancer and neurodegeneration."
- more_corn 3y agoDon’t they do that (resist cancer) by having a weird sticky soup for an intercellular matrix?
- pazimzadeh 3y agowhoops they did show that. that is cool
- code51 3y agoI don't quite understand the premise of longevity research. Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology? Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that.
- jjallen 3y ago"Isn't there a concept similar to "no free lunch" in biology?" Is there? Is this a widely accepted scientific fact? What does this even mean? That you can't get a benefit without a cost? I thought that this phrase comes from economics. I think you're thinking of economics which is... not human biology. "Infinite, cancer-free lives sounds just too good to be true. Something sounds off about that." So just accept the fact that we all die and not learn about our bodies? I mean I don't know; some of us value being alive and prefer to stay that way if possible. Do you not also see dying as a problem? If you were to know that you were going to die tomorrow you wouldn't see that as a problem? Or is it only not a problem if you die at the sort of average full human lifespan age of ~70-80? Why is dying then ok and not tomorrow?
- code51 3y agoYou see I'm also a human being such as you who values life and people. It's a bit harsh to comment about my world view sarcastically like that. I was just voicing something about the process: biology is a complex thing and longevity is not attacking things from a metabolic, complex-system viewpoint. As we see here, we are after single pills or single gene activations to carry us to a healthy state. I doubt infinite health unlocks in such form. Another point is, if you transform yourself to this new state that's immortal but lose most of the biology that makes your body human, what does it mean? (reference to Leto Atreides II here maybe) Why do people suddenly make it unethical to view death as most-probably-inevitable for human beings?
- aydyn 3y agoIgnore that response, theyre just being a jerk. There are other mammals who live much longer than humans. Evolution optimized for continuation of the species, not longevity of the individual. So there is absolutely optimization room for increasing human lifespan.
- myshpa 3y agoWe're diminishing biodiversity to our own peril and disadvantage. The primary driver of biodiversity loss and deforestation is animal agriculture. Act accordingly. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2023/08/ecological-cliff-edge/
- junon 3y agoI don't see how this has anything to do with the article, or how it's much more than alarmist anti-science rhetoric. Care to expand a bit?
- myshpa 3y agoSure. I see DNA as a code that has been written by nature over millennia. We don't understand the genetic code well enough to hack or rewrite our DNA to grant us longevity. However, we might discover a species in nature with relevant genetic traits and replicate those parts, assuming that the species is not extinct. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-70-of-animal-populations-wiped-out-since-1970-report-reveals-aoe https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/13/almost-7... If we've managed to wipe out 70% of animal populations in just 50 years, it doesn't seem like it will take long for those remaining populations to collapse. - More losers than winners: investigating Anthropocene defaunation through the diversity of population trends [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/brv.12974] - The climate crisis and biodiversity crisis can't be approached separately [https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-approached.html https://phys.org/news/2023-04-climate-crisis-biodiversity-ap...] https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammal-decline Wild mammals have declined by 85% since the rise of humans https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2204892120 The total mammal biomass: - livestock (≈630 Mt) - humans (≈390 Mt) - wild marine mammals (≈40 Mt) - terrestrial wild mammals (≈20 Mt) Of the last category, about half is mice. And that's just mammals. Look at insects (80% decline), sharks (80-90%), fish (seas virtually empty in 2040's), birds (about 30-50% decline), etc. etc. https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation https://ourworldindata.org/drivers-of-deforestation The primary driver of deforestation and subsequent biodiversity loss is animal agriculture, which occupies 80% of all agricultural lands. Our industrial agriculture, excluding animal agriculture, is also a significant contributor to biodiversity loss and soil degradation (also a form of biodiversity loss) due to its use of pesticides, herbicides, and over use of fertilizers. The majority of our pharmaceuticals originally stem from nature. We've just learned to read, and manipulate the genetic code, while simultaneously depleting the largest repository of such code. And this discussion doesn't even touch upon the ethical or moral implications of such behavior or the theft from future generations or zoonotic diseases ... - Biodiversity conservation: The key is reducing meat consumption [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26231772/] - Our global food system is the primary driver of biodiversity loss [https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-global-food-system-primary-driver-biodiversity-loss https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/our-glob...] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boundaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boun...
- Sparkyte 3y agoMust be why Mr. Bezos is bald.
- viking123 3y agoI would really like to see the end of aging and by that I mean the end of age related disease, dying from ALS or Alzheimer's disease (which both are by and large age related diseases) is not nice. My mom has ALS and it is tough. I don't see much other hope in curing these diseases tbh, it feels like the research is going nowhere so I am somewhat excited about longevity research and glad that someone is pursuing it. If I didn't become a software developer, I would like to work in that field
- bglazer 3y agoAlzheimer's just had two drugs approved by the FDA for treating the disease. They're certainly not a cure, they only slow the onset of symptoms by removing plaques from the brain. The underlying factors that cause the buildup of plaques still aren't well understood. That said, I would still put much more hope in the research into well-defined, specific diseases such as Alzheimer's than I would into aging or longevity research. There are several reasons for this. First, the absolute bedrock foundation of all of medicine is human trials. There is no substitute for actually trying drugs in humans and seeing what happens. These human trials are possible (albeit extremely expensive and difficult) to run for drugs targeting specific diseases. They are functionally impossible to run for "aging". What would the trial test? Just all-cause mortality? That would be an impossibly noisy target, and almost guaranteed to fail. Not to mention that the trial would have to last an incredibly long time to test any benefit for younger people. No funding agency and certainly no drug company is going to take that bet. The second reason is that aging is a property of the entire organism. Like, every gene and every cell is affected by aging. It's simply impossible that any one gene or one drug is going to have a significant effect on aging. Drug development is currently entirely oriented towards targeting individual genes and proteins. The reason for this is that targeting even one protein with a drug stretches the limit of our technological abilities. Two drug combinations are relatively rare and are typically limited to diseases like cancer that have well characterized causes at the molecular level. This is not the case for aging. Again, aging isn't well enough defined to even pick a specific gene that "causes" it.
- viking123 3y agoBut for ALS sadly there is like nothing, absolutely nothing meaningful. My country doesn't even allow assisted suicide so your option is basically to go to Switzerland or degenerate here and die when you cannot breath anymore. I am by no means expert in this area, but there are some epigenetic aging clocks that are based on some machine learning models, and supposedly they somehow show your "true" biological age and predict death quite accurately. GrimAge, epiage etc. Sometimes I have wanted to take that test but haven't bothered.
- black_13 3y ago[dead]
- scotty79 3y agoIf I were a mad scientist I'd attempt to transplant bat mitochondria into mice. Bats must have lots of adaptations in their mitochondrias to how much calories they burn.
- robotburrito 3y agoIt’s going to very interesting when billionaires have access to AI and also live multiples longer than normal people.