4 ms·

Keywords: In Mice.

• stevenjgarner 1y ago
  The increasing frequency of mouse studies showing reversal of aging symptoms indicates a few things in itself, regardless of whether any single result (like FTL1) holds up in humans: 1. Field Maturation We’ve moved from “aging is inevitable” → “aging can be slowed” → “specific mechanisms can be reversed in vivo.” That shift means: - Tools (CRISPR, single-cell omics, proteomics) are now precise enough to pinpoint single culprits. - Researchers are designing interventions that don’t just extend lifespan, but restore youthful function in cognition, muscle, or immunity. 2. Convergence on a Core Set of Mechanisms Different labs, different pathways (NAD+, senolytics, plasma dilution, now FTL1), but similar outcomes: old mice regaining youthful traits. This convergence hints aging may not be a diffuse “wear and tear” process, but the result of a relatively small number of upstream regulators. 3. Proof-of-Concept Momentum Even if each specific intervention fails to translate, the fact that so many are succeeding at all in mice makes it harder to dismiss rejuvenation as fringe. The signal: aging can be manipulated, not just observed. 4. Cultural Shift in Geroscience Funders, journals, and institutions are increasingly willing to spotlight “reversal” claims, where a decade ago the same results might have been relegated to smaller journals. The fact we’re seeing more of these studies may reflect both real progress and changed editorial appetite. the trend suggests aging is experimentally tractable and reversible in model organisms. That doesn’t mean translation to humans is imminent, but it reframes aging from “inevitable decline” to “complex but solvable engineering problem.”
  • throw310822 1y ago
    > This convergence hints aging may not be a diffuse “wear and tear” process About this: it seems to me that the idea itself of "wear and tear" is just silly. It's a metaphor taken from the realm of mechanical objects that have no regeneration abilities. Any living being is continuously repairing localised damages back to a pristine state, while aging is diffuse and organic. This suggests that any "wear and tear" can only be at the cellular level- but still it can't be a biological necessity given the wildly different lifespans of organisms- from a few days to centuries.
    • bitwize 1y ago
      It still applies because while organisms all have some form of self-repair ability, most do not have complete self-repair. "Wear and tear" is still possible at the macro level where self-repair is missing or slower than the damage rate -- famously in the articular cartilage, for instance. There's also accumulating damage that does not resemble mechanical wear and tear: toxins, misfolded proteins, DNA damage/mutation, senescent cells, etc.
    • jjk166 1y ago
      Biological entities have some regeneration techniques, but that doesn't guarantee a mechanism exists for arbitrary damage to be repaired. For example I can heal a broken bone, but I can't heal a broken tooth.
      • throw310822 1y ago
        No but you do grow entire teeth. Some animals regrow entire limbs. Organisms constantly build and rebuild themselves, sometimes (or at some levels) from scratch. Fresh cells can be generated at any time. The capacity to regenerate and repair can be lost but it's not intrinsically absent as the "wear and tear" metaphor suggests.
  • glenstein 1y ago
    I fully agree with this GPT copy paste. We rely on these studies for good reason and the "in mice" reflex implies we should disregard important research. I find them to be an unfortunate mix dismissiveness and principled restraint, that veers to much into the Onions Learned Sage territory.
• dgfitz 1y ago
  I’m re-reading hitchhikers, this made me chuckle.
• greenavocado 1y ago
  It's still something. People are already injecting processed pig brains into their blood stream for many years now: Cerebrolysin