Scientists have found a way to chemically reverse (If only partially) senescence

[givingtnt]

Ok, before we start.
Senescence  Is the process by witch a cell looses its ability to divide & grow. 
Basically, it's the reason we all die.

I will link 3 sources. the article, the Scientific paper for those who want more insight and an article from the University of Exter

=============================================================================================================================
Article : https://www.rt.com/news/409314-old-cell-rejuvenation-breakthrough/amp/
Scientific paper : https://bmccellbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12860-017-0147-7
University : http://www.exeter.ac.uk/news/featurednews/title_620529_en.html

Now, don't go crazy with what's about to follow, this is pretty good news, yes. but nothing to go crazy about just yet.
=============================================================================================================================

Quotes from the article :

Quote

Researchers at the University of Exeter and University of Brighton found they could rejuvenate senescent cells, cells that had stopped their natural growth cycle,causing them to start to divide again. The experiment found they not only look younger, but also behave like younger cells.

 

Quotes from the Scientific paper :

Quote

This is the first demonstration that moderation of splicing factor levels is associated with reversal of cellular senescence in human primary fibroblasts. Small molecule modulators of such targets may therefore represent promising novel anti-degenerative therapies.

 

Spoiler

Fig. 1

Synthesis and characterisation of novel resveralogues. a Structures of resveralogues 1–6. Compounds are: 1 resveratrol, 2 resveratrol’s primary metabolite, dihydroresveratrol, 3 (E)-N-(4-(3,5-dimethoxystyryl) phenyl)methanesulfonamide, 4 (E)-N-(4-(3,5-dihydroxystyryl)phenyl)acetamide, 5 (E)-5-(4-(3,5-dimethoxystyryl)phenyl)-1H–tetrazole and 6 (E)-5-(2-(3,5-dimethoxystyryl)phenyl)-1H–tetrazole. b Scheme of synthesis of compounds 3–6 (see Methods for details). c Fluorescence determination of SIRT1 activity in vitro in the presence of 25 μM each compound, normalised against resveratrol (1) and vehicle only control (0). Data are presented as fold change (mean ± SD) in activity normalised to enzyme-only (0) and resveratrol (1), such that 0 represents no activation, and 1.0 indicates activation equivalent to that observed with resveratrol 1. The experiment was carried out in 3 replicates. The numbers on the X axis (1–6) refer to the identity of each resveralogue as indicated above. Uncertainty was calculated by subjecting the standard deviation of the control, Resveratrol and compound data to combination using standard methods for propagation of uncertainty [49]

 

Quotes from the University's article :

Quote

Dr Eva Latorre, Research Associate at the University of Exeter, who carried out the experiments was surprised by the extent and rapidity of the changes in the cells. 
“When I saw some of the cells in the culture dish rejuvenating I couldn’t believe it. These old cells were looking like young cells. It was like magic,” she said. “I repeated the experiments several times and in each case the cells rejuvenated. I am very excited by the implications and potential for this research.” -

My thoughts : 

I do strongly believe this is an amazing breakthrough. Though I have a tough time imagining a world where people stay alive forever, I do think that more time here would be incredible.
But when do we set our time as "enough" ?

I sure as heck don't want to live forever. That would be terrible. think of the overpopulation hazards..
This is on the level of the genetically engineered babies from a few weeks ago in terms of Ethics.
Is it good ? Is it bad ?

I think that, like the designer babies, the right choice is moderation.
but here comes the challenge again, where do we stop ?
could we let people loose and choose to live as long as they want ?
I certainly don't think so.

Altering the course of life is fine in my opinion with moderation.
And like anything, not in excess.


Edit notes : 
Following This comment, here's a reminder that  (And this is a quote from his comment)
 

Quote

The reason cells stop dividing is because the telomeres get too short, and if they divide any further they're likely to include many DNA errors. Therefore they die off to prevent a cancerous cell from forming.

 

[Hugh_Mungus]

I think that a solution would be to live longer as long as you don't have children? that way over population doesn''t become a thing. I imaging what they found to extend cells life requires constant medication or supplements. If you change your mind just stop taking the medication and die normally.

[corrado33]

Sorry but no.

 

The reason cells stop dividing is because the telomeres get too short, and if they divide any further they're likely to include many DNA errors. Therefore they die off to prevent a cancerous cell from forming.

 

Unless you can ALSO extend the telomeres, all they're going to do is create cancer cells.

[ARikozuM]

I already watched Darling in the Franxx... 

 

I KNOW how this sh#t ends. 

Spoiler

With a red-skinned dinosaur waifu! YEE-HAW! 

Spoiler

I'm kidding!

Spoiler

about the "yee-haw". 

 

 

 

[givingtnt]

Just now, Hugh_Mungus said:

I think that a solution would be to live longer as long as you don't have children? that way over population doesn''t become a thing. I imaging what they found to extend cells life requires constant medication or supplements. If you change your mind just stop taking the medication and die normally.

But isn't having kids part of the human experience ?

I mean, most people will want to have kids. Its in our genes to do so. 
Unless we find a fix for that..

But that's on the hormone's side of genetics  

though, I guess having to be castrated would prevent people from having kids weather they like it or not (and nowadays, its reversible too so you can change your mind !)

[PlayStation 2]

This some spooky shit b

[Hugh_Mungus]

Everyone is different for me I chose to not have kids or Mary. It's my life and my choice anyone that says otherwise is selfish. 

[givingtnt]

6 minutes ago, corrado33 said:

Sorry but no.

 

The reason cells stop dividing is because the telomeres get too short, and if they divide any further they're likely to include many DNA errors. Therefore they die off to prevent a cancerous cell from forming.

 

Unless you can ALSO extend the telomeres, all they're going to do is create cancer cells.

Like I said, this is good news, but nothing to go nuts about.

But if we can do this, is it really far fetched to think we could snatch a sample of DNA at birth and throughout the life of the patient, and synthesize it to "fix" older cells ?

I'll add a note about this in the article though. Thanks for the reminder.

[givingtnt]

Just now, Hugh_Mungus said:

Everyone is different for me I chose to not have kids or Mary. It's my life and my choice anyone that says otherwise is selfish. 

That's fine, but most people (as you can clearly see by the billion of us on the planet) will choose to have kids.

people just spewing out babies all the time and no one dying is a very bad scenario.

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, givingtnt said:

Like I said, this is good news, but nothing to go nuts about.

But if we can do this, is it really far fetched to think we could snatch a sample of DNA at birth and throughout the life of the patient, and synthesize it to "fix" older cells ?

There are already proteins that exist that extend telomeres (after all, that's how cancer cells work). "Fixing" older cells would be nearly impossible. Do you know how many cells are in your body?

[givingtnt]

Just now, corrado33 said:

There are already proteins that exist that extend telomeres (after all, that's how cancer cells work). "Fixing" older cells would be nearly impossible. Do you know how many cells are in your body?

No, and this is why these news are nothing to go crazy about.

You seem to be saying I'm making a huge deal of this when I'm not  

[corrado33]

1 minute ago, givingtnt said:

No, and this is why these news are nothing to go crazy about.

You seem to be saying I'm making a huge deal of this when I'm not  

Not at all! Sorry if I came off as argumentative. This is just an example of media sensationalizing something that the scientific community has known for a long time. 

[givingtnt]

Just now, corrado33 said:

Not at all! Sorry if I came off as argumentative. This is just an example of media sensationalizing something that the scientific community has known for a long time. 

oh ok  

Yeah, this is why I made sure to quote the true sources, and not just the article.
I figured this is the sort of thing people could go out and claim outlandish "get young quick" theories and try to gain some sort of thing out of it.

But this isin't [Insert your source of bullcrap] !

[Guest]

This is old news. Remember there was all the buzz about Red Wine being great for you? Thats resveratrol at work. In the US they manufacture resveratrol pills. This causes the body to mimic a caloric deficit (although not fully of course, there are multiple processes at work, SIRT1 activation is one of them). This will allow you to live longer. 

 

This is not new research, and merely demonstrates the mechanism that resveratrol uses to signal caloric restriction. This is still a big step forward. 

This will not allow you to live longer by a significant amount however, not proven at all, but studies like that are hard to trial at any rate. 

 

Senescence in cells is signalled mainly by DNA damage to the cell, and is beneficial (we don't really want to reverse senescence). Now there are 7 key elements to target ageing of cells, as opposed to senescence, which is what this paper is really talking about, but senescence is a key component of ageing. 

1) Intracellular Junk

2) Extracellular Junk

3) Senescence

4) Extracellular crosslinks

5) mDNA

6) Telomeres

7) Cell Loss

 

If we were to target all of these (which we potentially can in this day and age) we could cure ageing. However ageing is a natural process and can be problematic in interfering. This is rather fixing the symptoms of ageing. 

 

The bottom lines:

Is moving cells out of senescence good?

- That depends on why the cell has reached senescence, typically it is due to the hayflick limit. Cancer cells already do this and we don't necessarily want cells with strong DNA damage, or indeed no telomeres to continue to proliferate. A removal of senescent cells is more appropriate IMO. 

 

Will this make us live longer?

Caloric restriction has been proven to make individuals live longer lives, if we can fully understand the mechanism, and target it, and SIRT1 agonist such as resveratrol has been shown to have a correlation with life expectancy, however reversing senescence is only part of the mechanism. So yes in the long run, and its good stuff. We're not talking about a great deal here, maybe 10-20 years. 

 

If we were to target all 7 signs of ageing (not with l'oreal) how long could we live - and this is showing the treatment for one of them!

A lot longer. Most autoimmune diseases, including alzheimers are as a result of these signs, such as B-amyloid plaques being extracellular junk. 80 more to hundreds of years - not joking. You could be Charlemagne on the French throne!

 

What can I do to improve my life expectancy now?

Not drink alcohol, eat clean, exercise as often as possible, all those healthy things. Caloric deficit works by reducing your calories to pursue Autophagy and recycle much of your body materials --> SIRT1 activation induces autophagy. A 33% reduction in calories will induce a proportional life expectancy. This has only been proven in mice however. Human trials are ongoing. 

 

What are some big questions that really needs answers?

I'm glad you asked. We don't know what the human body goes through when we reach an age we've never gone before. We're hardly made to reach our current life expectancy. Will a life be worth living? 

 

I'd check out Aubrey De Grey, he is the expert and forefront for this!

[Andreas Lilja]

2 hours ago, Hugh_Mungus said:

I think that a solution would be to live longer as long as you don't have children? that way over population doesn''t become a thing. I imaging what they found to extend cells life requires constant medication or supplements. If you change your mind just stop taking the medication and die normally.

Planet is already overpopulated if we keep Western living standards. 

[Andreas Lilja]

2 hours ago, givingtnt said:

But isn't having kids part of the human experience ?

I mean, most people will want to have kids. Its in our genes to do so. 
Unless we find a fix for that..

But that's on the hormone's side of genetics  

though, I guess having to be castrated would prevent people from having kids weather they like it or not (and nowadays, its reversible too so you can change your mind !)

A lot of it is socially constructed. 

 

If you want odd looks, say you don't want kids. 

[givingtnt]

19 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

Planet is already overpopulated if we keep Western living standards. 
Multiquotes are a thing

 

10 minutes ago, Raskolnikov said:

A lot of it is socially constructed. 

Our reproductive functions and insticts are socially constructed !?!?
Do you have anything backing that up ?

Against, oh idk, the millions of years of human reproduction for the sake of survival
 

If you want odd looks, say you don't want kids. 

 

28 minutes ago, huilun02 said:

Thing is, senescence in itself is probably a biological function. Cells stop multiplying when they no longer need to grow at their location. Forcing them to start again would mean tissue and organs growing beyond "specifications" written in DNA, and for example you could have one hand growing continually without stopping until it explodes or has too much mass. That would be worse than ageing.
If you think any realistic human-ready treatement is possible that woudn't find a way to restrict these things and or control them in a way that keeps people alive and from "exploding". I don't know what to tell you.

 

Thus instead of this knowledge being used in the pursuit of immortality, it would better serve as a stepping stone to achieve localized regeneration of lost organs and limbs.
 

But in the end this "breakthrough" will probably just end up nothing more than someone or his/her organisation getting noticed on the news.
What's with people bashing on legitimate research ?

 

[williamcll]

As promising as it sounds it seems like a cancer risk.

[kilgore_T]

no need to worry, if extended or indefinite life is ever possible it will be only available for the super rich

us peasants wont get near it...though i think it will make for a great reality tv show...poor folks compete for extra life...see them jump and fall and roll over

[Sithon1]

5 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Sorry but no.

 

The reason cells stop dividing is because the telomeres get too short, and if they divide any further they're likely to include many DNA errors. Therefore they die off to prevent a cancerous cell from forming.

 

Unless you can ALSO extend the telomeres, all they're going to do is create cancer cells.

I don't know if someone answered this already but, there is a way to reset the telomeres. It's called telomerase a by product of cancer .  I seem to remember some studies being done a few years ago. The real question is even if you could do it , should you do it? I bet if they ever found a way to reset telomeres on a body scale the tech would be disappeared by governments that recognize we already have too many people. It would be like throwing gasoline on an already worsening house fire.

[Mihle]

5 hours ago, givingtnt said:

But isn't having kids part of the human experience ?

I mean, most people will want to have kids. Its in our genes to do so. 
Unless we find a fix for that..

But that's on the hormone's side of genetics  

though, I guess having to be castrated would prevent people from having kids weather they like it or not (and nowadays, its reversible too so you can change your mind !

I don't want a child

[Nicnac]

So  they found some kinase that activates Telomerase? sounds cancerous to me  

Call me when they find a way to regrow my brain cells I've lost to alcohol...

[NeuesTestament]

6 hours ago, Hugh_Mungus said:

I think that a solution would be to live longer as long as you don't have children? that way over population doesn''t become a thing. I imaging what they found to extend cells life requires constant medication or supplements. If you change your mind just stop taking the medication and die normally.

That’s something you could only do in a totalitarian system 

[TechyBen]

6 hours ago, givingtnt said:

That's fine, but most people (as you can clearly see by the billion of us on the planet) will choose to have kids.

people just spewing out babies all the time and no one dying is a very bad scenario.

[Emphasis mine] That is not quite how it works. From the greats of the internet we say... "*citation needed*".

 

There are a few things driving humans actions. One thing that can affect the size of a family is education and wealth (or health/happiness/productivity etc). If you increase those, people will know how to manage a family and resources. Which is why 1st world countries have smaller families than third world countries. Culture also plays a part, but statistically, it actually works.

 

Now, this is even when the 1st world has a ton of other problems. I don't believe we will ever solve those ourselves, along with never solving "aging"... but the fact is, we already show in our broken world, that education and improving quality of life, scales family size safely. So if we were able to fix aging and improve peoples lives, then living longer would not be a problem.

 

Sorry I've not provided a citation, but AFAIK any population list/dataset shows this. I think it may even be so common Wiki has a page on it: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth#Human_population_growth_rate

Quote

Japan's population began decreasing in 2005; it now has the highest standard of living in the world.^[22]

 

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

7 hours ago, corrado33 said:

Sorry but no.

 

The reason cells stop dividing is because the telomeres get too short, and if they divide any further they're likely to include many DNA errors. Therefore they die off to prevent a cancerous cell from forming.

 

Unless you can ALSO extend the telomeres, all they're going to do is create cancer cells.

This is some "I am Legend" shit right here.