Why Do Cells Age? Extremely Long-Lived Proteins

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120203180905.htm

by llambda • 14 years ago

69 52 14 years ago

z0ot• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

Link to paper please...

carbocation• 14 years ago

Probably http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21994366

nazar4• 14 years ago

Cells age mostly because of telomere shortening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere#Telomere_shortening

polyfractal6• 14 years 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.

nazar4• 14 years 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

samstave• 14 years 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!

mkramlich• 14 years ago

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

pyre2• 14 years 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• 14 years ago

The real problem is nobody is even trying. Then they all die.

pjscott2• 14 years 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.

doubleconfess• 14 years 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. :)

maratd5• 14 years ago

> I think mankind should treat aging as the biggest threat it faces

This is absolutely outrageous.

We are already immortal. My children and my children's children are my continuation. They are me. More than that, your infinite existence is harmful and is a threat to your children, who are essentially you. It's very important that you die. Otherwise, your children will have to compete for resources not only with everyone else, but you as well.

On top of all of that, we all go through phases as we age. Those phases are essential to our maturing and experiencing life. To stop aging is the equivalent of stopping the maturation process and stunting life itself.

Death is as natural as birth. We are born, we grow, we experience, we die. To break that cycle is a perversion in itself and would destroy any concept of humanity that currently exists.

We should fear untimely death, certainly. However, timely death should be embraced as much as birth. It is the completion of a cycle. There is absolutely no need to fear it.

grammr• 14 years ago

It's worth noting that achieving immortality isn't just about medical breakthroughs.

Even if one were to have "immortal" cells, an accident resulting in fatal physical trauma would likely occur within about 400 years [0].

[0] http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortality

jodrellblank3• 14 years ago

Does this estimate account for more and more serious trauma being repairable with future technologies? If the entire body and even bits of brain can be regrown/rebuilt, does that still apply?

("In case of car crash, drop severed head in cryoliquid and take to hospital when convenient, preferably within 10 years")

reasonattlm3• 14 years ago

There is even a clear and concise list of specific goals in biotechnology you could be working on or funding, all of which have many intermediary points of viable product and opportunities for incremental profitability:

http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes

Use the links in the table in the middle of the page above to find explanations for the layperson, references, etc.

reasonattlm3• 14 years 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.

polyfractal6• 14 years 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.

jakeonthemove4• 14 years 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...

reasonattlm3• 14 years ago

"Need" is a slippery word, and while it is indeed likely that many or most nanoscale tools of future medicine will be fairly directly derived from cells and cell components, and we could probably achieve all of the design goals for agelessness and disease immunity with those, "medical nanorobotics" is not a nonsense term. It explicitly refers to the design and construction of non-biological nanoscale-featured devices - which is a concept far removed from enzymes. There are some things you can do with these designs that are impossible for presently available or plausible biological machinery.

See, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respirocyte

http://jetpress.org/v16/freitas.pdf

http://www.nanomedicine.com/

Why Do Cells Age? Extremely Long-Lived Proteins

Related Stories