Gene therapy -- Mouse lifespan extended up to 24% with one treatment. - Polidicks

[h=1]First Gene Therapy Successful Against Aging-Associated Decline: Mouse Lifespan Extended Up to 24% With a Single Treatment[/h][quote] A new study consisting of inducing cells to express telomerase, the enzyme which -- metaphorically -- slows down the biological clock -- was successful. The research provides a "proof-of-principle" that this "feasible and safe" approach can effectively "improve health span." A number of studies have shown that it is possible to lengthen the average life of individuals of many species, including mammals, by acting on specific genes. To date, however, this has meant altering the animals' genes permanently from the embryonic stage -- an approach impracticable in humans. Researchers at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO), led by its director María Blasco, have demonstrated that the mouse lifespan can be extended by the application in adult life of a single treatment acting directly on the animal's genes. And they have done so using gene therapy, a strategy never before employed to combat aging. The therapy has been found to be safe and effective in mice.The results were recently published in the journal [I]EMBO Molecular Medicine.[/I] The CNIO team, in collaboration with Eduard Ayuso and Fátima Bosch of the Centre of Animal Biotechnology and Gene Therapy at the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), treated adult (one-*‐year-*‐old) and aged (two-*‐year-*‐old) mice, with the gene therapy delivering a "rejuvenating" effect in both cases, according to the authors.Mice treated at the age of one lived longer by 24% on average, and those treated at the age of two, by 13%. The therapy, furthermore, produced an appreciable improvement in the animals' health, delaying the onset of age-*‐related diseases -- like osteoporosis and insulin resistance -- and achieving improved readings on aging indicators like neuromuscular coordination.The gene therapy consisted of treating the animals with a DNA-*modified virus, the viral genes having been replaced by those of the telomerase enzyme, with a key role in aging. Telomerase repairs the extreme ends or tips of chromosomes, known as telomeres, and in doing so slows the cell's and therefore the body's biological clock. When the animal is infected, the virus acts as a vehicle depositing the telomerase gene in the cells.This study "shows that it is possible to develop a telomerase-*based anti-*aging gene therapy without increasing the incidence of cancer," the authors affirm. "Aged organisms accumulate damage in their DNA due to telomere shortening, [this study] finds that a gene therapy based on telomerase production can repair or delay this kind of damage," they add.[B]'Resetting' the biological clock[/B]Telomeres are the caps that protect the end of chromosomes, but they cannot do so indefinitely: each time the cell divides the telomeres get shorter, until they are so short that they lose all functionality. The cell, as a result, stops dividing and ages or dies. Telomerase gets around this by preventing telomeres from shortening or even rebuilding them. What it does, in essence, is stop or reset the cell's biological clock.But in most cells the telomerase gene is only active before birth; the cells of an adult organism, with few exceptions, have no telomerase. The exceptions in question are adult stem cells and cancer cells, which divide limitlessly and are therefore immortal -- in fact several studies have shown that telomerase expression is the key to the immortality of tumour cells.It is precisely this risk of promoting tumour development that has set back the investigation of telomerase-*‐based anti-*‐aging therapies.In 2007, Blasco's group demonstrated that it was feasible to prolong the lives of transgenic mice, whose genome had been permanently altered at the embryonic stage, by causing their cells to express telomerase and, also, extra copies of cancer-*‐resistant genes. These animals live 40% longer than is normal and do not develop cancer.The mice subjected to the gene therapy now under test are likewise free of cancer. Researchers believe this is because the therapy begins when the animals are adult so do not have time to accumulate sufficient number of aberrant divisions for tumours to appear.Also important is the kind of virus employed to carry the telomerase gene to the cells. The authors selected demonstrably safe viruses that have been successfully used in gene therapy treatment of hemophilia and eye disease. Specifically, they are non-*‐replicating viruses derived from others that are non-*‐pathogenic in humans.This study is viewed primarily as "a proof-*‐of-*‐principle that telomerase gene therapy is a feasible and generally safe approach to improve healthspan and treat disorders associated with short telomeres," state Virginia Boccardi (Second University of Naples) and Utz Herbig (New Jersey Medical School-*‐University Hospital Cancer Centre) in a commentary published in the same journal.Although this therapy may not find application as an anti-*‐aging treatment in humans, in the short term at least, it could open up a new treatment option for ailments linked with the presence in tissue of abnormally short telomeres, as in some cases of human pulmonary fibrosis.[B]More healthy years[/B]As Blasco says, "aging is not currently regarded as a disease, but researchers tend increasingly to view it as the common origin of conditions like insulin resistance or cardiovascular disease, whose incidence rises with age. In treating cell aging, we could prevent these diseases."With regard to the therapy under testing, Bosch explains: "Because the vector we use expresses the target gene (telomerase) over a long period, we were able to apply a single treatment. This might be the only practical solution for an anti-*‐aging therapy, since other strategies would require the drug to be administered over the patient's lifetime, multiplying the risk of adverse effects." Source: [URL]http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514204050.htm[/URL] [/quote] Good news: You may live longer. Bad news: If you have a shit life, it might last longer.

The only real point I see in living longer on a personal level is to give one longer to make discoveries of self and bring about some level of self-actualization so one can enter death without fear. Living longer for ego-driven and self-centred reasons (money or shit like that) is pretty pointless and will just make death more unacceptable/ scary when in reality it is as natural as life itself.

I thought the title stated game therapy and the article was about computer mice

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;35965143]The only real point I see in living longer on a personal level is to give one longer to make discoveries of self and bring about some level of self-actualization so one can enter death without fear. Living longer for ego-driven and self-centred reasons (money or shit like that) is pretty pointless and will just make death more unacceptable/ scary when in reality it is as natural as life itself.[/QUOTE] Nah, I like to enjoy my earthly goods before I die

i wanna live longer so i have a better chance of living to the day where interstellar travel is proven to be feasible with short travel time

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;35965143]The only real point I see in living longer on a personal level is to give one longer to make discoveries of self and bring about some level of self-actualization so one can enter death without fear. Living longer for ego-driven and self-centred reasons (money or shit like that) is pretty pointless and will just make death more unacceptable/ scary when in reality it is as natural as life itself.[/QUOTE] I want to watch the planet grow old and the human race advance.

[QUOTE=Rapist;35965174]I want to watch the planet grow old and the human race advance.[/QUOTE] Sure, I also want to watch my entire family and all my friends grow old and die, as well as see the increasingly bad effects our pollution is causing to this planet, then die knowing that what I've achieved in such matters is insignificant. Not only that, but I will have spent my last decades barely able to walk and with a decaying mind. I just don't see the point in living that long.

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;35965212]Sure, I also want to watch my entire family and all my friends grow old and die, as well as see the increasingly bad effects our pollution is causing to this planet, then die knowing that what I've achieved in such matters is insignificant. Not only that, but I will have spent my last decades barely able to walk and with a decaying mind. I just don't see the point in living that long.[/QUOTE] Then don't, there's plenty of other people who do. No one forces you to live longer.

It would be interesting, just spectating the world watching life go by...

Good news everyone now you all have to read the OP in Professor Fansworth's voice

[QUOTE=DireAvenger;35965212]Sure, I also want to watch my entire family and all my friends grow old and die, as well as see the increasingly bad effects our pollution is causing to this planet, then die knowing that what I've achieved in such matters is insignificant. Not only that, but I will have spent my last decades barely able to walk and with a decaying mind. I just don't see the point in living that long.[/QUOTE] Surely as the life-expectancy grows the quality of life will grow (medical procedures or therapies to rejuvinate dying cells..) [Just think of our current lives stretch over a larger time (with the same ratio)]

Only got to live long enough to live forever.

Do me! Do me!

I wouldn't jump the gun yet, if such a simple genetic treatment prolongs lifespan and decreases the risk of cancer then surely it would have happened in evolution already, as it is a very short but very benificial evolutionary step. There's probably some even bigger drawback with this that we haven't found yet.

This is wrong. God wants us to live short lives.

[QUOTE=Mindtwistah;35965730]I wouldn't jump the gun yet, if such a simple genetic treatment prolongs lifespan and decreases the risk of cancer then surely it would have happened in evolution already, as it is a very short but very benificial evolutionary step. There's probably some even bigger drawback with this that we haven't found yet.[/QUOTE] ...You've [I]no idea[/I] how evolution works. If something isn't necessary for propagating genes, evolution will [I]remove it[/I]. This is why there are species that literally [B]anchor onto a rock and digest their brain[/B] a quarter into their life.

I want to live long enough for things that prevent natural death to be invented, or at the very least see suspended animation technology come forward commercially, so I could wait till such a time. I mean, can it really be that far off? We've already possibly cured cancer, HIV, and the damage from heart attacks.

YES I CAN FINALLY SEE ALIENS AND POSSIBLY HAVE SEX WITH THEM IN THE NEAR FUTURE THANK YOU SCIENCE

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35965919]...You've [I]no idea[/I] how evolution works. If something isn't necessary for propagating genes, evolution will [I]remove it[/I]. This is why there are species that literally [B]anchor onto a rock and digest their brain[/B] a quarter into their life.[/QUOTE] Err, I have had several courses in evolutionary theory and read quite a few books/other materials about it, to accuse me of not knowing anything about evolution is wrong, especially when it seems to be you who doesn't know shit. Evolution will not remove all genes just like that, evolution works on statistics for what will keep you alive best until you aren't able to have offspring anymore, and chance. If the gene therapy is as flawless as many here would believe then obviously it would be a widespread trait since cancer is a very common cause of death, and anything that reduces the risk of this also increases the chance of you surviving until you're old and can't have children anymore (statistics). Since it is also not very complex from a genetic point of view and doesn't require other genes to be mutated for it to work it is a very short evolutionary step and thus much more likely to appear due to random mutations (chance). Edit: How about answering with a counter-argument instead of just rating dumb and leaving the thread? Kind of implies that you did have no idea of what you were talking about to begin with.

[QUOTE=Midas22;35965889]This is wrong. God wants us to live short lives.[/QUOTE] Short lives were caused by the lack of hygiene mostly. You know how it is with the Godless unhygienic drug users.

Grant me immortality, and then we can talk. plz?

Well, this is sure to help with our over-population problems. We need to colonize Mars already.

[QUOTE=Rapist;35965174]I want to watch the planet grow old and the human race advance.[/QUOTE] I don't want to live too long so the human race has space to advance in the future.

[QUOTE=Midas22;35965889]This is wrong. God wants us to live short lives.[/QUOTE] If I had to choose between god or eternal life (and youth); I would choose eternal life. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Reds;35966184]Well, this is sure to help with our over-population problems. We need to colonize Mars already.[/QUOTE] We can make suppression fields to stop breeding.

And so begins the path to Gray Fox and the Genome soldiers. [img]http://profileimages.torn.com/168014022-298526.jpg[/img] [img]http://images.wikia.com/metalgear/images/f/f6/Genome_Soldiers.jpg[/img] Truth is the stuff they did to Frank Jaeger back before portable ops isn't all that much of a fantasy, especially if this stuff goes anywhere.

[QUOTE=Marbalo;35965495]For example the reason people assume we'd lose track of time had we became immortal is because that's what happens to old people usually. As you get older, the faster time seemingly goes by, but this is merely an illusion. The older you get, the less energy you have, therefore the less things you do. Eventually you everyday life can be summed up; waking up, taking medication, eating and sleeping.[/QUOTE] You can feel time going quicker even when you're just 20 compared to 10. At 10 one year is a tenth of your whole life so far, that's quite a lot. When you're 20, it's only a twentieth, that is not as much and so it seems shorter.

[QUOTE=SCopE5000;35965143]The only real point I see in living longer on a personal level is to give one longer to make discoveries of self and bring about some level of self-actualization so one can enter death without fear. Living longer for ego-driven and self-centred reasons (money or shit like that) is pretty pointless and will just make death more unacceptable/ scary when in reality it is as natural as life itself.[/QUOTE] You claim that happiness and pleasure is pointless, yet you say that the reason we must live is so we may die without fear. fear is nothing but unhappiness coming from not wanting something to happen. Procreation came as a result of evolution. A major factor of evolution is natural selection, which is natural. Yet, we still develop medication to cure illnesses that are a part of natural selection. Whether something is natural or not merely refers to where it comes from, it says nothing about its value. [editline]15th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Reds;35966184]Well, this is sure to help with our over-population problems. We need to colonize Mars already.[/QUOTE] Colonizing the seas would be much easier and fruitful.

Rich people only.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;35965919]...You've [I]no idea[/I] how evolution works. If something isn't necessary for propagating genes, evolution will [I]remove it[/I]. This is why there are species that literally [B]anchor onto a rock and digest their brain[/B] a quarter into their life.[/QUOTE] Because bigger lifespans decrease the offspring you have, right?

If we get our fingers out of our arses and colonize other planets & moons there will be plenty of space for a larger populace. I wouldn't mind living just a little longer, you know, to make sure I've done everything I've ever wanted to and what not.