Aging Is Recorded in Our Genes - Polidicks

[quote] "The great secret that all old people share is that you really haven't changed," wrote novelist Doris Lessing. "Your body changes, but you don't change at all." From a genetic point of view, there is a lot of truth in that statement: As we age, the core of our biological being—the sequence of our DNA, which makes up our genes—remains the same. Yet recent research suggests that more subtle chemical changes to our DNA occur as we age. Now, a comparison of the DNA of a newborn baby with that of a centenarian shows that the scope of these changes can be dramatic, and they may help explain why our risk of cancer and other diseases increases as we get older. DNA is made up of four basic building blocks—adenine, thymine, guanine, and cytosine—and the sequence of these nucleotides within a gene determines what protein it makes. Genes can be switched on and off as needed, and the regulation of genes often involves what are called epigenetic mechanisms in which chemical alterations are made to the DNA. One of the most common of these epigenetic changes involves a methyl group -- one carbon atom and three hydrogen atoms—binding to a nucleotide, usually cytosine. In general, this binding, called methylation, turns off the gene in question. Recent research suggests that changes in DNA methylation patterns as a person gets older may contribute to human diseases for which risk increases with age, including cancer. To get a better idea of how methylation patterns change with age, a team led by Manel Esteller, an epigenetics researcher at the Bellvitge Biomedical Research Institute in Barcelona, Spain, looked at two extreme cases: A newborn male baby and a man aged 103 years. The team extracted DNA from white blood cells taken from the blood of the elderly man and from the umbilical cord blood of the baby and determined its methylation pattern using a fairly new technique called whole-genome bisulfite sequencing (WGBS). With WGBS, DNA is exposed to the chemical sodium bisulfite, which has no effect on cytosines with methyl groups bound to them but turns nonmethylated cytosines into another nucleotide called uracil. The result is an epigenetic map (see illustration) that shows exactly which DNA sites are methylated and which are not. As the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, it found a significantly higher amount of cytosine methylation in the newborn than in the centenarian: 80.5% of all cytosine nucleotides, compared with 73%. To look at an intermediate case, the team also performed WGBS on the DNA of a 26-year-old male subject; the methylation level was also intermediate, about 78%. Esteller and his colleagues then took a closer look at the differences between the DNA of the newborn and of the centenarian, but restricted the comparison to regions of the genome where the DNA nucleotide sequences were identical so that only the epigenetic differences would stand out. The team identified nearly 18,000 so-called differentially methylated regions (DMRs) of the genome, covering many types of genes. More than a third of the DMRs occurred in genes that have already been linked with cancer risk. Moreover, in the centenarian, 87% of the DMRs involved the loss of the methyl group, while only 13% involved the gain of one. Finally, to expand the study, the team looked at the methylation patterns of 19 newborns and 19 people aged between 89 and 100 years old. This analysis confirmed that older people have a lower amount of cytosine methylation than newborns. The authors conclude that the degree of methylation decreases in a cumulative fashion over time. Moreover, Esteller says, in the centenarian the loss of methyl groups, which turns genes back on, often occurred in genes that increase the risk of infection and diabetes when they are turned on during adulthood. In contrast, the small number of genes in the centenarian that had greater methylation levels were often those that needed to be kept turned on to protect against cancer. The new work is the first to compare the complete, genome-wide DNA methylation patterns of these two diverse age groups, says Martin Widschwendter, an oncologist at University College London in the United Kingdom who has studied the link between methylation and cancer. Widschwendter, who likens the DNA sequence to the genome's "hardware" and epigenetic changes to its "software," says that the Esteller team's study supports earlier research suggesting that "as a function of age and environmental exposure, this software accumulates defects" that can cause "age-related cancer and degenerative diseases."[/quote] [url]http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/06/aging-is-recorded-in-our-genes.html?ref=hp[/url]

Hopefully we'll find a way to prevent this from happening, being old and full of diseases doesn't sound fun.

Everyone better get into tip top shape and live until we can fix ourselves.

[QUOTE=Electrocuter;36302573]Hopefully we'll find a way to prevent this from happening, being old and full of diseases doesn't sound fun.[/QUOTE] yeah a world with 120 year old senile farts would be great

Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?

I don't like the idea of disabling aging. This just means we get even more people on the world and that the rich get to live longer then the poor (genetically).

[QUOTE=maurits150;36303041]I don't like the idea of disabling aging. This just means we get even more people on the world and that the rich get to live longer then the poor (genetically).[/QUOTE] I would rather go on living than blink out of existence. I don't really believe in an after life however im sure that belief will change shortly before I die.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] evolution or something

Dying is good for evolution. I quite like the idea of disabling aging, because it allows humans to travel far into space.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;36303148]Dying is good for evolution. I quite like the idea of disabling aging, because it allows humans to travel far into space.[/QUOTE] And dictators to live forever. Yay!

[QUOTE=gudman;36303236]And dictators to live forever. Yay![/QUOTE] Article doesn't say there's a bulletproof gene

If we made everyone live until they turned 200 or so, it wouldn't exactly help with the overpopulation.

that movie where time is currency, anyone? anyway, wasn't it said that telomere's size was an accurate depiction of aging?

[QUOTE=Ericson666;36303295]Article doesn't say there's a bulletproof gene[/QUOTE] than god you know that guy with impenetrable skin from Heros? Thank god we don't have that. [QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] Well, we can't evolve into something better if we never died out.

Don't muscles just give out over time anyways? Like your heart? You could never truly live forever even under perfect conditions

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] Maybe it's natures way of controlling us. It's not working that well.

[QUOTE=TheCloak;36303646]Don't muscles just give out over time anyways? Like your heart? You could never truly live forever even under perfect conditions[/QUOTE] assuming we unlock wolverine level 'immortality'. Immortality isn't all what it's wrapped up to be. The brain can only take so much stress after all. You'll slowly grow more and more insane, etc. Plus, imagine getting stuck somewhere for a massive amount of time.

[QUOTE=TheCloak;36303646]Don't muscles just give out over time anyways? Like your heart? You could never truly live forever even under perfect conditions[/QUOTE] Good thing we're starting to create artificial hearts etc. then! There are also transplants.

DNA Methylation and its relation to aging has been theorized/studied for some time. In fact, we've had similar results seen in other animals a few times in the past. Of course, it is still always good to see more research being done. Example of past research: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8E0dYf6EK0[/URL] [URL]http://www.sens.org/node/686[/URL] [URL]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22495928[/URL]

[QUOTE=sami-pso;36303148]Dying is good for evolution. I quite like the idea of disabling aging, because it allows humans to travel far into space.[/QUOTE] Fuck evolution, we are the revolution! -[I]Farmatyr[/I]

Sometimes I like to think to myself "Fuck nature, I'm a human being." and then human science finds a way to fuck with nature. I love humanity. I love it so much.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Sanius;36303146]evolution or something[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sami-pso;36303148]Dying is good for evolution.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=J!NX;36303643]Well, we can't evolve into something better if we never died out.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=a dumb bear;36303672]Maybe it's natures way of controlling us. It's not working that well.[/QUOTE] This article doesn't say that death is genetic. It doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, there are only a few genes that seem to have any effect at all on lifespan and they are, at most, minimal. Even then, some of those genes simply affect personality. If you want to research more into the theorized causes of death, here you go: [URL]http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes[/URL] More detailed explanations and prototyped 'cures' are listed on the right side of the page. But in the assumption that death is programmed into our DNA, then the reason for it would be evolution and faster birth rates, yes. Insects, as you all might be familiar with, tend to live only a few days. Some live much shorter lives, some a bit longer. There are a little over 1 million known insect species, and yet there are only ~1.3 million known species. These are what we call an R type species. They reproduce fast, die fast, and are able to adapt fast. Humans are a K type species. We live longer, we are stronger, we are bigger, and we must rely on those traits to survive. Nature doesn't think nor want. Even if we use 'want' as a metaphor for how nature tends to develop, then As I pointed out above, nature doesn't want us to be controlled. Nature wants us to reproduce like crazy and take over the universe, because that is all we're bred for. We're bred to survive, and the more of us there are, the more we've survived.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] Because our reproductive age is usually before things like that happen.

[QUOTE=Collin665;36304041]This article doesn't say that death is genetic. It doesn't say that anywhere. In fact, there are only a few genes that seem to have any effect at all on lifespan and they are, at most, minimal. Even then, some of those genes simply affect personality. If you want to research more into the theorized causes of death, here you go: [URL]http://www.sens.org/sens-research/research-themes[/URL] More detailed explanations and prototyped 'cures' are listed on the right side of the page. But in the assumption that death is programmed into our DNA, then the reason for it would be evolution and faster birth rates, yes. Insects, as you all might be familiar with, tend to live only a few days. Some live much shorter lives, some a bit longer. There are a little over 1 million known insect species, and yet there are only ~1.3 million known species. These are what we call an R type species. They reproduce fast, die fast, and are able to adapt fast. Humans are a K type species. We live longer, we are stronger, we are bigger, and we must rely on those traits to survive. Nature doesn't think nor want. Even if we use 'want' as a metaphor for how nature tends to develop, then As I pointed out above, nature doesn't want us to be controlled. Nature wants us to reproduce like crazy and take over the universe, because that is all we're bred for. We're bred to survive, and the more of us there are, the more we've survived.[/QUOTE] An aged body will not survive long. Organs will fail. That's why aging is part of death. Probably.

[QUOTE=sami-pso;36304504]An aged body will not survive long. Organs will fail. That's why aging is part of death. Probably.[/QUOTE] Okay, but that article doesn't say aging is genetic either. It says that over time methylation of our DNA changes. That is pretty much it.

[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36303039]Why do we have genes that kill us on purpose?[/QUOTE] maybe because something is wrong about prolonged life that can become chaotic evolution usually does not do something without a reason, if ever.

I'd be fine with stopping my aging anywhere before 60.. [editline]12th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Vasili;36304615]maybe because something is wrong about prolonged life that can become chaotic evolution usually does not do something without a reason, if ever.[/QUOTE] You speak as if Evolution is the name of some static deity. It's not. It's a random system of adaptation adopted by lifeforms and it is independent of their will and thought. In the grand scheme of everything ever on a universal level, it's pretty random and it's not set in stone. Not everything Evolution does will be best for an ecology, because Evolution is not an intelligent, Inter-species adaptation system. In fact, it's not a system at all. It's a descriptive system established by US to describe how schools of organisms will adapt to the current surroundings in order to keep existent. Unlike most hippies think, a Lions evolutional process doesn't give a fuck if it gives space to Zebra's or not. Neither does the sun think twice about oblitterating Earth when it dies, or Andomeda a single fuck about the fact that Sol will be flung into cold space in 4 billion years. There's no passion or adherence to any system by anything. It's all very random when it's independant from our or the animal in questions conscious will. The organism's evolution is independant from the organisms conscious or incouscious will.

[QUOTE=Jackald;36304679] How do we know we won't eventually evolve to live forever? Some animals like Turritopsis nutricula do...[/QUOTE] why was it put there to begin with?

[QUOTE=Kondor58;36302953]yeah a world with 120 year old senile farts would be great[/QUOTE] I like to watch my porn with crusty old people

[QUOTE=J!NX;36303643]than god you know that guy with impenetrable skin from Heros? Thank god we don't have that. Well, we can't evolve into something better if we never died out.[/QUOTE] It doesn't matter, we havent evolved one fucking bit the past few million years anyway.