Ageing gene found by scientists could be key to longer lifespans

[Midas]

A longevity gene has been identified for the first time in a breakthrough that could eventually help people live longer, a new study suggests.

The researchers have located a gene which determines whether or not a person will biologically age quickly or slowly.

They think that by testing for the gene when some one is young could identify whether they have to alter their lifestyle accordingly.

In the longer term it may be possible to manipulate the gene so that life spans can be extended. "This gives us for the first time a better understanding of biological ageing, " said Professor Nilesh Samani at the University of Leicester.

"It is the first step to understanding why people age. Once we have a full understanding we should be able to manipulate it in a manner to influence how someone ages."

Cells in the body are constantly replacing themselves before they die. But each replication is not perfect and the faults that are passed down cause the body to age.

One form of damage is caused to the telomeres – the end parts of chromosomes which act like the plastic tips of shoelaces and stop them from fraying.

The problem is that they shorten each time they replicate and eventually are so short that replication becomes impossible and the cell dies forever.

The scientists have discovered that a variant of the TERC gene determines not only how long the telomeres are when someone is born but also how quickly they shorten.

Prof Samani, who reported his findings in the Journal Nature Genetics, discovered the variant by comparing the genetic make-up and biological age of more than 10,000 people.

He said: "In this study what we found was that those individuals carrying a particular genetic variant had shorter telomeres i.e. looked biologically older.

"Given the association of shorter telomeres with age-associated diseases, the finding raises the question whether individuals carrying the variant are at greater risk of developing such diseases."

Professor Tim Spector from King's College London, who co-led this project, said: "What our study suggests is that some people are genetically programmed to age at a faster rate.

"The effect was quite considerable in those with the variant, equivalent to between 3-4 years of 'biological ageing" as measured by telomere length loss.

"Alternatively genetically susceptible people may age even faster when exposed to proven 'bad' environments for telomeres like smoking, obesity or lack of exercise – and end up several years biologically older or succumbing to more age-related diseases. "

Story from The Telegraph - Ageing gene found by scientists could be key to longer lifespans

Incidentally, a very recent episode of the BBC2 'Horizon' programme called "Don't Grow Old" dealt with this same subject - BBC Horizon, 2009-2010, Don't Grow Old

[DC]

Neat, immortality is our grasp!

[Don]

Neat, immortality is our grasp!

Which leads me to ask; If we could extend the average lifespan greatly, should we? Unintended consequences are often the ultimate "Oops".

[Midas]

Which leads me to ask; If we could extend the average lifespan greatly, should we? Unintended consequences are often the ultimate "Oops".

Unintended consequences are a problem with so many things, but this is one area of medical research I feel quite strongly is very well worth pursuing despite them. I know there are all sorts of potential dilemmas with it though, not least the fact that the world is way too overcrowded as it is, not to mention how do you select who might be eligible for life extension and who might not! Is it on the basis of whether you can afford it or not, or on the basis of intelligence, or on the job you do......

One thing I do know though, if I had the opportunity, I'd grab it with both hands.

[Barry]

One thing I do know though, if I had the opportunity, I'd grab it with both hands.

Well, I certainly would not.
For reasons that I am sure you will understand.
I am perfectly prepared to die at the time allotted, even if it happens in 10 minutes.

[DC]

Which leads me to ask; If we could extend the average lifespan greatly, should we? Unintended consequences are often the ultimate "Oops".

Of course. In real terms extending the Human life would initially be only available to those with wealth, and then would trickle down until almost everyone in developed countries has access to it, probably even covered by health insurance. However the areas of real population growth, Africa, Asia, will mostly be without it, meaning actual population growth would be minimal. In fact growth in Western countries would decrease even more, as people no longer feel pressured by age to have children. IMO the benefits far outweigh any forseeable cost.

[Don]

...the areas of real population growth, Africa, Asia, will mostly be without it, meaning actual population growth would be minimal

I should sincerely hope so, but the fact is those areas already have rampant growth and extending human life in other parts of the world would probably have no effect in the 3rd world, the population would probably continue to grow out of proportion to the remainder of the world. I once had a conversation with an agronomist and University professor who does much of his work in the third world. In my ignorance I posed the question of why, when they have so many problems feeding themselves, families in the 3rd world are so large. My initial thought was basically a lack of birth control. The truth is more complex and more simple at the same time. According to the professor, lack of birth control is one factor, albeit a small factor. According to him the major factor for high birth rates in the 3rd world is cheap labor, lack of birth control only makes it easier to raise the wanted labor. The larger the family, the more a family can farm, in this case, or bring in a larger income. The obvious down side is that the point of diminishing returns is reached fairly quickly, especially for the farming sector. Their population growth would basically continue unabated, it doesn't even rise to the level of a zero sum game, unless some outside forces were brought to bear, i.e. education, birth control measures and improved farming practices, all of which cost $$$.

....In fact growth in Western countries would decrease even more, as people no longer feel pressured by age to have children. IMO the benefits far outweigh any forseeable cost.

Speculation

[DC]

I should sincerely hope so, but the fact is those areas already have rampant growth and extending human life in other parts of the world would probably have no effect in the 3rd world, the population would probably continue to grow out of proportion to the remainder of the world. I once had a conversation with an agronomist and University professor who does much of his work in the third world. In my ignorance I posed the question of why, when they have so many problems feeding themselves, families in the 3rd world are so large. My initial thought was basically a lack of birth control. The truth is more complex and more simple at the same time. According to the professor, lack of birth control is one factor, albeit a small factor. According to him the major factor for high birth rates in the 3rd world is cheap labor, lack of birth control only makes it easier to raise the wanted labor. The larger the family, the more a family can farm, in this case, or bring in a larger income. The obvious down side is that the point of diminishing returns is reached fairly quickly, especially for the farming sector. Their population growth would basically continue unabated, it doesn't even rise to the level of a zero sum game, unless some outside forces were brought to bear, i.e. education, birth control measures and improved farming practices, all of which cost $$$.

All of which is irrelevent, as their population would rise with or without an age stopper. The fact is we don't need to cap population, the Earth and the surrounding Solar System have enough resources to support us, provided we use them wisely. If anything the rise in population vs decline in resources will force people to use their resources more efficiently. For example recycling water.

Speculation

In Western countries the birth rate is quite low, and in some cases declining. The reason people have children sooner rather than later is because of the aging. If this is not an issue, we would see people having children much later in life when they have reached a secure economic position and achieved their own goals. Indeed the need to 'replace' the population would declien substantually, as people were no longer dying at such high rates.

[Don]

All of which is irrelevent, as their population would rise with or without an age stopper. The fact is we don't need to cap population, the Earth and the surrounding Solar System have enough resources to support us, provided we use them wisely.

You see us in the "surrounding solar system" do you? Please show me where. How long has it been since we even went to the moon? Now the President's budget has at best put going back as a method of utilizing the moon as a forward base for further exploration on hold. Do you really believe that the "surrounding solar system" will provide us with significantly usable resources within the next 100 years or so? I don't and I'm an advocate. 2001 A Space Odyssey was only a movie and we're now in 2010 and the best we can do is have little remotely controlled robots roaming the surface of a couple of outer planets. We're looking inward, not outward, going for the quick fix instead of long term solutions.

If anything the rise in population vs decline in resources will force people to use their resources more efficiently. For example recycling water

Now that truly is a classic definition of a zero sum game

In Western countries the birth rate is quite low, and in some cases declining. The reason people have children sooner rather than later is because of the aging. If this is not an issue, we would see people having children much later in life when they have reached a secure economic position and achieved their own goals. Indeed the need to 'replace' the population would declien substantually, as people were no longer dying at such high rates.

I think you will find a trend, in Western countries, of women, both married and single, having babies later rather than sooner. The advent of in vitro fertilization has led to more women every year having eggs frozen and even paying for sperm "donations" so that they don't have to put careers, etc. on hold for children. Is it a huge trend at present? No. Is it growing? Yes

[DC]

You see us in the "surrounding solar system" do you? Please show me where. How long has it been since we even went to the moon? Now the President's budget has at best put going back as a method of utilizing the moon as a forward base for further exploration on hold. Do you really believe that the "surrounding solar system" will provide us with significantly usable resources within the next 100 years or so? I don't and I'm an advocate. 2001 A Space Odyssey was only a movie and we're now in 2010 and the best we can do is have little remotely controlled robots roaming the surface of a couple of outer planets. We're looking inward, not outward, going for the quick fix instead of long term solutions.

Point being that such aging technology will only be available in about a century. Meaning that we could have a burgeoning private, or public, space industry. One example is the moon, which is covered in a particular helium isotope, which is perfect for Fusion technology, but very scarce on earth.

I think you will find a trend, in Western countries, of women, both married and single, having babies later rather than sooner. The advent of in vitro fertilization has led to more women every year having eggs frozen and even paying for sperm "donations" so that they don't have to put careers, etc. on hold for children. Is it a huge trend at present? No. Is it growing? Yes

And this will reverse that trend, as there won't be a biological need to have children earlier in their lives.

[Don]

And this will reverse that trend, as there won't be a biological need to have children earlier in their lives.

Did you not read what I said? There is already a trend toward putting off having children early in life, to have them later in life. There are also dangers, to the fetus, when childbirth is delayed to later life. For one, the incidence of down syndrome is higher in children born to mothers over the age of 35.

All I'm saying is that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should and that there are more factors involved than just extending life. If that's what we want, the WHO (no, not the over the hill rock group , the World Health Organization) has recently stated that several years could be added now just by making appropriate lifestyle changes.

Sex, alcohol, fat among world's big killers: WHO | Reuters

The WHO added that if the risks in its report had not existed, life expectancy would have been on average almost a decade longer in 2004 for the entire global population.

[DC]

Did you not read what I said? There is already a trend toward putting off having children early in life, to have them later in life. There are also dangers, to the fetus, when childbirth is delayed to later life. For one, the incidence of down syndrome is higher in children born to mothers over the age of 35.

And anti aging technology, combined with other medical breakthroughs, will change that, making it less of a risk to have children later in life. In fact, it would probably be the same whether you're having children at 20 or 70.

All I'm saying is that just because we can do something doesn't mean we should and that there are more factors involved than just extending life. If that's what we want, the WHO (no, not the over the hill rock group , the World Health Organization) has recently stated that several years could be added now just by making appropriate lifestyle changes.

Probably, but I fail to see why people can't both change their lifestyles and be given medical breakthroughs.