×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

DNA Sequenced of Woman Who Lived To 115

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the now-sequence-her-boosterspice dept.

Medicine 175

chrb writes "The DNA of W115 — an anonymous woman who lived to the age of 115 years and left her body to science — has been sequenced. Despite her old age, W115 showed no signs of dementia or heart disease, and tests at the age of 113 showed she had the mental abilities of a woman aged 60-75 years. Dr. Henne Holstege of the Department of Clinical Genetics at the VU University Medical Center in Amsterdam has suggested W115 had rare genetic changes in her DNA which protected against Alzheimer's and other late-life diseases."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

175 comments

115? That's nothing! (0)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728644)

Back when I was her age, 115 was just getting started! Now get off my lawn!

Re:115? That's nothing! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728736)

Don't read this... it is a curse...

In 1998, a little boy named Tyler was relaxing in the bathtub. The tub was nearly overfilled. Suddenly, he felt something in the water zip into his bootyass! He immediately jumped up, ran out of the tub, and ran out of the bathroom door without any clothes on.

However, he backed up into a wall and crashed down to the ground. With his back against the wall, his eyes closed, and his bootyass naked bootyass sitting on the floor, he farted. He kept farting over and over, and then, suddenly, he farted out a red toy! It had brown hair, yellow skin, a round head, two painted on eyes and a mouth, a square body that was painted red, and arms that were molded into its body.

Somehow, Tyler was looking at his own bootyasscheekcrackhole as if he was looking through a security camera. The toy screamed angrily, "That's it! Now ya gonna get it!" Then, the toy put its mouth on his bootyasscheekcrackhole and began blowing! This inflicted extreme amounts of tickle upon Tyler's bootyass!

Now that you have read this (even a single word of it), the very same toy will blow on your bootyasscheekcrackhole and inflict major amounts of tickle upon it! To prevent this from happening, copy and paste this entire comment and then repost it as a comment three times.

Hopefully (3, Interesting)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728648)

Hopefully this leads to people being able to have their DNA modified so that we no longer have to deal with mental diseases like Alzheimer's.

Re:Hopefully (2, Interesting)

tirefire (724526) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728678)

Hopefully this leads to people being able to have their DNA modified so that we no longer have to deal with mental diseases like Alzheimer's.

And once a precedent has been set, it's just 20 precious years until GATTACA.

Re:Hopefully (2)

mercnet (691993) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728718)

"I belonged to a new underclass, no longer determined by social status or the color of your skin. No, we now have discrimination down to a science."

Re:Hopefully (0)

Totenglocke (1291680) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728760)

So? Why shouldn't people be able to buy better looks, greater intelligence, extended youth, etc if they worked to get the means to afford it?

Re:Hopefully (5, Insightful)

Trubadidudei (1404187) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729076)

Because if this is done in the germ line, it will end in a social catastrophy.
What will happen when a group of people can say with reason that they are better humans then the rest of us? Today, it is possible to climb the social ladder because if you raise your kid right, he might not be so different from the kid of a millionaire, but when the millionaire kids are more intelligent and healthy by default, how is anyone ever going to go up in society?
Imagine the riots that will happen once 90% of the population has no chance at getting a good job or ever having a family member get a good job, not because they do not work hard, but because they are "lesser" humans than the 10% on top.

The only way this technology can ever be used for enhancement without creating a dystopia is if the state intervenes to raise the bottom along with the top, but that is also difficult due to the costs, and the fact the rich will be the only ones who can keep up with the newer and newer "models" of DNA enhacement.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729128)

Society already has a system of better offs and worse offs. The main difference here is that you could be manipulating it so that those better offs have child geniuses who look great. This may give them an edge in life. The problem is some people already have that edge and we neglect those who don't. Those who are better off should be contributing back a significantly more than they currently do. Those who have reached a tipping point of great success should be burdened to that of the rest. They should be able to contribute back but those additional contributions should have a significantly smaller return financially. Not to the point where it isn't worth it-but just enough to where society is offsetting the people who are most in need.

We punish people who have less choice. Do you think people chose to commit crime because they want to? No. They choose it because they have little choice. Rich people can be without choice too. This is not a class thing.

Some people who steal for instance may be rich. They get off on this and there was little choice in the matter. They had the choice not to steal only to the extent that they resisted it more so than someone who had no desire to do so. Someone with this 'condition' it would clearly be unfair to punish for his crimes compared to someone who had no such desire and still stole.

At the end of the day we should be focusing on moving those in less desirable situations to those in more desirable situations and reducing any negative impact that there conditions have on them and others. This is not to say we should let people steal necessarily. Only that stealing may be minor in comparison to the suffering that person has gone through having had that condition. These things should be taken into account. That theft may cause another suffering although it should be societies burden and not the offending individuals to fix.
 

Re:Hopefully (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729240)

The difference is want and need. If you steal a bread to feed your children (and yourself) is a want. To steal an xbox to entertain your children is a want.

The differences are thus basically if it is something you want or something you need? Food, shelter, education, ... Those are things you need. Caviar, a huge mansion, Ivy League, ... Those are things you want.

There are billions of people who are in a less fortunate situation then the people here on /. yet they do not steal. The majority of crime is done by peoples own choice. The exceptions are those who steel out of need. Aside from the exception (stealing out of need to feed) theft is a clear choice.

It is done because people think they can get away with it AND because it is a shortcut to what they want.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729242)

The rich already assume that they and their offspring are better/more deserving than the rest of us. This would change nothing. I think that sci-fi is mostly written in a way that leads to drama, no? I mean, Gattaca is a nice piece of entertainment, but it's not prophecy. Also, it would probably be very cost-effective for the state to pay for these 'enhancements', especially considering that it probably wouldn't be long until they were cheap to carry out. Imagine a super-healthy, super-intelligent population. It would pay for itself many times over.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729254)

are you honestly trying to say that only 10% of potential jobs are "good" jobs?

Re:Hopefully (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729286)

That's why some things have to be done before other things, not done immediately the moment they are technically feasible. Otherwise Society/Culture won't be "grown-up" enough to handle the results.

The way I see it, the "free market capitalist" path will be one that leads to much evil. The "crazy Scandinavian socialists" path might be viable- most people do what everyone else around them does, so if it becomes cultural norm to just keep other people around alive and well (even though they're kinda stupid compared to you), then we might be able to avoid lots of evil.

However, there are still many problems. Imagine if your pets could vote, would that be good for you and them in the long run?

So I daresay the otherwise benign post-humans might be willing to put up with those who can't "make it" only if those unfortunate ones gave up their rights to political power maybe temporarily/conditionally - e.g. as long as you are on "Welfare" and still sucking Society's teat you cannot vote. Once you consistently start putting more in than you take out, you can vote.

Yes that's rather elitist, but if the masses can save themselves with their votes, I guess they should get on with it already. Otherwise they''ll still keep being pwned by the elites.

Re:Hopefully (3, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729456)

when the millionaire kids are more intelligent and healthy by default

They already are. Better food / less heavy metal contamination / mental stimulation results in higher intelligence. Its laughable to claim rich kids are not healthier than other kids, first of all on average they're probably the only kids permitted regular pediatrician visits.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729876)

This has already been explored and clearly the answer is to house disabled genetically better people in your house and assume their identity. The access to their blood and bodily fluid, plus the admiration you get from sympathizers when almost caught, is just enough to allow inferior people to travel into space.

Re:Hopefully (1)

PJ6 (1151747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729894)

Dystopia? Think bigger than that. Think the birth of a thousand new species, and all of them die except the most violent and aggressive ones.

Re:Hopefully (3, Insightful)

aliquis (678370) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730182)

4: insightful?

"Today, it is possible to climb the social ladder ...Imagine the riots that will happen once 90% of the population has no chance at getting a good job or ever having a family member get a good job, not because they do not work hard, but because they are "lesser" humans than the 10% on top."

You do realize it's exactly the same being born in a poor family on the wrong continent today?

Or you wanna say the opportunities is the same for someone born here in Sweden or in a wealthy family in the US as it is in a village in Somalia?

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730188)

Think again.

Introduced into the germ line, DNA modifications will get passed down to offspring, as you have pointed out quite astutely.

Now, if I am to believe any single one of those anti-GM nutters out there, DNA modifications inserted into the germ line will spread across the entire population of whatever species you're looking at (potato, human, whatever floats your boat) like a blazing wildfire.

Also Evolution.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730354)

lmao. People with the resources have been able to alter their genes more or less as they please for the a few years now (started at least in 2003). A lot of professional athletes do it.

It has been kept quite because of the GATTACA fears and religious groups wouldn't be happy. It is also generally frowned upon.

Re:Hopefully (2)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730396)

Wait, are you saying that society is actually better off because we're susceptible to miserable degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's? If so, you're an asshole. But despite that, I don't wish it on you to watch your parents succumb to Alzheimer's.

Re:Hopefully (1)

bmuon (1814306) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730522)

States already make vaccination mandatory, including some during pregnancy. It's not that crazy to imagine a "vaccine" for Alzheimer's.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730710)

we already live in a dystopia

Re:Hopefully (1)

lsatenstein (949458) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730966)

This is the case today, just look at the Wall street and other gatherings to contest the fact that USA is now a 1% filthy rich and 9% substandard. and 90% poor.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37731000)

According to the book "The 10,000 year explosion", That's how it already is, and always has been...

A fascinating book about genetic advantages.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729408)

So? Why shouldn't people be able to buy better looks, greater intelligence, extended youth, etc if they worked to get the means to afford it?

One, it won't be them who worked to afford it; it'll be their parents.

Two, why do you assume wealthy people earned their wealth?

Re:Hopefully (1)

bennomatic (691188) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728806)

Yeah, what could possibly go wrong? I mean, it's totally impossible that those people might turn into flesh-eating zombies. Isn't it? Isn't it?!

Re:Hopefully (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728858)

Hopefully this leads to people being able to have their DNA modified so that those who can pay no longer have to deal with mental diseases like Alzheimer's.

FTFY. Well, I don't agree with the "hopefully" either.

Re:Hopefully (3, Insightful)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728932)

That's a lame hope...

I hope we find the underlying cause and determine that simple dietary and behavioral changes will make such diseases fleetingly rare.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729116)

As a post below from a relative points out, old age runs in her family, so there is reason to believe there is a genetic component.

Re:Hopefully (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729126)

Better than a naive hope, I'd say. Maybe you can tweak the percentages here and there but with all the diets and behavioral regimes people have tried we'd know if anything made you almost impervious to disease. Of course it helps to be generally fit but for the most part we need treatments, not just regular exercise and eating our vegetables. I have a friend who was diagnosed with cancer at age 16, never drunk, never smoked, excellent health. He needed a treatment for cancer, not just generally good advice. I think it'll be the same with Alzheimer, a few things may help but it's not nearly a replacement for a true treatment or cure.

Re:Hopefully (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729152)

We don't do double blind 100 year studies, and without knowing the underlying cause, any foods, medication, procedure (pre or post natal) could be causing dramatically increased risk, and the cause and effect would be so far separate we'd never pick up on it.

Your own premise is belied by the vast amount of human history before germ theory was concieved, after untold large scale human suffering.

Re:Hopefully (5, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729272)

Her mother became 99 and 10 months. A brother and sister also became pretty old. Not sure what happened to another sister. My father is in his 90-ies and behaves like a 65 year old. We are directly related to her. She was my grand-fathers sister.

For that reason I have contacted the doctor to ask him how I (and my father agreed to do the same) could be able to help. e.g. by giving some blood so they can see after we die if there was anything there. She did not have any children herself, so for now all we know is that she might have been the only person with that part of DNA.
Not sure if my sister (and her kids) is willing to do the same. Or my nephews. We all live in different countries around the world and some I have no way of contacting.

She also was under investigation for about 20 years, so they already knew a lot about her lifestyle. It is not like they dropped a body on the doorstep and they had to go from there.

Re:Hopefully (5, Funny)

Xacid (560407) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730484)

"She did not have any children herself"

I think I discovered the reason she lived so long! ;)

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729326)

Diets and behavoral regimes do exactly jack shit. My dad has always been in great shape all his life, in fact he was a physical training instructor in our country's armed forces for a number of years, right until he left the service. As a civillian he always kept fit, running, biking, swimming, etc. besides going to the gym. Never smoked, always ate healthy. He's now 68 and has Parkinson's, had a pacemaker installed two months ago because of carotid sinus syndrome and just now was diagnosed with prostate cancer. So, fuck anyone that thinks diets and behavoral regimes do anything at all.

Re:Hopefully (1)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729606)

Diets and behavoral regimes do exactly jack shit.

Diet is overwhelmingly why we live longer and healthier than our dark-ages counterparts. The idea that diet is unimportant is massively wrong, and based in overwhelming ignorance.

If you want an example canonical case, look up scurvy, and just how many people were horribly afflicted by it, until it was discovered exactly what dietary supplement was missing.

Never smoked, always ate healthy.

What we believe is a "healthy" diet, changes every decade. For all you our I know, one of those healthy things he was eating contributed to him getting those diseases later in life. Hell, there's some controversy about the pesticides used on crops, which transfers to humans in trace amounts, and may have health effects of its own. Eat healthy all you want, but maybe that lettuce from farm A will slowly poison you, while similar lettuce from farm B will leave you healthy. Unless we know exactly what triggers these diseases, across the board, we can't trace it back to the billions or variables in our food, to decide what "eating healthy" needs to include and exclude.

Environmental exposure is important as well. If you simply live in an area with serious pollution, no diet is going to save you from the health effects of pollutants. What's more, there's no question that air pollution is a cause of several cancers, and other disorders. Local environmental pollutants can be even worse. The simplest of objects like wood can outgas toxic chemicals like formaldehyde. Here in California, you can't buy a sheet of plywood without a warning label that it contains chemicals known to cause cancer...

What else can I say? A healthy diet and lifestyle won't help if you get shot, or hit by a bus either, but that sure as hell doesn't mean they don't in fact have a huge effect on your health.

Re:Hopefully (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729614)

Great scientific method there, sparky.

Just because you're not fat, doesn't mean you're healthy. It's an indicator, but certainly not everything. You have no evidence as to whether diet or behavior helped or hindered. The scientific community is currently going through a shift where they're no longer proclaiming any fat to be bad (which apart from trans-fats and apparently hydrogenated fats, is complete BS). It's depressing to see a paragraph both criticising saturated fat while praising nuts (very high in fat and saturated fats). Eventually they'll just admit that Ancel Keys was a fool pushing an agenda. Ever since he demonised fat, people have just been getting fatter and heart disease has gone crazy. It's sad.

Re:Hopefully (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729302)

simple dietary and behavioral changes will make such diseases fleetingly rare.

It's obvious already. Finish a supersize meal or two at McD every day and you're unlikely to get Alzheimer's nor die of cancer.

p.s. meanwhile they should sequence the DNA of some of the ultra-obese, and figure out how they manage to get so fat ( > 500kg) without dying.

Re:Hopefully (2)

geogob (569250) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729026)

I don't think it will go in that direction (or I hope, to be more precise). But understanding what in her genome protected here from dementia-like diseases may help to identified exactly where in the cellular process these illnesses act and how. It could give you a very fundamental understanding of how these diseases work. This is the first step in finding either a cure (which is very unlikely) but above all a first step to find a way to identify people at risk early and provide proper treatment/nutrition to block the progression of the illness before it even starts.

I bet this will happen, because this is the favorite scheme of pharmas.... hook people early on a life long expensive medication. But if it stops Alzheimer and old-age dementia, I'll for once agree to this scheme. If you don't, you probably had no one close who went through these diseases at their end of life.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729198)

Nope, this will lead to people working longer for less pay.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729450)

That's the science fiction view.

The science view is not to "modify the DNA", but mostly to understand what happens and how, and then develop targeted drugs which do not modify the DNA (that just cannot be done on an existing organism) but act on the specific mechanisms without major side effects.

That's how many forms of cancer and several other disease are now curable.

A.

Hmm (1)

ryzvonusef (1151717) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730120)

This may be modded as flamebait, but I dunno if I want to have Alzheimer's treated by DNA modification.

My paternal grandma lives with us, and she is suffering from alzheimer's. It's is very painful, among other things, she does not recognise her own son and daughter-in-law, and thinks they are her father and mother, since she sees us call them dad and mom. So I know what it feels like, it's absolutely horrible and terrifying, and I don't ever want to go through that when I grow old.

But I don't know if DNA modification is the answer. I would never submit to that, nor would I submit my grandmother or any other family member to such a treatment. I would rather suffer Alzheimer, rather suffer some unknown side effect that could prove to be even worse, and may ironically not even cure alzeheimer!

I will readily agree it's a rather conservative view of mine, but I would rather we not mess with DNA.

Just my two cents.

Re:Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37731030)

have you tried coconut oil? It may sound ridiculous, but the active ingredient in Axona, the most recent Alzheimer's drug is a medium chain fatty acid similar to what is found in virgin coconut oil. I am not a doctor, but if I had a loved one suffering from this, then I might try anything.

http://www.anh-usa.org/coconut-oil-and-alzheimer%E2%80%99s-disease/
http://alzheimersweekly.com/content/axona-mct-coconut-oil-differences-benefits

Re:Hopefully (1)

aBaldrich (1692238) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730220)

Hopefully this leads to people being able to put their children through Bokanovsky Process so that we no longer have to deal with mental diseases like Alzheimer's.

Re:Hopefully (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730690)

That's not how it works. It's very hard to modify the DNA of someone already born.

Re:Hopefully (1)

UnoriginalBoringNick (1562311) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730862)

So will the newly Alzheimers-free superbeings be simultaneously sterilised or will their offspring have to pay a license fee to Monsanto from cradle to grave?

anonymous woman? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728654)

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

Re:anonymous woman? (4, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728868)

Try http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikje_van_Andel-Schipper [wikipedia.org] and you would be right.

I know. my father is her nephew and he still has occasional contact with that doctor. We even knew about this news a month ago, but he asked us to keep it quiet till he presented it.

Re:anonymous woman? (1)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729702)

TFS says "tests at the age of 113 showed she had the mental abilities of a woman aged 60-75 years."
But wiki article says she moved into a nursing home at 105. Why was that?

Re:anonymous woman? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730770)

Probably because her physical side degenerated faster? Fuck this "aging" shit, when are we, as a species, going to get serious about our lifespan? You don't expect mayflies to fly across the Atlantic, why do people think we'll colonize the universe with balding, farting, arthritic middle-aged people with guts and bifocals?

Cyborg (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728664)

From the future. Just saying.

Congressman or monkey (-1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728742)

Your signature: I want to own a monkey. Or a Congressman. Not much difference. Monkeys can in general be trusted more. They may not do what you want them to, but at least their intentions are clear. The price to own a monkey is never more than the monkey can eat him/herself. Monkeys don't require suits, personal assistants or travel expenses. Monkeys are public about the amount of grooming they do and who their friends are. Maybe it would be a wise idea to replace congress with a population of monkeys?

If it bleeds (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728686)

If it bleeds, we can kill it.

Not surprising... (2, Interesting)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728688)

People over the age of 90 are typically very healthy - people with bad health habits often die before 70, though a few last until their mid-80s. If you make it to 90, you've got a very good chance of making 100. In addition, healthy people usually have good intellects regardless of their age - I've met more than a few 90+ year olds who are quite sharp.

Re:Not surprising... (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728714)

Citation needed. This table [annuityadvantage.com] claims life expancy at 90 is 3.8 years (in the US?).

This is an interesting table. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730228)

Plotting the difference in life expectancy (dle) by year for males, you see a couple
of things. First, there's infant mortality at 0-3 years., so dle goes from .4 to nearly
1 From 3 to 13 there's a small increase in life expectancy each year. Then a drop (?)
Then an increase from about 21 to 30, when males do stupid things. So every one of
those years you survive increases your life expectancy. Then there's a smooth curve
to about 100, then it tapers off, but always negative (i.e. every year gets you closer
to death, by varying amounts).

The curve does flatten out after 100, I guess you get beyond the diseases and
other failings and you're just wearing out.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37731214)

And at age 91, your life expectancy is 3.54 years - i.e., having lived another year, you have a life expectancy that has gone down by only about three months.

Re:Not surprising... (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728802)

People over the age of 90 often are very ill, much more than people that are around 30. The ill ones you don't see, because they are in special care and not out on the streets. People over 90 often have bad habits, just about as often as people that are around 30. Statistics say that if you make it to 90, you have less than 50% of making 100, while If you are around 30, you have over 95% making it to 40. Your assumptions are flawed and not based on any numbers or facts.

True, not everyone that smokes dies of cancer or vascular disease, but that doesn't mean that nobody at 90 has ever smoked, or doesn't still smoke. Wat is a fact, is that people that fall seriously ill (due to bad habits, bad luck or genetically triggered), usually don't live very long if it happens after they are around 70 years old. The human body is slower to recover from illness when we get older, so serious conditions take much more victims amongst the elderly. An elderly person that gets a vascular disease at old age, usually dies from that.

The people with a genetic disposition for vascular diseases, usually get symptoms well before they make it to 90 years old. The same applies for several other "big killers" like Alzheimers, cancer, osteoporosis, the effects of virusus (HPV causes cancer in a significant part of the population, HIV kills all but a few, that seem to be resistant) and probably a few more. The genome of someone that made it to 115 is important just for that. How do we find out what combination of genes "protects" us from the "big killers"?

Re:Not surprising... (1)

demonlapin (527802) | more than 2 years ago | (#37731124)

I do see a lot of the ones that are in special care, though I will admit that my information is anecdotal. If you look at the table that the AC that replied to me pointed out, you can see [annuityadvantage.com] that by 90, another year of life only decreases your life expectancy by about three months. Their odds may not be better than 50%, but they're a lot better than the average 30-year-old's.

Given her age... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728724)

...and the social customs of the periods she lived through, she is almost certain to have been a smoker....

Re:Given her age... (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728950)

She wasn't. She did not dislike alcohol. Many stories she told me where not always about events where everybody was sober. Being the first to walk the ice in winter so your name would be engraved in the local pub will be just one of those.

Not anonymous (1)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728730)

This was a women in the Netherlands. Only one female ever made it to the age of 115 ever in the Netherlands. Even though the results are officially anonymous, there is only one person that could have been the donor. By stating the age she died, they effectively gave away her identity.

You apes want to live forever? (1)

virb67 (1771270) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728738)

Don't get your hopes up. You're all going to die, most sooner than you wish. Make the most of what you got... you apes.

Grammar Nazi (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728766)

"DNA Sequenced of Woman Who Lived To 115"? Seriously? What sort of sentence structure is that?

I'm unsure if this was the title provided by the OP, or something Soulskill came up with. But, utlimately, Soulskill is the one who approved this. And he should learn how to write proper English. I mean, come on! BASIC FUCKING ENGLISH!

Re:Grammar Nazi (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728850)

Time is short and we like it when the most important word appears first. Sorry but the ability to skim through a bunch of titles quickly trumps grammar.

Scary thought. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728804)

The thought of extending life for ppl. The interesting issue is that it would be more centered on the wealthy. And yet, these are some of the worst for those that trash out the planet. Says a lot.

Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (5, Informative)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728816)

She was my great aunt : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hendrikje_van_Andel-Schipper [wikipedia.org]

She donated her body already at the age of 80-85. To be talking in /. terms, she open sourced her body. She gave it to science or in her words "Let students and doctors cut me into little pieces and let those youngsters find out why I became this old." She had yearly meetings with the doctor who told her the whole procedure of what would happen when she died.
That was also the reason some nurse was with her, so when the moment came, they would not loose any valuable time.

This is not disrespectful. This was her wish for more then 20 years.

The reason she is "anonymous" is because some idiots were claiming to be speaking of her behalf and said that a doctor could not bring out personal information regardless of the fact that this was the specific demand of the patient. Let the knowledge be spread. And knowing her, that would include her name as well.

As her closest family (my dad, born 1930 and still healthy) and myself are living in other countries, we did not know of this trouble. Otherwise at least I would have intervened.

I also like to donate my blood (or just DNA if it is a nice looking nurse) for the same research, but I am afraid it might end up with some sort of Monsanto. Scary that I am afraid of a company stealing my DNA when I want to give it to science.

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37728994)

Lazarus Long? Is that you? (sorry couldn' help myself)

It's actually bad to donate to science. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729068)

There are alot of race-based diseases appearing through military channels. Just saying. She didn't have a care in the world and didn't think of anything like this. I might allude to that later.

The more science studies bullshit like this, they continually allow the divertion of funds to embrace better foods, and yet they prefer their GMO removes the nutrition right out of the plants so people are forced to live by chemistry at the Vitamin stores.

The AVERAGE life expectancy of Tibetans and Hunza muslims is around 115 and not a single trace of disease until they just "give up the ghost." Hunza are said to live well on drinking glacial water "milk" and all carry heavy backpacks of necessities up hills into their old age, and while Tibetans attribute their longevity to Goji and raw milk and breathing exercises. Both are known to reach upwards of 130. Don't base your lifestyle after them, but know that they have a cleaner environment and more wholesome foods WITHOUT a medical industry of tampering that balance.

It isn't rocket science. Healthy food and lifestyle has nothing to do with it. These two bodies of people are at a region known as The Roof of the Heavens speaking in terms of elevation in their surrounding terrain. If there was a flood again, then only two regions would be dry and that is a couple places in Colorado and much of where these two cultures dwell.

Alzheimer's is nothing more than heavy metal substances crossing the blood-brain barrier, and cancer nurtures into existance with an acidosis bodily PH and bad lifestyle.

To donate a body to science is like reasoning between why breathing car exaust causes Asthma is some and not in other people: the more reactive persons of Asthma only have bodies that would restrain their activity in such a caustic environment while those without Asthma have a body allowing them to breath toxic air without a hint of problem. There is nothing to learn here other than to know that organized medicine will be gloating a number of new theories that need more grants & research money for further inquisition. I know this for a fact because anyone with utmost greater health living around societies of this moral decay will always seize the individual for study regardless of participation.. Moving on...

The supercentenarian-to-be lived with her parents until she was 47 years old. At the age of 46, she met her future husband Dick van Andel, who worked in Amsterdam. She left her parents' home at the age of 47 and married van Andel, a tax inspector, at the age of 49 in 1939, taking the hyphenated name of van Andel-Schipper.

Oh I bet she participated on R9K1 over on 4Chon.net and that's just super-attractive. Sage for oldfaggotry..

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729080)

Since you actually have a problem most of us don't have, somebody might actually want your body, you should contact EFF or RMS and ask them to help you draft a special GPL-like license for it.

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (2)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729284)

RMS? I rather give my body to Bill Gates.

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729452)

I rather give my body to Bill Gates.

Oh, yeah! hot

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729570)

That's a disturbing mental image. On the internet, what can be seen cannot be unseen.

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (1)

marga (455344) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729524)

She had a very unusual life, at least by our standards. Reading about her life makes me think that it may not be the genes so much as the environment that made her live that much.

Re:Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper is W115 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729652)

I also like to donate my blood (or just DNA if it is a nice looking nurse) for the same research, but I am afraid it might end up with some sort of Monsanto. Scary that I am afraid of a company stealing my DNA when I want to give it to science.

You could sign up for the Personal Genome Project [personalgenomes.org].

W115 = Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper (1)

Frans Faase (648933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728818)

Here in the Netherlands it was all over the news that Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper [wikipedia.org], a lady who died at age 115 and left her body to science, had speciale genes.

Re:W115 = Hendrikje van Andel-Schipper (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729120)

pfft, the dutch are scum.

Grammar? (0)

mosb1000 (710161) | more than 2 years ago | (#37728886)

Is it grammatically correct to say "DNA Sequenced of Woman Who Lived to 115?" I feel like it should say "DNA of Woman Who Lived to 115 Sequenced."

Re:Grammar? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729372)

An anonymous linguist agrees with you, although it really doesn't matter at all. Whether or not the point got across is the issue, and it seems it very much did.

Re:Grammar? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729718)

Yes, it's grammatically correct. Certain syntactic elements of English can be freely moved around, and this is an example of a permissible transformation.
However, it's not very idiomatic. Doesn't sound natural for a native speaker. But headlinese is a different dialect anyway.

Re:Grammar? (0)

quenda (644621) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729802)

Neither is a grammatically correct sentence, as they lack a main verb. Not even a correct clause, though both are clear enough.
There seem to be no rules governing grammar of article headlines.

Diseases are NOT caused by age! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729344)

showed no signs of dementia or heart disease

This is well-studied (e.g. by Dr. M. O. Bruker with over 50,000 patients over 50 years) and one of the biggest misconceptions people have.

Nearly all of the diseases we think of as age-related actually just come with decades of aggregated wrongdoing. And most of those are because of non-species-appopriate nutrition. Only a small rest is caused by genetics. Because most genetic errors express earlier.

But apparently, ignorance is alive and well in some scientists” too...

Re:Diseases are NOT caused by age! (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37730824)

Knowledge of genetics is far from complete. Differences can lead to susceptibility/resistance to certain diseases, poisons, etc.. In some cases there's a tradeoff involved. There can be differences that might not qualify as an "error", that would nonetheless reduce the likelihood of living to extreme old age.

Yes, there's ignorance involved here, because knowledge of genetics is incomplete. But to imply that genetics does not strongly influence the odds of living to extreme age assumes facts not in evidence.

Alzheimer's - Old timer's (1)

Compaqt (1758360) | more than 2 years ago | (#37729354)

Barely on topic, but:

Anybody heard people say "old-timer's disease [associatedcontent.com]" instead of "Alzheimer's disease"?

Iâ(TM)ve always thought that "old-timerâ(TM)s disease" was a clever if tastelesspun on "Alzheimerâ(TM)s Disease"; but many people have assured me that thisis a common and quite unintentional error [beedictionary.com].

Re:Alzheimer's - Old timer's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37729948)

Yes, people do it all the time in rural Texas. And yes, it sounds idiotic.

Re:Alzheimer's - Old timer's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730530)

One I heard recently was, "I breed Rockwilders." You'd think if you were breeding it you'd at least know it's called Rottweiler.

Re:Alzheimer's - Old timer's (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37730988)

I used to say that as a kid, mainly because I misheard what the grown-ups said. And of course, the description fits, which probably contributed to the error.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...