Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Changing a Single Gene Allows Mice To Live 20 Percent Longer

Soulskill posted about a year ago | from the mice-suddenly-take-interest-in-shuffleboard dept.

Medicine 79

An anonymous reader writes "A research team at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute has been experimenting with changing mouse genes and seeing how it impacts their life. In a surprising discovery, when targeting just one gene change it was found they could extend the life of a mouse by 20 percent. The gene the researchers focused on is called mTOR and is associated with metabolism. By lowering its expression (to about 25 percent of what is normal) in a batch of mice they did indeed live longer (abstract). They also displayed better memory, balance, muscle strength, and posture as they aged. However, the health of their bones deteriorated more quickly and their immune system was weakened, suggesting that extra time alive wouldn’t really be worth it in terms of overall health. Lead researcher Toren Finkel said, 'While the high extension in lifespan is noteworthy, this study reinforces an important facet of aging; it is not uniform. Rather, similar to circadian rhythms, an animal might have several organ-specific aging clocks that generally work together to govern the aging of the whole organism.'"

cancel ×

79 comments

Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727409)

at least for now...

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (-1, Flamebait)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44727527)

It makes 'em live 20% longer, and increases by 40% the likelihood that they are exclusively homosexual.

"Well, maybe the neighbors can try it on their kids..."

Roll the dice, takes your chance... There's something unintended - that's for sure.

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (-1, Offtopic)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44727645)

You wanna get a downmod on Slashdot?

Tell people there's no way that they will live forever.

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (4, Funny)

lightknight (213164) | about a year ago | (#44727851)

Of course there are ways to 'live' forever...even in the flesh...the question is...how do you want to do it?

Let's run with a hypothetical here: let's say you got, I don't know, twenty different ways to live forever, which I will outline now:

1.) You join with the Almighty in His existence...you are really immortal, and really can't die, but there are some ground rules which you may or may not like, and He is your King...well, in theory He's your King whether or not you join up, but whatever. Free will and all that jazz. With the exception of that one war, everyone is just perfect.

2.) The Super-Galactic Mainframe of Quanticos 337 is willing to swing by, and back up your entire existence to its repository. It's an AI, built by an ancient civilization, that got bored with daily life, and decided that living on as cyber-elfs while the AI went around asking other civilizations / lifeforms if they wanted to join up...focusing on simply being, while enjoying a universe of their own design, which has some focus on merging thought with form. The denizens are reportedly very happy with their choice.

3.) The Earth itself has a crystalline matrix made up of nickel-iron which stores souls / imprints of lifeforms / moderates various attributes / functions of this planet. If you want, you can simply return to that, and be recreated, or, perhaps, 'talk' to it, if anyone on the lower planes can, and ask it about immortality (presumably with the eternal youth / regrowth of limbs / abstention of diseases, but constantly growing in wisdom kind of package which people here seem to care so much about).

4.) You can do the human scientist / Deus Ex Machina / 'Scare the gods' routine, and whip together a handful of wormholes / singularities / whatever, and use that apparatus to keep your existence going for a bit. Helps if you have some uber intelligent friends who are social enough to check up on you every once in a while (haven't heard from Bob in a while..going to check on him...hmm, his apparatus stopped...well, let's see why, check the logs, repair the fault, notify the others of the fault condition, and bring him back), and independent enough to not tie all of those apparatii together (single point of failure == bad).

5.) You could try transcending this reality...presumably with or without any 'help'...and in doing so, cast aside any mortality, or rather the mortality as defined by this plane of existence.

6.) You can clone yourself a few thousand times, either through direct cloning, by using a virus to inject your genome into otherwise unfertilized egg cells (awesome SciFi story about that), using a virus to overwrite everyone else's somatic cells (pulling a 'Master'), or just plain old having some sex. Or IVF. Personally I favor sex...but then, I'm old-fashioned when it comes to things like procreation. That's considered a form of immortality.

7.) You could write a book, a song, build a pyramid, some 'act of glory' to stand as a fitting testament that you once graced the planet Earth. Personally, I consider this a boring pursuit, bit of a midlife crisis, but then, who am I to judge?

8.) You could convince yourself that reality is the Kobayashi Maru....that the logical inconsistencies of this existence can only be sustained through tremendous action on the part of a symphony of minds or a supercomputer, and that the entirety of 'your life' is simply a test to see if you are fit to 'command' or 'lead'...something. As the saying goes, you could live with a man every day for 40 years, but not really know him; it's not until you pick him up, and hold him over a volcano, that you learn things that you could never learn any other way.

   

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about a year ago | (#44729219)

9.) Similar to 5, but without effort on your part: whenever your body dies, your point of observation connects with another permutation in which "your" body is available.
9.a) The permutation is karmic (aka heaven/hell/purgatory).
9.b) The permutation is the same, just further down the track (aka reincarnation).
9.c) The permutation is quantum discrete (aka schrodinger-style immortality).
9.d) The permutation is macroscopically discrete (aka alternate reality).
9.e) The permutation is some combination of the above (e.g. karmic reincarnation).

Anyone else?

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year ago | (#44731393)

OK. You are on a roll, and you rock.

Rock and roll, John Hurt. Don't let the face-huggers get you down... :-)

Re:Lazarus Long Unavailable for Comment... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728031)

Try telling them they'll never live on Mars, mine asteroids or that the species isn't going anywhere. If anything, Slashdot has a very strong anti life extension bias.

Blatant conjecture (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727513)

"an animal might have several organ-specific aging clocks that generally work together to govern the aging of the whole organism."

I see nothing to support the idea of a "clock." If aging were regulated by a clock-like process, then it would seem reasonable that you could just stop the clock. "Solving" the aging problem would be just a matter of eliminating the regulation circuitry.

Anyone who does engineering should realize that's a naive assumption. Since there are no animals that live forever, you have to assume that extending life is a totally new feature... not a bugfix.

Re:Blatant conjecture (4, Interesting)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about a year ago | (#44727539)

Actually you are wrong, there is at least one organism that can live forever: the turritopsis nutricula [wikipedia.org]

Re:Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729593)

I agree with you, but I wanted to point out that forever is a relative term. The sun will go red giant and destroy all life on Earth in about 5.5 billion years, so technically speaking nothing on this planet will live forever. ;-)

Re:Blatant conjecture (4, Interesting)

houstonbofh (602064) | about a year ago | (#44727551)

Since there are no animals that live forever, you have to assume that extending life is a totally new feature... not a bugfix.

Really? http://www.cracked.com/article_20055_6-unassuming-animals-that-are-secretly-immortal.html [cracked.com]

Hey! Cracked is at least as reliable as CNN, fox, or MSNBC, and lately it is more unbiased.

Re: Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727693)

For example some cancers basically live 'forever', mutation switched off the dying gene in them.

Re: Blatant conjecture (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727865)

For example some cancers basically live 'forever', mutation switched off the dying gene in them.

Not really sure I want to know what a human would look like after it got done mutating into immortality.

Given that genetic mutation will likely breed profits for the immoral and corrupt, we probably won't have to wait much longer. Sad but true.

Re: Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44740067)

"Not really sure I want to know what a human would look like after it got done mutating into immortality."

See Capt Jack Harkness as The Face of Boe...

Re:Blatant conjecture (1)

QilessQi (2044624) | about a year ago | (#44727831)

Telomeres function as a kind of clock:

The telomere-shortening mechanism normally limits cells to a fixed number of divisions, and animal studies suggest that this is responsible for aging on the cellular level and sets a limit on lifespans. Telomeres protect a cell's chromosomes from fusing with each other or rearranging—abnormalities that can lead to cancer—and so cells are destroyed when their telomeres are consumed. Most cancers are the result of "immortal" cells that have ways of evading this programmed destruction

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telomere [wikipedia.org]

Re: Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727857)

Here is an engineering analogy for you: underclock your computer and it will live longer. This is exactly what they did here

Re: Blatant conjecture (1)

kilodelta (843627) | about a year ago | (#44727945)

Yup - they slow down the metabolism. But still, a 20% jump is significant. Say I would normally live to 80, this means I'd see 100.

And from what they say you'd be in good health except for skeletal and immune but there are ways to counter that too.

And lookup Aubrey DeGray - he's got some interesting ideas on extending human lifespan.

Re: Blatant conjecture (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727971)

Perhaps you should work on your math in those extra years.

Re: Blatant conjecture (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728067)

Hahahahahaah! Fuck yeah, you burned that motherfucker. I'm not even being sarcastic, trolling can be like food, man: Simple ingredients can make an excellent dish when fresh enough.

-- Ethanol-fueled

Re: Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729817)

"Yup - they slow down the metabolism. "

Which means it's not for Americans. They are already as fat as humanly possible, slowing the metabolism by 20% will increase that too.

Re:Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727861)

Can someone who does engineering explain the following:

1) How can ageless atoms be used to make things that age?

2) How can two thirty year olds make a zero year old baby?

Obviously aging is the end result of a sequence of events that end up with molecules in undesirable configurations. Seems to me that engineering that away is precisely what we need to do...

Re:Blatant conjecture (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44728233)

do you have any idea what would happen after 50 years if no one died? we'd have 3 billion more people is what. keep your bright ideas to yourself, then drop dead at 82 years or so

Re:Blatant conjecture (1)

khallow (566160) | about a year ago | (#44728649)

do you have any idea what would happen after 50 years if no one died? we'd have 3 billion more people is what.

Oh the drama! I could troll like 50% more victims than I currently can! Let's do this!

OTOH, we'd have a bunch of very knowledgeable people who could probably figure out ways to make this work out. Assuming that birth control, greater personal wealth, and women's liberation didn't drop female fertility through the floor already.

Re:Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728761)

After 50 more years, women would have no more eggs. So what?

Re:Blatant conjecture (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44731351)

so the population of the earth would be 13,5 billion and rising instead of peaking 8.5 billion in about 2072

Re:Blatant conjecture (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728073)

I'm not entirely certain what you're saying so I'll suggest you start with reading a bit about the suprachiasmatic nucleus and go from there. Maybe they rhythmic nature of the entire body plays no role and it's just conjecture.

Re:Blatant conjecture (1)

RespekMyAthorati (798091) | about a year ago | (#44733931)

If aging were regulated by a clock-like process, then it would seem reasonable that you could just stop the clock

You can. It's called killing them.

Major Misread (1)

Scarletdown (886459) | about a year ago | (#44727611)

Talk about a gray moment here. For some reason, I thought the headline said Makes Mice 20% Cooler.

Re:Major Misread (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about a year ago | (#44727819)

That'd be a hard decision if I had to pick if I was 20% cooler or live 20% longer. I guess it is the same decision for people who think cigarettes are cool(hint: they're not).

Re:Major Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729839)

"That'd be a hard decision if I had to pick if I was 20% cooler or live 20% longer."

You can do that right now, eat 20% less Calories and you'll live 20% longer, has been demonstrated quite a few times.

But alas, that's not the American way.

Re:Major Misread (1)

Meski (774546) | about a year ago | (#44743635)

burn more calories than you consume. Hell, most people (or countries) don't understand 'spend less than you earn' - WTF am I bothering?

Re:Major Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728723)

What, you thought they gave mice retractable shades, like in Deux Ex?

Re:Major Misread (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44728765)

Talk about a gray moment here. For some reason, I thought the headline said Makes Mice 20% Cooler.

Not really a grey moment, only the rich and politically influential mice are 20% cooler and live 20% longer, the regular mice, not so much.

Re:Major Misread (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729719)

I have mice that are over 20 years old. If they're made with plastic skin and rubber balls, they may last centuries...

The candle that burns half as bright... (2, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about a year ago | (#44727633)

...burns twice as long? Having a lower metabolism sounds like it would just be life in slow motion. Granted the increase in muscle strength seems contrary to this and is surprising. But still, a lower metabolism must mean less energy and vigor.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#44727947)

"must" is a strong word. Never use it. For instance: Lower metabolism but higher efficiency. You done DERPed, son.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44746547)

Never is a strong word. You must always avoid it.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (1)

TemperedAlchemist (2045966) | about a year ago | (#44728183)

Changing the expression of mTOR isn't impacting all of your metabolism, that's not actually what's happening here. It's just changing a single aspect of metabolism.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about a year ago | (#44728265)

You know what's a hoot. I have (and had) some hippy aunts and uncles that subscribed to these hippie and back to nature magazines in the 70s, and there were these heroes of diet who were pushing low calorie diet for longevity. One very famous one even claimed he was going to reach 150 eating carrots, sprouts and such shit. Anyway, the punchline is that all of these super diet Methuselahs have one thing in common, they are all very dead. I don't recall any of them making it out of their 70s in fact.

On the other hand, other of my relatives ate the american barnyard diet of pork, beef and chickens with their fresh homegrown veggies and fruit and milk/ice cream/cheese and homemade bread and all that good stuff. They were overweight and who pot bellies but worked hard. They lived into 80s, 90s and my great grandma past 100. So exercise and eat the meat you crave with basic produce and dairy, and avoid the processed food. Don't go low calorie.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#44728387)

It was the tie-dye, man! Tie-dye will kill quicker than a convenience store burrito.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728969)

That might explain why some asians living a vegetarian lifestyle live longer. Their metabolism slows down.

Re:The candle that burns half as bright... (1)

Meski (774546) | about a year ago | (#44743645)

That's a Batty comment you just made. (and he didn't like it much, if his response was anything to go by)

Better posture? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727665)

How do we measure mouse posture? They stand up straighter?

Re:Better posture? (1)

Meski (774546) | about a year ago | (#44743651)

The wires in their chords don't break.

well shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727695)

if I were a mice this would mean something.

And how far is this research? (1)

udippel (562132) | about a year ago | (#44727783)

As engineer, I have over 30 years of career been confronted with some problems, items to adjust and calibrate, etc.
And I can vouch for the fact that in almost all cases, there was a trade-off. One parameter increasing, another would decline; e.g. MTBF. Or efficiency. Therefore, how can fiddling arbitrarily with parameters on a system constitute research?
News at 11.
Wake me up when a longer life is possible without side-effects.

Re:And how far is this research? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727935)

Biology is several orders of orders of magnitude more complex than the toy-like systems you dealt with in engineering. One single cell is so mind bogglingly complex that you could spend your life studying one cell, never mind how it grew from a stem cell and how it relates to the billions of other cells in the body (a system of systems on a scale to dwarf the entire Internet, in every body.)

You learned a few equations, learned about crystal aging and a few systems to make a handful of atoms vibrate in a specific way under very controlled conditions.

Take a look at the incredible variety of environments and conditions your body (or a mouse's) operate in. Could you design a machine that does all that? And feeds itself and makes copies of itself?

And you want all that to come with a readme.txt?

Why don't you help with anti-aging efforts?

Re:And how far is this research? (1)

udippel (562132) | about a year ago | (#44728321)

Why don't you help with anti-aging efforts?

This is actually a very good question. Thanks for asking it.
It is because I don't see any progress if it could be achieved. Imagine an ever increasing amount of biomass being used up for an ever increasing number of human beings. At times, old age and death is a great contributor to human progress. Stalin and Mugabe spring into mind. If we were here for eternity all my stereotypes, my convictions, my undue biases would be there forever.
However, me dying opens space for someone to pick up from me, and maybe improve on my shortcomings. And what a boring life this would be. I am convinced that we'd be ending up with the same boredom like you can make out here: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070948/ [imdb.com]
Death is the greatest factor in human advancements of all. In the Indian tradition, often Shiva is considered the greatest of the major three gods, because without destruction, nothing new can be created.

I would very much prefer to help with efforts to allow all human beings to lead their limited life-span in a decent manner. I would very much prefer to help with efforts to allow cancer patients to lead a life with little to no suffering until their final breath.

We all have to go one day, untimely or not, and that is about the best decisions some god, respectively mother nature, have taken for us. Actually, if need be I'd help with all efforts to prevent humans from living for eternity. Aging - I am close to 60 - is a part of life that I would actually not want to miss. If only, for its changes on perspectives, which is yet another great learning experience.

Re:And how far is this research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728477)

Do you have problems with vaccination, sterile surgery, refrigeration, indoor plumbing, antibiotics and germ theory? I mean, what is your "limited life-span" when you have all these modern technologies? Imagine if people thought like you at the end of the 19th century? Wouldn't childhood death be part of the "limited life-span"? Why were all those above technologies acceptable then?

I'm really super glad you have your philosophy to deal with your mortality, but if anti-aging becomes real, will you at least accept the fact that some of us want to live longer and better lives?

Re:And how far is this research? (1)

udippel (562132) | about a year ago | (#44729413)

I understand your position and yet, I cannot perceive it to be very logically founded. The mistake that we humans tend to make, is to stick too much to the crude philosophy of 'when something is good, just use more of it'. Food without salt is lousy. Some grains of salt make it nice. An overdose of salt is dangerous, if not lethal. A nice sip on a good wine brings my spirits up. Though if I wanted to increase this state of uplifting by gulping down a few more glasses, the intended effect would not occur. On the contrary, I'd suffer from a hangover the next day. I see the progress of medicine likewise. Eliminate suffering, allow us a life free of pain, with the ability to savour each and every day of the rest of our lives. And allow us - okay, at least me - to die gracefully when the natural time is up.
I simply cannot imagine that someone born in the Elisabeth-en age would actually enjoy sitting through all the changes, famines, wars, centuries in order to still be alive today. Though I might be wrong. As of today, I wouldn't be happy to know I have to continue working for a living, endure an ever increasing hostility in the global world, ever more competition, and - worst - activities by our Big Brother, for some more centuries. Anything wrong with retirement?

Re:And how far is this research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729427)

I would very much prefer to help with efforts to allow all human beings to lead their limited life-span in a decent manner. I would very much prefer to help with efforts to allow cancer patients to lead a life with little to no suffering until their final breath.

There is no difference between life extension and alleviating suffering. Many of the diseases of old age kill people in people in horrible ways. If you want to alleviate that suffering, the solution is to return those people to good health, so that old people will stop becoming decrepit and dying in horrible ways. If the old people are in good health, like a 25-year old is in good health, the old people won't be dying any faster than the young people are. You'll have cured aging. If you oppose curing aging, you must also oppose any effort to cure diseases like cancer and Alzheimer. There is no difference between curing again and keeping people healthy.

Re:And how far is this research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728143)

As the other respondent implied, such experiments must be controlled (as much as possible) in a system with statistical interactions that are orders of magnitude higher and more complex than what you've ever experienced. Moreover, the system itself is dynamic on a timescale that is sub-millisecond (being conservative). Can you propose how these folks would otherwise proceed?

Your 30 years as an engineer means absolutely nothing based on what you've said. That is, there is zero hint that you have any clue about the domain, yet you chose to prop yourself with "30 years".

Re:And how far is this research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728237)

Therefore, how can fiddling arbitrarily with parameters on a system constitute research?

They probably have some guy with advanced technology like a notebook and a pencil, scribbling down what happens to the subject after messing with said parameters.

Re:And how far is this research? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729397)

And I can vouch for the fact that in almost all cases, there was a trade-off.

No there wasn't. It's just that all those cases where there wasn't a trade-off, you instantly made the better choice and didn't even consider the stupid choice. Did you consider replacing your shoe with a rock? No you didn't, because that isn't a trade-off, it's just stupid. The only reason you think that everything is a trade-off is that the trade-offs are the only things you really think about and remember.

"Here I come to save the day!" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727869)

After changing one more mouse gene, a crashing sound is heard from the lab.
The metal mouse cage is torn apart and there's a hole in the brick wall.
People outside the building are yelling... look up in the sky, it's a bird, a plane, superman.. no that's not superman!..
it's "Mighty Mouse"!
"Here I come to save the day!"

Re:"Here I come to save the day!" (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#44728409)

You have a rich fantasy life, AC.

New Research, Same Problem (3, Interesting)

roninchurchill (2991659) | about a year ago | (#44727913)

The research may be new, but it encounters the same old problem: increasing the lifespan of a mouse by 25% (hint: it's measured in months) is much different than increasing human lifespan. The last "anti-aging miracle" I read about, lowering IGF-1 levels, provided just as much misguided hope. Mice with low levels of IGF-1 lived longer--surely the same must be true for humans too, right? Not quite... low levels of IGF-1 are associated with higher risk of ischemic heart disease, and may also be associated with greater risk for sarcopenia.

Do more people die from reaching the natural limit to their life, or from heart disease and complications due to fractures? Until a research team can demonstrate that altering these pathways provides tangible human benefit (without a hidden consequence), we're just learning how to increase our favorite pet rodent's life.

References:

Laughlin GA, Barrett-Connor E, Criqui MH, Kritz-Silverstein D. The prospective association of serum insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I) and IGF-binding protein-1 levels with all cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in older adults: the Rancho Bernardo Study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. January 2004;89:114-20.

Giovannini S, Marzetti E, Borst SE, Leeuwenburgh C. Modulation of GH/IGF-1 axis: potential strategies to counteract sarcopenia in older adults. Mech Ageing Dev. October 2008;129:593-601. doi: 10.1016/j.mad.2008.08.001.

SO CHANGE FIVE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727983)

And then have mice live forever !! Who would not want that !!

Re:SO CHANGE FIVE !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728817)

that'd be twice as long dumphuk

must be an American

mit post-grad?

thats great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44727995)

Now to help people die faster so that I don't have to work until I'm 100 before I can retire.

Re:thats great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728047)

Why don't you change the social model ??? How come more people working means ... you have to work more? There's a leak somewhere, fix that first.

Re:thats great (1)

Quasimodem (719423) | about a year ago | (#44728419)

I hear this gigantic sucking sound coming from the 1%.

Re:thats great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728965)

Societies have changed before and they will change again.

Genetic engineering, then live in outer space? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728017)

In outer space, bone strength is not needed. There are much less foreign organisms for the immune system to deal with. The radiation is going to give you cataracts anyways. So, the rich people can go into outer space, get lots of eye surgery, and live longer.

What about EMS recombination? (1)

hibji (966961) | about a year ago | (#44728053)

Or a repressive protein that blocks the operating cells?

Quality vs Quantity again. (1)

ClassicASP (1791116) | about a year ago | (#44728115)

Give me quality please.

Bones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728189)

Im a programmer. I don't need an immune system capable of NYC subway system. I don't need exceptionally strong bones when i'm 60.
What i do need is very good mental health, though.

Going the wrong way (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44728615)

We want mice to have shorter live, not live longer!

mTOR (3, Funny)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44728695)

he gene the researchers focused on is called mTOR and is

... That gene is no longer available. It was seized by the NSA and is being held in guantanamo bay for suspected ties to drug dealing and terrorism because it may somehow be related to the Tor privacy network.

Re:mTOR (1)

lazy genes (741633) | about a year ago | (#44741167)

it was detained because the mice started chanting "taxes are a symptom of living unsustainably".

tl;dr (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729057)

So, having no mouse wife increases life expectancy?

Similar to what has been found in fruit flies (2)

amaurea (2900163) | about a year ago | (#44729621)

Experiments to breed fruit flies for longevity by only letting them breed after a certain age has produced flies which lived three times as long as normal, if I recall correctly. These had much the same symptoms as the mice: Stronger and more active, even after normal fruit flies would be dead. But with significantly reduced metabolism. This is also similar to how humans who live on a diet that is on the verge of starving them also seem to live longer, but have lower metabolism.

So lowering the metabolism, and making the cells live in slow motion, essentially, seems to be the easiest way to increase life span. But I think it is a boring dead-end in that there is a limit to how much the metabolism can be lowered, and it does not really solve any of the real issues with old age, such as failing repair mechanisms, lack of new cells, telomer limits vs. cancer, etc.

Yes (1)

undulato (2146486) | about a year ago | (#44729627)

But are they 20% happier?

mTor (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44729707)

Mamalian targets for rapamycin down regulation slows down metabolism and disrupt immune system not sure if longer life span is worth it?

I suspect that.. (1)

houbou (1097327) | about a year ago | (#44730213)

like anything else, the process of aging must also revolve around the imperfect cell replication process that we undergo over time.

Between pollutants, radiation, etc.. Our cells do NOT replicate perfectly, thus, at some point, the quality of our cells deteriorates, which must be a factor to consider when aging comes to mind.

As we age from newborn to child to teen to adult hood, perhaps whatever triggers our growth at some point, also proivdes our cells protection and when that goes away, then the cell replication becomes compromised, which means that perhaps there is a mechanism within ourselves as we age into adult hood which protects our cells, once we've gotten to our final stage, we lose this protection and slowly our cells replication process becomes compromised with time and more vulnerable to external factors.

It could be that to really slow down the aging process, we need to better filter what we consume and we need to increase our skin's ability to better shield ourselves from radiation, etc..

No, I want them dead (1)

hughbar (579555) | about a year ago | (#44730359)

I don't want my pesky mice to live 20% longer. I want my cat to kill the b**gers.

This is why I put much more faith in SENS (1)

Alejux (2800513) | about a year ago | (#44731021)

Trying to prevent aging by tinkering with our enormously complex biological process, is likely to cause many more problems the body that we don't know of. It will likely work for some people while creating all sorts of problems for all the others. With the SENS approach, on the other hand, it's not about changing the biological process to prevent the aging, but rather trying to repair the damage caused by the 7 known cause of aging, with regenerative medicine and other therapies.

Speaking as a cat.. (1)

Maj Variola (2934803) | about a year ago | (#44731337)

As a cat I can confidently state that all of Domestic Felineness would welcome these new, slow mice, with open paws. When will these be introduced into the wild?
Check for New 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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...