
Drug 'reverses' ageing in animal tests - mrfusion
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-39354628
======
mabbo
> "The use of this peptide in patients is a long way away. It requires careful
> consideration about safety, about the appropriate group of patients for whom
> this peptide can be beneficial in a reasonable period of time so that
> positive effects can be easily measured at an affordable cost."

My bet: this drug will be for sale on the internet illegally within a year
(and probably fake half of the time). The demand for this exact thing is just
too high. It doesn't even matter if it's shown to not work on humans, people
will still try it "just in case".

~~~
sixQuarks
As long as people are aware of the risks and are willing to take the chance, I
actually support this.

It doesn't make sense that society doesn't blink an eye when we send our youth
off to war to die, but heaven forbid if someone dies in the pursuit of
knowledge, everybody goes batshit insane. At least if someone dies taking this
stuff, we learn a lot. And if it actually ends up working, it benefits society
tremendously.

~~~
derefr
> At least if someone dies taking this stuff, we learn a lot.

We'd learn a lot more if they were being monitored as they took the stuff,
though. And yet it's still considered unethical to run human trials without
preceding animal trials, even when the alternative is people off doing those
same trials to themselves without your assistance.

We understand this problem in other domains—that's why "safe injection sites"
for drug-addicts exist. So why has pharmaceutical research not cottoned on and
begun offering "safe self-experimentation sites", complete with medical
researchers + monitoring equipment to capture data, and nurses to help with
bad reactions?

~~~
astrange
Because nobody wants to experiment on themselves and your experiment doesn't
follow any scientific protocols?

~~~
derefr
Er, the context of this subthread is about people who already do experiment on
themselves. People in the "nootropics community." There are a lot of them.

You could try teaching these individuals experimental protocols if you like,
but if you _enforce_ them, that means you're the experimenter. You're not
allowed to be the experimenter. You just have to hope they're doing something
useful. Probably you'd point a lot of automated instrumentation at each room,
rather than having any human observers giving anyone (costly) individual
attention, because most of the experiments would be too mired in sources of
error to tell you much.

But keep in mind that the point wouldn't be to capture subtle things like drug
_efficacy_. The point would be to find out about side-effects that might
otherwise not be found, by having people around when they suffer adverse
reactions to the drug to help the person not-die, and then being able to pull
reports directly from the people who helped the person not-die, to find out
(in clear medical terms) what the adverse reaction _was_.

~~~
evgen
> Er, the context of this subthread is about people who already do experiment
> on themselves. People in the "nootropics community." There are a lot of them

They are not "experimenting" on themselves, they are simply engaging in a
chemically-mediated attempt at wish fulfillment. There are few, if any, actual
experimentation protocols being used and whenever I check out the scene to see
if it is any better Instill find a random collection of anecdotes and poorly
gathered "data points." I see no baseline data, no blinding or controls, the
worst sorts of confirmation bias in data gathering and assessment, and people
entering these "experiments" with a random selection of pre-exisiting
conditions for which they are attempting self-medication. This is just an
exercise in generating noise, not data.

~~~
traek
Yes, that is exactly why it was proposed by ~derefr to

> [offer] "safe self-experimentation sites", complete with medical researchers
> + monitoring equipment to capture data, and nurses to help with bad
> reactions?

That's what this whole subthread is about.

~~~
evgen
The point is that there would be no useful data captured at such sites beyond
'what is the LD50 of this random shit someone ordered from China?' Such a site
would possibly increase safety for individuals, but not much else.

------
philipkglass
"He tested it on _mice that were just old (the equivalent of 90 in mouse
years)_ , those genetically programmed to age very rapidly and those aged by
chemotherapy."

Great! Too many results have been previously reported just in genetically
modified mice that weren't aging normally in the first place.

------
DrScump
The paper:

[http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(17)30246-5](http://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(17\)30246-5)

------
reasonattlm
Many of the current methods of killing senescent cells hinge on apoptosis in
some way.

UNITY Biotechnology: using repurposed chemotherapeutic drugs like navitoclax
to selectively drive senescent cells into apoptosis by suppressing on the
mechanisms that prevents that fate. They also have antibodies and
immunotherapies in their backlog of patents, but if they haven't got it to
work by now, not likely to be a direction they take in favor of the drugs.

Oisin Biotechnologies: programmed gene therapy that assesses p16 levels in the
cell and then induces caspase expression and apoptosis if it looks senescent.

SIWA Therapeutics: monoclonal antibodies.

Everon Biosciences: small molecule drugs and related immunotherapies.

There is a lot of money sloshing into the field of senescent cell clearance at
the moment, and given that the target market is ultimately every adult human
for a treatment undertaken every few years, I think there is plenty of room
for more players.

~~~
Danihan
I'm not clear on exactly what happens once the senescent cells are cleared.

Can an elderly body body replace these cells on its own, or would senescent
cell clearing generally need to be paired with a stem-cell replacement
protocol of some kind?

~~~
reasonattlm
Yes, the cells can be replaced. In old people, with their declining stem cell
populations, that replacement will be slower and less effective. So give them
lower doses over longer periods of time.

Stem cell replacement is something that should be developed for use in old
people anyway; the more of that going on the better.

------
andrewflnr
If you're flushing out senescent cells, are they automatically being replaced
by new, healthy cells?

~~~
norea-armozel
In theory, yes. But that depends on how many healthy cells or stem cells that
change to replace them there are. It's a big complex problem really that I
think people understate. It's part of why we heal so well up to a certain
point in our lives (the ability to remove and kill off faulty or old cells).
This wouldn't be a fountain of youth but more like a fountain of "not needing
a nurse to wipe your ass when you're 95."

------
rwmj
I wish there was a way to search for "miracle cure" articles from 5 or 10 or
15 (or 100) years ago, then find out what actually happened to them.

~~~
adventurer
I've probably read a handful of Alzheimer's cures in mice that haven't panned
out in human trials the past 5 years.

~~~
josephpmay
The thing about Alzheimer's is that there's no real good mouse model

------
gmarx
Oh to be a test animal. They need not fear cancer or AIDS or even aging...

~~~
blunte
Perhaps not, but their living conditions pretty much suck.

~~~
gmarx
that's the joke. Well that and "works in test animals" clearly means nothing
for humans

~~~
Danihan
I don't see how that's clear at all. Sounds pretty ignorant, really.

~~~
gmarx
You should complain to my medical school

------
mrfusion
Are we sure humans have as many aged cells as mice do? We do live a lot longer
so maybe we already have a mechanism like this?

~~~
zupa-hu
sure, it's called fasting

------
Tepix
While we're waiting for miracle drugs to become available, how about some high
intensity aerobic training to reverse aging: [http://www.kurzweilai.net/mayo-
clinic-discovers-high-intensi...](http://www.kurzweilai.net/mayo-clinic-
discovers-high-intensity-aerobic-training-can-reverse-aging)

------
mrfusion
I wonder what purpose the old cells serve?

~~~
cperciva
I may be misremembering, but I think senescence is often induced as a response
to damage -- a protective measure, since damaged cells are liable to become
cancerous if allowed to continue to divide.

As for why the cells become senescent rather than merely dying -- well, even
senescent cells retain some function. If damaged cells died rather than
becoming senescent, it would presumably result in more deaths in situations
where a large number of cells are damaged.

It may be that a drug which kills senescent cells results in a decrease in
chronic disability but an increase in deaths... an interesting trade-off!

~~~
Danihan
Well, all cells convert oxygen and sugar into energy, including old cells and
cancer cells.

Like you said, cellular senescence is a trade-off -- the body doesn't want
these damaged cells to keep dividing per se, yet they are still useful for
continuing to covert sugar and oxygen into energy to use as needed.

We do have a mechanism for getting rid of damaged cells in general: autophagy.
However, autophagy seems to be mostly triggered when there is an energy
deficit, for instance during fasting or during intense exercise.

This is probably why fasting and exercise are proven over and over to be
beneficial to health, they essentially trigger a "cleaning cycle" of cellular
autophagy within the body. I'm not sure autophagy typically includes senescent
cells, my understanding is that it's primarily targeted towards cells that
have damaged mitochondria.

~~~
cperciva
Even if autophagy eats cells randomly, it will reduce the proportion of
senescent cells, since the removed cells will eventually be replaced by newly
divided (and non-senescent) cells.

------
wmnwmn
Could this be the first "real" result in anti-aging? It sounds plausible but
we can only hope...I've been expecting something like this at any time for the
last ten years at least. There must be at least a little bit of low-hanging
fruit in this area!!

------
untilHellbanned
Target p53 no thanks.

~~~
vajrabum
Care to amplify that comment a bit for those of us in the cheap seats?

~~~
danbruc
Wikipedia has quite a bit of information about p53. [1] It seems to have an
important role as a suppressor for cancer. So maybe the comment was referring
to that, you probably don't want to mess that up.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TP53)

------
jwatte
If someone can synthesize this peptide and sell it as a nutritional supplement
right now, they'll make a killing. Do I know any chemists? :-)

------
mattnewport
This sounds like the opening scene of a resident evil movie...

------
thyselius
Any indication on how much it could affects ones lifespan?

~~~
andy_ppp
It might be the start of the living forever, i.e. where breakthroughs keep
coming at a fast enough rate to keep you alive.

Or it might kill you from some weird reaction.

Nobody yet knows. But fasting is meant to be good for you in similar ways.

~~~
Asooka
> Or it might kill you from some weird reaction.

Given that the alternative is definitely dying, I'd take my chances with the
pill after trials have shown it to be sensibly safe.

~~~
andy_ppp
The point of my answer was to imply that no-one knows the outcomes or if it's
safe for humans. After it's been tested in humans for safety I'd give it a go
for sure. I suppose if you are 90 it's worth a punt ;-)

------
tudorw
now we just need somewhere to put all the old people, and young people to care
for them, am I the only one not excited about this ?

~~~
Jemmeh
There's quite a few societies where old people live great active lives up
until the day they die and take care of themselves. They're healthier. So
shouldn't we try to be healthier and less reliant on the young people too?

Granted stronger social bonds has often been linked to better health so maybe
a bit more relying on each other is a good thing.

~~~
tudorw
I was thinking more along resource lines, if the ones alive get to live longer
and longer, does that not reduce the opportunity for new lives ?

~~~
mistercow
You seem to be assuming that new lives are worth more than old lives. Why?

~~~
tudorw
This is a good question, I don't have a tidy answer, it just feels like that
is the way of things, born, grow old and die, if we change the die bit I do
feel like something is lost, if I could freeze time, no more births, no more
deaths, would I, no, I don't think so, and we are still evolving, so perhaps
that is a good reason to let things run their 'natural' course?

~~~
Jemmeh
This line of thinking comes up a lot in longevity discussion. Pretty much all
medicine is "unnatural" and extending life. People evolve all the time even
while being alive, we change our opinions on things, we learn things, and we
make impact on our surroundings. Usually the question of social progress comes
up, but there are still quite a lot of people alive today who dealt with
segregation in schools, it wasn't just the deaths of people with those beliefs
that moved that progress forward. I could even argue that the fact that people
have to focus so hard on survival is slowing down a lot of progress.

~~~
mistercow
I'd also argue that a lot of the reasons people think death is "necessary" are
actually symptoms of senescence. Decreased neuroplasticity, for example, is
likely one of the reasons that old people tend to get "stuck in their ways"
and are unwilling to accept new ideas. Clearly, part of solving the aging
problem involves solving that too.

A lot of anti-immortality arguments reduce to this problem. Folks who advocate
ending aging do _not_ want us to just live forever as progressively more
decrepit and cranky old codgers. The point is not to keep you at 90. It's to
keep you at 25 (and put you back there if necessary).

