
Cell-Aging Hack Opens Longevity Research Frontier - ph0rque
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/11/cellular-senescence/
======
reasonattlm
The mice used in this study are a breed engineered to suffer accelerated
aging, which means it doesn't have too much to say about what will happen in
normal mice: this study adds weight to arguments for the importance of
senescent cells in aging by virtue of the degree of change that was produced.
To my eyes, the important outcome here is the development of a reliable way to
flush out senescent cells in mice - which can now be applied to otherwise
normal mice to see what happens there. Will they live longer, what will their
risk of age-related disease be, etc?

For further reading on senescent cells, see:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/why-do-we-
accumul...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/why-do-we-accumulate-
senescent-cells-anyway.php)

For commentary on this research:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/11/a-demonstration-o...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/11/a-demonstration-
of-the-merits-of-apoptosens.php)

The paper:

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature10600>

"Senescent cells accumulate in various tissues and organs with ageing and have
been hypothesized to disrupt tissue structure and function because of the
components they secrete. However, whether senescent cells are causally
implicated in age-related dysfunction and whether their removal is beneficial
has remained unknown. To address these fundamental questions, we made use of a
biomarker for senescence, p16Ink4a, to design a novel transgene, INK-ATTAC,
for inducible elimination of p16Ink4a-positive senescent cells upon
administration of a drug."

Running this method in otherwise normal mice rather than the BubR1 accelerated
aging mice used here will be an important test of the merits of research
programs like the SENS Foundation's apoptoSENS:

<http://sens.org/sens-research/research-themes/apoptosens>

But it will be at least another five years, I'd imagine, to get the results of
a life span study in ordinary mice, even if they turn right around and start
pulling down the grants right now.

The BubR1 mutant progeria-suffering mice used in this work are discussed in a
good article at the lab website:

[http://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/de07-2-aging-
vandeursen/index...](http://discoverysedge.mayo.edu/de07-2-aging-
vandeursen/index.cfm)

------
tryitnow
One thing people lose sight of is what I call the "whack a mole" problem. If
we spend a ton of money fighting the big killers, but doing little to focus on
rejuvenation therapies then we will just keep succumbing to a different set of
diseases even if therapies help us beat back the diseases we would have
succumbed to without them.

For example, let's say I have diabetes. Then let's say some genius finds a
complete cure for it. Ok, so it's not going to kill me now. But now I'll
probably just succumb to heart disease. Let's say we cure that. OK, then
cancer will get me. It's like the "Whack a mole" game at an arcade - you beat
one disease down, but another one always pops up to get you.

This happens because so many of the killers in the developed world are really
tied to the aging process. So really "curing cancer" or "ending heart disease"
will just buy us minimal time. My bet is the economic benefits of a cure for
cancer in older adults* would not be as great as people realize. At best it
will buy us a few more years of low quality of life.

Targeting aging on the other hand allows us to "strike at the root" of the
problem. Many of the cures and therapies attracting money now are just
temporary hacks applied to a system that is slowly accumulating so many bugs
that it's just never going to make it.

The "cure aging" meme sounds ridiculous and in truth, it is pretty ridiculous.
However, curing any of the big killers is going to require a level of effort
commensurate to curing aging, so why not invest scarce resources in targeting
the root problem?

*Curing cancers in the young will have an economic benefit that more than covers the costs since the young have more years of economically productive life ahead of them. This is also why targeting diseases like AIDS tend to be economically worthwhile.

~~~
lukev
But the inverse problem also exists. Cure aging, great... but if you haven't
also cured cancer and heart disease, your life still isn't likely to be that
much longer.

We need to attack the problem on all fronts.

Also, it's worth pointing out that whether we "cure aging" is not a boolean
proposition. All we can talk about is increasing the average lifespan. Curing
cancer and heart disease will definitely do that.

~~~
srl
He's saying that aging is a major contributor to cancer and heart disease (or
at least, that we think it is). This is true. "Curing aging" means a dramatic
reduction in the overall rates of cancer, heart disease, etc.

------
jakeonthemove
THIS is what people with money should focus on. Instead of buying cars, houses
and islands, drop a few million into longevity research - the more resources,
the faster it will go, and a way to stop aging will inevitably be found.

I guess it sounds crazy and impossible to defy death itself, that's why bio-
research is so stalled compared to any tech field...

~~~
reasonattlm
The projected cost estimate for a crash program with a 50/50 shot of realizing
SENS in mice in ten years is $1 billion - meaning achieving robust
rejuvenation of old mice.

It is an ongoing and interesting debate as to why funding of aging research by
wealthy people is not more extant. See Larry Ellison's not very vocal interest
in the field - he puts a fair amount of money into what amounts to a private
arm of the NIA, which is to say he's not getting much in the way of progress
for his funding. Or look at Paul Glenn's somewhat better aimed funding of ways
to slow aging via the establishment of the Glenn Laboratories in a variety of
research centers. Or Peter Thiel's $3 million for SENS research a few years
back. These things are on a line from worst to best in terms of ways to
achieve extended youth and repair aging.

But beyond that, there isn't much going on. When you compare and contrast with
the behavior of wealthy people who suffer from a named medical condition, the
disparity in action becomes clear. The biggest challenge is not so much the
technical side of things - the path to repairing aging is as clear as things
ever get in science - but the fact that very few people seem in any way
interested in achieving this goal.

~~~
usaar333
Given how little we know about stopping aging, and that blocking senescence
also requires having a cure for cancer which society has thus far failed to
find after spending something like $10B a year on it, I'm extremely skeptical
of your claim about cost and time frame. Do you have a source for that?

~~~
reasonattlm
We in fact know a very great deal about stopping aging. This book is a crash
course in the science and what it means:

[http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-
Breakthrough...](http://www.amazon.com/Ending-Aging-Rejuvenation-
Breakthroughs-Lifetime/dp/0312367066)

If it wasn't illegal to commercially develop ways to treat aging, there would
be a lot more progress than has happened to date.

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-
tha...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/03/the-roadblock-that-is-the-
fda.php)

Making humans immune to cancer in the SENS proposals is accomplished via this
methodology:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-
wilt...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2008/06/complicating-wilt.php)

But from where I stand, watching research fairly closely for some years, I'm
not particularly worried about cancer - the next generation of targeted and
immune therapies under development now will be highly effective, and are
looking very good in the laboratory:

[http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-
of-c...](http://www.fightaging.org/archives/2010/01/the-prospect-of-cancer-
does-not-worry-me.php)

The $1 billion figure for realizing SENS is referenced in these items; I'm not
aware of a full line item breakout:

<http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/SIAAR-PP.pdf>
<http://www.sens.org/files/pdf/A4M04-PP.pdf>

------
suivix
Genetically engineering something for this specific goal is not a 'hack'. It's
very hard and thorough work.

~~~
artursapek
It's alteration of an established system with self-beneficial results in mind.
It's a hack.

~~~
suivix
Is a very complex alteration involving modified DNA and extensive research and
testing. Everything is established until you change it. Most medicine is just
a chemical compound you ingest, which would mean they are all 'hacks' with
your perspective. The word trivializes the whole process.

~~~
phuff
The process isn't a hack, but the end result is :) Not a "quick and cheap
dirty hack" but a "I've manipulated a system to do something different or
better in a novel way" sense of a hack.

My wife had epidurals during the delivery of our children. That, even though
it was a medical procedure, was totally a hack :) Inserting novacaine into the
spinal column to deaden nerve receptors == hacking the body :)

That doesn't mean it wasn't serious business or a big deal. It just means that
we figured out a neat way to manipulate an existing system for beneficial
results.

