Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Environment

Scientists Have Found the Gene That Decides How Long We Live

By Steve Connor, The Independent. Posted May 5, 2007.


The gene appears to be critical in extending the lifespan of animals that are subjected to a calorie-restricted diet -- when they are slightly starved of high-calorie food but are given all the other nutrients they need.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Scientists have come a step closer to understanding the secret of a long, healthy life with the discovery of a gene that plays a central role in the ageing process.

The gene appears to be critical in extending the lifespan of animals that are subjected to a calorie-restricted diet -- when they are slightly starved of high-calorie food but are given all the other nutrients they need.

It is well established that calorie-restricted diets lead to longer maximum lifespans in practically every animal in which they have been studied, although the evidence it not as strong for humans.

The latest study focused on a gene common to nematode worms, mice and humans. When the gene was blocked in the worms, the benefits of a calorie-restricted diet were lost and the worms lived shorter lives. Similarly, when the scientists were able to stimulate the gene they found that they could enhance the longevity of the worms so that their extended lifespans came close to matching those worms on a calorie-restricted diet.

Scientists believe that the findings could unlock a genetic treasure-chest of potential pharmacological targets for developing drugs that can extend the human lifespan without having to follow a rigorous and difficult diet.

"After 72 years of not knowing how calorie restriction works, we finally have genetic evidence to unravel the underlying molecular programme required for increased longevity in response to calorie restriction," said Andrew Dillin, of the Salk Institute in San Diego, California. "It's likely to play a role in the human condition, although we still don't know whether calorie restriction really works in humans. Studies in primates suggest it does."

The first experiments in calorie-restricted diets go back to the 1930s. Laboratory rats and mice fed a severely calorie-restricted diet, but with normal levels of vitamins and minerals, lived almost twice as long as rodents with unrestricted access to food. Experiments with other creatures found that the phenomenon appeared to be ubiquitous in the animal kingdom. Some scientists suggested it was an evolutionary adaptation to surviving hard times until enough food became available.

The longevity-associated gene identified by Dr Dillin and his colleagues is known as PHA-4 -- the name of the protein for which the gene is responsible. The same gene also exists in mice and humans and is known as the Foxa family of genes. Both PHA-4 and Foxa are involved in the complex process of glucose metabolism. In mammals, the gene is linked with a hormone called glucagon which increases levels of glucose in the bloodstream to maintain the body's energy balance especially during fasting.

Scientists from Louisiana State University are monitoring a group of 48 overweight men and women aged between 25 and 50. The study found that those who were able to cut down on their calorie intake improved in terms of metabolic markers that are linked to longer living.

The accepted view among scientists is that there is probably an absolute upper limit to human lifespan of no more than about 125 years -- the oldest person with an authenticated birth record was a Frenchwoman called Jeanne Calment, who died aged 122 years, five months and 14 days. People in the West are living longer, but the extra years are not necessarily healthy ones -- an ageing population is leading to a dramatic rise in senile dementia.

There has been a dramatic increase in longevity over the past couple of centuries due to improvements in housing and sanitation, nutrition and health.

Some 60 per cent of boys and 70 per cent of girls born in 1981 are expected to survive to celebrate their 75th birthday in 2056. In 1881, only a third of girls and just one in five boys reached the same age.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: gene, lifespan

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Quality not quantity, of course.
Posted by: wisewebwoman on May 5, 2007 12:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I remember some quite memorable quotes from this woman who lived to be 122.

She said that "God had forgotten about her" and when offered an operation to restore her eyesight she declined and said that "she had seen enough".

For any of us that imagine a long, active fruitful life to 120, think again, even if we had the methodology. I know people who died at sixty and were buried when they were eighty, whining and complaining every second of the way.

Undereating (and I'm not talking eating disorders, folks) is a way of life for some, the ancient, lean, sinewy and often leathery (from the outdoors) bodies I personally find repellent, but that is just MHO. But they do live well to over ninety in most cases.

I would say the whole secret of life whether long or short is not to rust away but to be engaged fully in the process of living and to wear out when the time is right without outstaying our welcome on this over-populated planet.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» fat ≠ quality Posted by: utilitarianist
» RE: fat ≠ quality Posted by: Ian MacLeod
» RE: Quality not quantity, of course. Posted by: VannaLaRoche
» Let me rephrase one thing. Posted by: zyxwvut
» RE: Let me rephrase one thing. Posted by: Astroboy
» Quality? Quanity? Posted by: Krain61
6+ Billion and Counting
Posted by: LeaderofMen on May 5, 2007 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... and that's why we need hundreds of millions of people who live to be over 100.

Because we just DON'T have enough people on the planet as it is.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Soylent Green is people Posted by: eddie torres
Longer Life?
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 5, 2007 6:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Maybe with more study, it will be found that one does not live longer it just seems that way with calorie restricted diet.

You got to die anyway. Enjoy yourself while you are here.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Red Brown and Blue Party comment
Posted by: redbrownandblueparty on May 5, 2007 7:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another message of salvation from the taxpayer funded, publish or perish mad scientist set. If sheeple people, slipping into senility, want to reverse course, embrace politics and work for truth and justice. Isn't that the liberal cause?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Alternet Sensations!
Posted by: heecheeboy on May 5, 2007 7:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet has once again posted a piece that has only sensationalist impact and misleads the reader.

The title of the piece (a repost from The Independent and written by Steve Connor), "Scientists Have Found the Gene That Decides How Long We Live" is not just misleading, it is clearly wrong. Scientists have found a gene that can be blocked or stimulated that will mimic the effects of lowered caloric intake ... in animals ... which itself appears to extend life span.

Nowhere in this article does a scientist claim to have found "the" gene that extends life, what they do claim to have found is "genetic evidence to unravel the underlying molecular programme required for increased longevity in response to calorie restriction." This is a very, very different thing and consequentially very, very irresponsible for the originating author to have pumped and exaggerated the implications of this work.

Further, the article states that, ""It's likely to play a role in the human condition, although we still don't know whether calorie restriction really works in humans. Studies in primates suggest it does." Again, here is a straightforward statement that refutes the headline. Nothing here was found that would indicate that such a headline was justified.

Alternet, please have the decency to treat your readers with some respect, give us some credit for having intelligent and probing minds. When you post this kind of sensationalist crap you remind us that you are no better than the MSM when it comes to vetting stories worth our time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Alternet Sensations! Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Alternet Sensations! Posted by: impossibleshot45
» RE: Alternet Sensations! Posted by: impossibleshot45
» RE: Alternet Sensations! Posted by: heecheeboy
What a nightmare to think the old fucks Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson
Posted by: bastonal on May 5, 2007 9:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
James Dobson & Paul Harvey will be around even longer to spread their hateful view of religion and republican ideology.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» senile dementia = ka-ching! Posted by: eddie torres
Over the gate of the forced-labor camp
Posted by: VannaLaRoche on May 5, 2007 10:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Verhungern bildet Gesundheit.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: mick3 Posted by: Logic's Edge
» "plan" to leave . . . 80? Posted by: Jeanne
Doesn't Anyone Realize...?
Posted by: Astroboy on May 5, 2007 11:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We choose to be born and we choose when to die.
We all have this subconscious information but are too afraid to bring it into our conscious mind, because if we did--for most people--life would lose it's meaning.
So we block it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» What? Are you on LSD? Posted by: ateo
More than just life extension
Posted by: Logic's Edge on May 5, 2007 12:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with talking about life extension is that people immediately picture a vastly extended period of decrepitude before they die.

The truth is that caloric restriction actually seems to slow the aging process in many different organisms. They maintain the traits of youth longer. And importantly, the onset of age-related diseases is pushed way back.

Wouldn't you like a guarantee of a healthy, active old age? It's more likely that a caloric restriction mimetic will give that to human beings than any large increase in the maximum lifespan.

When you think about it too, a large proportion of the medical establishment is already devoted to keeping people alive "beyond their time", so this isn't really any new leap in the field of ethics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Not This Nonsense Again
Posted by: Gravitas on May 5, 2007 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One thing that is missing in the calorie restriction theory is that it increases longevity in LAB animals that are kept in artificial environments. They are not exposed to any contagious diseases that might be extremely harmful to very thin animals with a long illness. (And we have no idea what pandemic is coming down the pike.) Nor do they deal with the kinds of stresses humans do! It is a well know fact that calorie restrictions produce grouchness in humans. Look up the Ancel Keys semi starvation experiment in MN during WW2! (Or just read some of the posts of some of the unkind fatphobes on alternet!) If we think society is uncivil now, it would be unspeakably worse if everyone did become compulsive calorie counters. Sparta was an extremely fat phobic culture that kept its population thin through draconian measures. They were great warriers, but culturally backwards. Good for the Bush administration, but not good for anyone else. Furthermore, shouldn't we figure out how to fix social security before we encourage everyone to live forever????

p.s. I guess no one told the late Queen Mum about calorie restrictions. Beautifully plump, robust and healthy she made it to 100!!!!

"Weight obsession is a social disease. If we cared more about CO2 than BMI there would still be time."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Not This Nonsense Again Posted by: Logic's Edge
» RE: Not This Nonsense Again Posted by: VannaLaRoche
Abandoning the Elderly, Just Like the Poor
Posted by: sofla100 on May 6, 2007 6:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Increased longevity could be a blessing, but only for a society structured to properly deal with it. First of all, you must have an adequate pension and security system for this population. However, what we have in America now is becoming increasingly the opposite. Many corporations have cut pension benefits dramatically, aided by legal support from the federal government. Especially popular are "cash only" pension accounts. Next, you have a federal government that must please it's benefactors and lobbyists seemingly at all costs. Hence, you cannot get a decent prescription financing program implemented. Instead, you just have "give away" program to Big Pharma. Well, it goes on and on. A government, just concerned with "elites" and extending the Empire, will eventually abandon it's elderly, just as it already has abandoned it's poor. Welcome to modern America.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Man, not more of this gene correlation garbage...
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 6, 2007 1:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The gene for alcoholism!

The gene for heart disease!

The gene for breast cancer!

The gene for homosexuality!

The gene for criminality!

The gene for getting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes!

The gene that absolves chemical companies from responsibility for the toxic effects of certain chemicals!

Ever wonder why such arguments are so widely promoted in the press, in such a giddy and non-critical manner? Maybe that helps clear it up a little... after all, if all cancer is genetic, if all health effects are due to the genes of the individual - then only the individual is responsible for their illness. Most of these claims are crap - crude correlations with zero mechanistic explanation. Alternet should be ashamed of being so credulous and of publishing cheap infotainment.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

More nonsense from the Independent's science section:
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on May 6, 2007 1:12 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I spotted this a while ago from the Independent:

Cannabis: An apology
In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalise the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal today...


More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can be as damaging as cocaine and heroin, leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalised.

A decade after this newspaper's stance culminated in a 16,000-strong pro-cannabis march to London's Hyde Park - and was credited with forcing the Government to downgrade the legal status of cannabis to class C - an IoS editorial states that there is growing proof that skunk causes mental illness and psychosis.


Let's compare this sensationalist report on cannabis to the paper's take on the pharmaceutical antidepressants, which is 'neutral':

There is no doubt among psychiatrists and medical experts that anti-depressants are effective in helping people out of their mental despair in the short term. The British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapies, which represents 5,000 therapists, says it is not against drugs such as Prozac. But it says the danger is that people spend years taking them without any major benefit.

"Some people do need respite from the traumas they are going through, and you can appreciate that busy GPs don't have the time to sit down with patients. But CBT (cognitive behavioral therapy is very effective for mild to moderate depression, which is the biggest area for treatment," said Rod Holland, a spokesman.


Notice that: the paper says there is "NO DOUBT" - when doctors have gone out of their way to write entire books detailing the dangers of Prozac, Paxil and their ilk - and how many of the school shooters in the US of the past few years were on these drugs? Notice the lack of reports about what Virginia's Cho was on in the corporate press? Notice how the Independent sings the pharmaceutical corporate song?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

put these scientists on a severly limited calorie diet
Posted by: bambino on May 6, 2007 1:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
really getting tired of these experiments with animals and their starvation diets. geez. do you really think it works? who cares. the animal world is made to pay for the greed of humans as always. just shut these fat mouths for a change . i see what these people buy at stores, and what they eat in their fast food slop housess. i dont have any respect for them at all. a starvation level diet - not possible for these new elephansts among us. no i am not pc when it comes to these fatsos in stores . they costs us all money. why waste anything ontheir health either. let them all eat themselves to death. the sooner the better. let the hardy go on to the next century.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

They didn't factor in Yoga, Fitness, and BICS training.
Posted by: maxpayne on May 6, 2007 7:46 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now who's to say that a fucking gene will determine how long I'll live ?!?!? That gene didn't determine how long victims of gun violence would live. What the hell am I missing here?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author didn't read the study
Posted by: Jesse on May 7, 2007 6:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are several problems with this article, one of whihc is that the author didn't seem to read carefully what the scientists who did these studies actually said.

First, caloric restriction is a method that hasn't been tried in humans in the lab, as it were, so it isn't entirely clear how long you would have to do it to get any benefit or if it would be a lifetime.

Second, one of the scientists interviewed in the New York Times recently pointed out that the reason for increased lifespan under tougher conditions may be so that we would live long enough to reproduce until we got better food. That is, during a drought period your genes for longer living would kick in and get you through until times were better.

There are some other points that should be noted here. There is to my knowledge one man who is trying the calorie restriction diet (he was profiled in New Scientist some years back). I guess we could check if he is still living. But he noted some symptoms that are pretty common to starvation. He loses his hair and he can't stay warm (and he lives in Texas!).

Also, if you want to reproduce, caloric restriction is downright dangerous. The worst thing a pregnant woman can do is go on some macrobiotic diet fad. Pregnancy for any animal is an energy-intensive process. So is growth which is why drinking and eating calcium-rich things is important when you are 6 but less so at 35. (The jury is still out whether drinking a lot of calcium-enriched orange juice or whatever does a thing for osteoperosis, though it can't hurt).

Another thing: much of the increase in lifespans is not due to better care for older people and curing diseases like cancer (though that's a big chunk) but to the better infant mortality rates-- remember an average includes people at the bottom end as well. If among 100 people 10 of them die when they are 1 year old and another 10 when they are 5, then even if the rest live to be 80 the average lifespan is 64.6 years.
When you keep the 20 kids who died by the time they were five alive until they are 30, the average age at death goes up to 70.

As to whether society can handle lots of 100-year-olds, as one scientist put it, we could have asked the same question in 1950 when the average lifespan was 60-something and medical advances had all these kids not being dead at 2 from all those diseases they used to get before vaccines were invented. (Measles, mumps, smallpox and polio can kill you, y'know, and they did in large numbers).

Anyhow, while this is interesting, I'd have wished tha author could have shown a bit better uderstanding of biology and what some of the implications are, and they are interesting, though not for the reason that some -- and I count here both the food police and the ones who think obesity is a myth -- would like.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Jeans! Blue or?
Posted by: Krain61 on May 7, 2007 11:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think the more they figure out about our genes the worse off people will be because they will find away for a certain sector to die off after there best years were worked off.
The rich will keep living longer and people like us will die before we retire saving them money. We shouldn't play God!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Oversimplification
Posted by: fanny666 on May 7, 2007 2:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't have time for a long post, but the post-doc in my lab's husband does this research...

The article is oversimplifying (obviously)...

linked text

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Link Posted by: fanny666
I am a skeptic
Posted by: drricklippin on May 7, 2007 4:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The multibillion dollar Human Genome project was supposed to revolutionize medice. I am still waiting

An issue like aging is complex,multigenic and influenced by many external factors.

Personally I think our nation can mature around the aging and death and dying issue especially as it relates to recognize the limits of technology.

Of course if you are wedded to high tech solutions to all human problems you can have your remains blasted into space but the cost of fuel is not environmentally friendly:)

Dr. Rick Lippin
Southampton, Pa

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]