Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
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.

DNA Breakthrough Could Give Humans Lifespans Lasting Hundreds of Years

By Steve Connor, Independent UK. Posted February 1, 2008.


The science world is divided on a discovery that could soon have humans living for multiple lifespans -- if we want to.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by Steve Connor

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

A genetically engineered organism that lives 10 times longer than normal has been created by scientists in California. It is the greatest extension of longevity yet achieved by researchers investigating the scientific nature of ageing.

If this work could ever be translated into humans, it would mean that we might one day see people living for 800 years. But is this ever going to be a realistic possibility?

Valter Longo is one of the small but influential group of specialists in this area who believes that an 800-year life isn't just possible, it is inevitable. It was his work at the University of Southern California that led to the creation of a strain of yeast fungus that can live for 10 weeks or more, instead of dying at its usual maximum age of just one week.

By deleting two genes within the yeast's genome and putting it on a calorie-restricted diet, Longo was able to extend tenfold the lifespan of the same common yeast cells used by bakers and brewers. The study is published later this week in the journal Public Library of Science Genetics.

There is, of course, a huge difference between yeast cells and people, but that hasn't stopped Longo and his colleagues suggesting that the work is directly relevant to human ageing and longevity. "We're setting the foundation for reprogramming healthy life. If we can find out how the longevity mechanism works, it can be applied to every cell in every living organism," Longo says.

"We're very, very far from making a person live to 800 years of age. I don't think it's going to be very complicated to get to 120 and remain healthy, but at a certain point I think it will be possible to get people to live to 800. I don't think there is an upper limit to the life of any organism."

For most gerontologists -- people who study the science of ageing -- such statements are almost heretical. There is a general view in this field that there is a maximum human lifespan of not more than about 125 years. Jeanne Calment, the oldest documented person, died at the age of 122 years and 164 days. According to the orthodox view of ageing, she was one of the few lucky enough to have reached that maximum, upper limit of human lifespan.

The attitude of most mainstream gerontologists towards the idea that people may one day live for many centuries -- or even 1,000 years, as one scientific maverick has suggested -- is best summed up by Robin Holliday, a distinguished British gerontologist, in his recent book Aging: The Paradox of Life. "How is it possible to make these claims?" Holliday asks. "The first requirement is to ignore the huge literature on ageing research... The second is to ignore the enormous amount of information that has been obtained by the study of human age-associated disease; in other words, to ignore the many well-documented textbooks on human pathology. The third is to propose that in the future, stem-cell technology, and other technologies, will allow vulnerable parts of the body to be replaced and/or repaired. The new 'bionic' man will therefore escape from ageing," Holliday says.

Like many experts on the science of ageing, Holliday is deeply sceptical about the idea that the ageing process can somehow be circumvented, allowing people to extend their lives by decades or even centuries. "The whole [anti-ageing] movement not only becomes science fiction; it is also breathtakingly arrogant," Holliday says. An immense hinterland of biomedicine suggests that death at a maximum age of about 125 is inevitable, he says.

But that is precisely what Valter Longo is suggesting with his work on the yeast that can live longer than 10 weeks. "We got a tenfold life-span extension, which is, I think, the longest that has ever been achieved in any organism," he says.

By knocking out two genes, known as RAS2 and SCH9, which promote ageing in yeast and cancer in humans, and putting the microbes on a diet low in calories, Longo achieved the sort of life extension that should in theory be impossible. As Anna McCormick, head of genetics and cell biology at the US National Institute on Aging, remarked: "I would say tenfold is pretty significant."

Calorie restriction is now a well-established route to extending the lives of many organisms, from yeast and nematode worms to fruit flies and mice. But the jury is still out on whether calorie restriction can extend the life of humans, although a diet rich in calories certainly increases the risk of obesity, diabetes and other life-shortening conditions.

Biologists believe that restricting calories causes many animals to flip into a state normally reserved for near starvation. Instead of spending their precious energy reserves on reproduction, they shut down everything but their basic body maintenance, in preparation for better times ahead when breeding would stand a better chance of success.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: lifespan, dna, sicence

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


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:
Great but...
Posted by: chomsky on Feb 1, 2008 11:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Would you really want to live for hundreds years...?
In what conditions?
At what age will you retire?
What will you do for hundreds of years?
Overpopulation anyone?

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

» RE: Great but... Posted by: BenE
» RE: Great but... Posted by: danielrogers1
Wonderful
Posted by: Axiom69 on Feb 2, 2008 10:05 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just Great. Now I can live a few hundred years and get to see just how many Bushes and Clintons we put in the Whitehouse.

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

This is totally bogus.
Posted by: pangolin on Feb 2, 2008 1:11 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is a massive difference between pushing a yeast cell to live for a few weeks and allowing a mammal to live for hundreds of years. While there are species of trees that live thousands of years there is no evidence that any chordate species could live over 150 years.

Considering the condition the average 75 year old human is in that would mean supporting a population over a 725 year retirement. That gets just a bit expensive.

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

» RE: This is totally bogus. Posted by: gary_7vn
Restricted......calories?
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 2, 2008 4:01 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a couple of people on tv about ten years ago who were proponents of a restricted calorie, totally raw diet.

They looked it.

The last interesting, quite scary thing I heard on PBS about longevity, which obliquely supports the genetic theory in the article is this: A measurement was taken of the number of heartbeats an animal has in its lifetime, with regard to the lifespan of the particular animal. The finding was that all animals-mammals, I guess-- have the same number of heartbeats in their lifetime. Although I don't remember what the number is, the number is no different for us than it is for a ferret. Mice, who are tiny animals with very rapid heartbeats, run through their heartbeats in a few years. Dogs, who have slower heartbeats than mice, take a few years longer to use up their heartbeats and die. We have slower heartbeats than mice and dogs, so we go through the allotted number in our four score and ten.

It's generally true that people in good shape with good blood pressure, and athletes, have slower heartbeats than sedentary fast-food fans, and therefore live longer.

The starkness of it scared the crap out of me.

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

» heartbeats in a lifetime: Posted by: undrgrndgirl
» You'd better relax then pal Posted by: gary_7vn
This has some implications.
Posted by: lexicon on Feb 4, 2008 7:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well....we're gonna have to re-jigger the whole "term limits" thing.

Senior discounts for movie tickets, and property tax breaks too.

lexicon

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

For God's sake
Posted by: Kimmer1952 on Feb 4, 2008 4:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't tell Bush/Cheney and the zionist neocons running what's left of the United States of America that they could live 800 years. Good grief!!

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

Sea gulls live 150 years.
Posted by: AsteroidMiner on Feb 5, 2008 9:35 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Reference the book: "Power, sex, suicide: mitochondria and the
meaning life" by Nick Lane. Published: Oxford; New York:
Oxford University Press, 2005. Seagulls live 150 years because
they have better mitochondria. Seagulls don't show their age
except by getting clumsy. They die of a really bad crash landing.
Scaled up to human size, that would be 300 years of life before
becoming terminally clumsy. According to Nick Lane, all we
need to live 300 years is seagull mitochondria and a change of
very few codons in our nuclei to accommodate the new
mitochondria. Cloning techniques should enable this change
soon. Nick Lane says the optimal number of genes is in the
mitochondria already and gives good reasons why.

Aubrey de Grey disputes Nick Lane's hypothesis that birds have
better mitochondria DNA and says that bird mitochondria DNA is
the same as ours but cleaner. Some anti-aging researchers
predict human life spans of 5000 years. In either case, it seems
that much longer life expectancies are just around the corner.

This is one more proof that, if we were designed by a god, we
were designed by a god who flunked engineering. A god who
can't get a passing grade in engineering should hang up his license
to practice creation. Who needs a god like that?

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

» Seagulls live 20 to 30 years Posted by: gary_7vn
We are not yeast cells!
Posted by: myanh44 on Feb 5, 2008 11:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How on earth can we even begin to compare a simple unicellular organism with a complex organism comprising 220 cell types, with all the accompanying intricate interactions? Isn't it obvious the biology of each organism has to be different?

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

Scientific Hubris.
Posted by: Paxmana1 on Feb 6, 2008 2:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I once heard some scientific woffle about Nature and her controller were scientific nincompoops .. and that if they were not then they would have arranged for all leaves to be black rather than green.

Do I have to remind anyone that the Medical Scientists .. pursue .. persecute and prosecute Snake oil salesmen .. I think these people are well larded with hypocrisy .. most of their phony press releases are little more than a sniveling solicitation for funds.

If it is not money this release solicits then it seeks to gauge or guide public opinion .. do I have to remind anyone of the Monkey gland and Bulls balls scenario?

May we inquire as to the human cost of such desecration .. the meddling in forces of which we have no understanding .. the tampering with or the experimentation on live human subjects?.

How many more lives will it take before this insanity is halted? The Frankenstein technology and the lethal pills are not to do with healthy longevity .. but rather as Dr Mathias Rath desribed .. 'The Business with Disease'..

But one must hand it to them they have managed to keep the game going and will do for a wee while longer as the rest of the world starts to understand what is going on .. when people have understood how science has blundered from one crisis to another in order to maintain their power base .. in order of precedent they are the fulcrum for Commerce and Politics ..

Academia is churning them out like fruit and nut bars .. most alarming!

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

Parrots can live to be 100.
Posted by: Longdream on Feb 6, 2008 1:50 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have five lovely, large parrots, all domestically bred. They're intelligent, humorous, and are more friends than pets.

They can live to be 100. In the wild, eating the foods that they were meant to eat, there are birds who were banded a long time ago, and who are now radio-banded and tracked who are a hundred years old.

Parrots tend to have shorter life spans in captivity, because while we know what they eat, and have developed foods to be supplemented with fresh, organic foods that are highly sustaining for them, Americans tend to treat them to some of the American diet. Chemical-laden foods with artificial colors and preservatives are not good for birds, whose systems are extremely efficient. Just a little of anything goes a long way, for good or for ill. They're also extremely susceptible to stress-related illness, and need society, either human or avian in order to live happily.

What they need is very close to medicine's prescription for our longevity, too.

My birds have taught me great lessons. Protecting them so that they'll be healthy and happy and live a long life has led me to improve and purify my own diet and overall state of health.

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

400 More Years
Posted by: gary_7vn on Feb 8, 2008 2:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Does this mean that in the future (if there is one) American Presidents will serve 400 year terms?

It would sure change attitudes on climate change...

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

» RE: 400 More Years Posted by: Longdream
If you're rich and have things you love doing...
Posted by: Landbaron on Feb 13, 2008 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The answer is yes a thousand times over.

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

new health article
Posted by: enricko123 on Feb 28, 2008 8:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]