It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Deleting genes could boost lifespan by 60 per cent , say scientists

page: 1
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
The claim comes from scientists at the Buck Institute for Research on Ageing who have spent 10 years researching genetics and ageing , their effort has been supported by the University of Washington who have identified 238 specific genes that when disabled increased the lifespan of yeast cells with one gene in particular called LOS1 extending lifespan by 60%.

Good news for yeast but what about us ?
The scientists say that almost half of the genes looked at are present in mammals, including humans so switching them off could yield similar results.

"In theory, any of these factors could be therapeutic targets to extend healthspan. What we have to do now is figure out which ones are amenable to targeting.”
To determine which genes were responsible for ageing, researchers examined 4,698 strains of yeast, each with a single gene deletion and then monitored how long cells lived for before they stopped dividing.
They found that deleting a gene called LOS1 produced particularly impressive results, extending life by 60 per cent. LOS1 is linked to a genetic master switch which has long been associated with calorie restriction through fasting and increased lifespan.
www.telegraph.co.uk...


I wish them well with their research and hope I'm rich enough and still healthy enough to take advantage of it when the gene therapy becomes available but I fear it is still a distant dream.


edit on 12-10-2015 by gortex because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
This sounds a lot like "deleting system32 to make your computer go faster" (disclaimer: DONT try this at home). When we don't accurately know the function of all genes, it would be unwise to start deleting some willy-nilly. For example, academics have long assumed that "junk DNA" didn't serve any purpose until recently; more and more of these sections of "junk DNA" are proving crucial to our very existence.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
My suspicion is that we're looking at another forty years before this becomes available and probably another sixty before it becomes safe to delete genes



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:50 AM
link   
I, for one, would not want "extra life".

I don't want more life F&cker, I am done...

This is a cesspool we call life.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 10:55 AM
link   
a reply to: nullafides




This is a cesspool we call life.

Life is what you make it , ignore the bad and embrace the good.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:24 AM
link   
a reply to: gortex

Sounds very sketchy, Pistoche hit the nail right on the head. The human body is an extremely complex biological system and "deleting" a gene, which was used to genetically encode that system could have devastating consequences, especially if you look at gene pools and unintended effects it could have on generations down the line.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: nullafides




This is a cesspool we call life.

Life is what you make it , ignore the bad and embrace the good.


I'm happy for you...given that you can maintain that approach. I hope the day doesn't come for you, as it has for me, where you begin to lose your rose colored glasses view on the world.

I am truly happy for you. I wish I could feel the same as you do.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
Injudiciously turning off genes which tell our cells when to die will cause cancer. If this technology was applied equally to all cells it would be very problematic. There are many cells in our bodies which NEED to die - to be replaced by healthy new cells. If they didn't die, we would have massive overgrowth of tissue everywhere that new cells proliferate: the lining of our intestines, mucous membranes, and hair follicles, among others.

This is why we can't apply genetic life-extension technologies associated with single celled or simple organisms to complex multi-cellular life forms - yet. Eventually we may be able to make some cells within the human body live longer using gene therapy, but determining to which cells it should be applied and then preventing the modification from spreading to other cells will be a challenge.

Also, by making changes to animal genomes, we run the risk of these changes becoming a permanent part of the gene pool. Not a wise move. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences.
edit on 12-10-2015 by OuttaHere because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:47 AM
link   
That makes a lot of sense to me. I think they should try it.
Not on me -- on someone else.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 11:59 AM
link   
"Deleting genes could boost lifespan by 60 per cent , say scientists"

Can we vote on which countries get this technology?

-Christosterone



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: gortex

200M years of evolutionary trial and error.
And you would trade all this information you get for free for a medical treatment backed by "science" sponsored entirely by an entity with gross conflict of interest?

Be sure to find the lines.... of zombies paying tribute to this religion.




posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:54 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Pandering to morons might get you 5 stars per post but that's about all it accomplishes.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

Lemme take a whack at being a psychic...

You don't believe in vaccines based on your own "research"....
You think 9/11 was (at the very least) known to the US government prior to the savage attack...
You believe global warming to be caused by man...oops, I mean climate change....
You purport to embrace intellectual pursuits yet cringe at the American government spending $20B to return to the moon...
You maybe don't believe we went to the moon...
You think anti-bacterial soap is causing super bugs...
You wish America would apologize for being the greatest society in the history of the human race...
You think Islam is a religion of peace...

So am I a psychic?

-Christosterone



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
My Earth prison sentence is long enough, thanks but no thanks....



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
No, no, no, no, no, no, no !

LOS1, and diet. Elaborate please



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

*looks at thread title*

*looks at dank maymay*

*looks at username*

The important thing is that you found a way to crowbar in your usual anti-vax nonsense in a typically off-topic fashion (now with added memes!).



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pistoche
This sounds a lot like "deleting system32 to make your computer go faster" (disclaimer: DONT try this at home). When we don't accurately know the function of all genes, it would be unwise to start deleting some willy-nilly. For example, academics have long assumed that "junk DNA" didn't serve any purpose until recently; more and more of these sections of "junk DNA" are proving crucial to our very existence.


Kind of like how doctors thought the appendix was useless. But now they've realized it's actually quite beneficial.

Appendix Isn't Useless At All: It's A Safe House For Good Bacteria
Appendix May Actually Have a Purpose

So yeah, I wouldn't trust this process.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
Kind of like how doctors thought the appendix was useless. But now they've realized it's actually quite beneficial.


Until it explodes and you die.



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: RustyNailer
My Earth prison sentence is long enough, thanks but no thanks....



geez, hard to be a happy person on this thread....ahmm, "cough".......misery!!! despair!!!! depression!!!!....how's that?...better?



posted on Oct, 12 2015 @ 02:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Pistoche
... academics have long assumed that "junk DNA" didn't serve any purpose until recently; more and more of these sections of "junk DNA" are proving crucial to our very existence.


In what way is "junk DNA" (non-coding) proving to be crucial to our existence?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2 >>

log in

join