Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, November 30, 2008 | Science : Medicine | print version Print | Comments |

Document Potentially Universal Mechanism Of Aging Identified

by Science Daily

Thanks to SPS for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081126122203.htm

ScienceDaily (Nov. 27, 2008) — Researchers have uncovered what may be a universal cause of aging, one that applies to both single cell organisms such as yeast and multicellular organisms, including mammals. This is the first time that such an evolutionarily conserved aging mechanism has been identified between such diverse organisms.

The mechanism probably dates back more than one billion years. The study shows how DNA damage eventually leads to a breakdown in the cell's ability to properly regulate which genes are switched on and off in particular settings.

Like our current financial crisis, the aging process might also be a product excessive deregulation.

Researchers have discovered that DNA damage decreases a cell's ability to regulate which genes are turned on and off in particular settings. This mechanism, which applies both to fungus and to us, might represent a universal culprit for aging.

"This is the first potentially fundamental, root cause of aging that we've found," says Harvard Medical School professor of pathology David Sinclair. "There may very well be others, but our finding that aging in a simple yeast cell is directly relevant to aging in mammals comes as a surprise."

These findings appear in the November 28 issue of the journal Cell.

For some time, scientists have know that a group of genes called sirtuins are involved in the aging process. These genes, when stimulated by either the red-wine chemical resveratrol or caloric restriction, appear to have a positive effect on both aging and health.

Nearly a decade ago, Sinclair and colleagues in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology lab of Leonard Guarente found that a particular sirtuin in yeast affected the aging process in two specific ways—it helped regulate gene activity in cells and repair breaks in DNA. As DNA damage accumulated over time, however, the sirtuin became too distracted to properly regulate gene activity, and as a result, characteristics of aging set in.

"For ten years, this entire phenomenon in yeast was considered to be relevant only to yeast," says Sinclair. "But we decided to test of this same process occurs in mammals."

Philipp Oberdoerffer, a postdoctoral scientist in Sinclair's Harvard Medical School lab, used a sophisticated microarray platform to probe the mammalian version of the yeast sirtuin gene in mouse cells. The results in mice corroborated what Sinclair, Guarente, and colleagues had found in yeast ten years earlier.

Oberdoerffer found that a primary function of sirtuin in the mammalian system was to oversee patterns of gene expression (which genes are switch on and which are switch off). While all genes are present in all cells, only a select few need to be active at any given time. If the wrong genes are switched on, this can harm the cell. (In a kidney cell, for example, all liver genes are present, but switched off. If these genes were to become active, that could damage the kidney.) As a protective measure, sirtuins guard genes that should be off and ensure that they remain silent. To do this, they help preserve the molecular packaging—called chromatin—that shrink-wraps these genes tight and keeps them idle.

The problem for the cell, however, is that the sirtuin has another important job. When DNA is damaged by UV light or free radicals, sirtuins act as volunteer emergency responders. They leave their genomic guardian posts and aid the DNA repair mechanism at the site of damage.

During this unguarded interval, the chromatin wrapping may start to unravel, and the genes that are meant to stay silent may in fact come to life.

For the most part, sirtuins are able to return to their post and wrap the genes back in their packaging, before they cause permanent damage. As mice age, however, rates of DNA damage (typically caused by degrading mitochondria) increase. The authors found that this damage pulls sirtuins away from their posts more frequently. As a result, deregulation of gene expression becomes chronic. Chromatin unwraps in places where it shouldn't, as sirtuin guardians work overtime putting out fires around the genome, and the unwrapped genes never return to their silent state.

In fact, many of these haplessly activated genes are directly linked with aging phenotypes. The researchers found that a number of such unregulated mouse genes were persistently active in older mice.

"We then began wondering what would happen if we put more of the sirtuin back into the mice," says Oberdoerffer. "Our hypothesis was that with more sirtuins, DNA repair would be more efficient, and the mouse would maintain a youthful pattern gene expression into old age."

That's precisely what happened. Using a mouse genetically altered to model lymphoma, Oberdoerffer administered extra copies of the sirtuin gene, or fed them the sirtuin activator resveratrol, which in turn extended their mean lifespan by 24 to 46 percent.

"It is remarkable that an aging mechanism found in yeast a decade ago, in which sirtuins redistribute with damage or aging, is also applicable to mammals," says Leonard Guarente, Novartis Professor of Biology at MIT, who is not an author on the paper. "This should lead to new approaches to protect cells against the ravages of aging by finding drugs that can stabilize this redistribution of sirtuins over time."

Both Sinclair and Oberdoerffer agree with Guarente's sentiment that these findings may have therapeutic relevance.

"According to this specific mechanism, while DNA damage exacerbates aging, the actual cause is not the DNA damage itself but the lack of gene regulation that results," says Oberdoerffer. "Lots of research has shown that this particular process of regulating gene activity, otherwise known as epigenetics, can be reversed—unlike actual mutations in DNA. We see here, through a proof-of-principal demonstration, that elements of aging can be reversed."

Recent findings by Chu-Xia Deng of the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases, has also found that mice that lack sirtuin are susceptible to DNA damage and cancer, reinforcing Sinclair's and Oberdoerffer's data.

This research was funded by the National Institutes of Health, and the Glenn Foundation for Medical Research. David Sinclair is a consultant to Genocea, Shaklee and Sirtris, a GSK company developing sirtuin based drugs.




Journal reference:

1. Philipp Oberdoerffer et al. SIRT1 Redistribution on Chromatin Promotes Genome Stability but Alters Gene Expression during Aging. Cell, November 28, 2008 Volume 135, Issue 6

Adapted from materials provided by Harvard Medical School, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

Comments 1 - 50 of 54 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #294273 by Humanicus on November 30, 2008 at 10:39 pm

"Like our current financial crisis, the aging process might also be a product excessive deregulation."

Wow! What an unnecessary political bomb toss. The current financial crisis is simply the latest in a long history of monetary bubbles that burst in different sectors of the economy. Every 15-20 years or so the rapid expansions/contractions of the money supply manifest themselves this way. Deregulation has nothing to do with it, it's a political football.

Other Comments by Humanicus

2. Comment #294275 by lbq on November 30, 2008 at 10:42 pm

This is not a 'mechanism'. It is not even a 'function'. It is a malfunction.

If my car breaks down because of long wear, is that 'a mechanism for breakdown'? Do bearings come with 'failure mechanisms'? And are they patented? The auto industry would have loved them ...

Other Comments by lbq

3. Comment #294278 by Pony on November 30, 2008 at 10:56 pm

You guys are being kind of negative about something that could potentially improve quality of life further into old age.

Viva la vive! or something.

Other Comments by Pony

4. Comment #294280 by beanson on November 30, 2008 at 10:59 pm

 avatarMillions now living will never die

Other Comments by beanson

5. Comment #294286 by Greyman on November 30, 2008 at 11:14 pm

 avatarWe'd better hurry up space exploration and terraforming research.

Other Comments by Greyman

6. Comment #294294 by OneNationUnderThor on December 1, 2008 at 12:00 am

 avatar"Millions now living will never die"

...of old age. Now they can live to either starve to death or die fighting in one resource war or another. Even if we could terraform another planet you are simply decreasing the constant factor of an exponential growth curve. An entire other planet would only last for a single doubling period (which is maybe, ballpark, 20 to 40 years?).

But, yes: hurray... sigh...

Other Comments by OneNationUnderThor

7. Comment #294306 by mordacious1 on December 1, 2008 at 12:36 am

 avatar"Researchers have uncovered what may be a universal cause of aging,...".

Your kids?

Other Comments by mordacious1

8. Comment #294307 by Szkeptik on December 1, 2008 at 12:41 am

Immortality here we come.

Other Comments by Szkeptik

9. Comment #294315 by Vaal on December 1, 2008 at 12:57 am

 avatar
"Researchers have uncovered what may be a universal cause of aging,..."

Marriage? :)

Perhaps if people live for longer, they may take more care of the environment. How many times have I heard "It doesn't matter, I won't be around then".

It will also open up interstellar travel if peoples lifespans can be increased. Interesting.

Other Comments by Vaal

10. Comment #294316 by cryolophosaurus on December 1, 2008 at 1:00 am

 avatar"Millions now living will never die"

I give you a few thousand years before you slip in the bathroom and brake your neck. The law of probability is against us. We'd better start wering our sitbelts and such. Dr. Jan Garavalia has a book called 'How Not to Die' wich would probabily contain some good advice to take along for the ride.


On a more realistic note, I wouldn't mind living 46 percent longer wich they have already atchieved in mice.

Other Comments by cryolophosaurus

11. Comment #294319 by Logicel on December 1, 2008 at 1:04 am

 avatarWhen DNA is damaged by UV light or free radicals, sirtuins act as volunteer emergency responders. They leave their genomic guardian posts and aid the DNA repair mechanism at the site of damage.
_______

Sounds like sirtuins are spread out too thin, have too many important jobs. Not only do the number of sirtuins need to be increased, but some other chemical needs to be set up to do the emergency work, freeing up sirtuins to do their chromatin protection thing.

A very clearly written article and easy to understand. Science daily is a decent website.

I like the sound of sirtuin, and perhaps will name a future kitten/cat with it.

Other Comments by Logicel

12. Comment #294320 by Apeseed on December 1, 2008 at 1:05 am

 avatarIt should only be us atheists taking up the offer of extended life.
Surely the religious wouldn't want to keep their god waiting?

Other Comments by Apeseed

13. Comment #294325 by DamnDirtyApe on December 1, 2008 at 1:12 am

Of course it will be tested on animals first.

(Probably C. Elegans, relax ethical consumers!)

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

14. Comment #294339 by Enlightenme.. on December 1, 2008 at 1:45 am

 avatarJust seen a reporter on the beeb ask a representative of a large retail outlet whether sales of anti-aging creams are affected today - He dismissively waved it off with "I don't know what worms have got to do with humans, we're a bit more sophisticated than that"
:)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

15. Comment #294343 by DamnDirtyApe on December 1, 2008 at 1:57 am

14. Comment #294339 by Enlightenme.. on December 1, 2008 at 1:45 am

Oh if only they knew :D

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

16. Comment #294377 by dvespertilio on December 1, 2008 at 3:15 am

So if I live longer that means I'll have to work longer to support myself. Or maybe if I just invest better I'll be able to build up enough of an investment portfolio to live off the returns indefinitely. Perhaps sirtuin-enhancing drugs would be a good investment? Then I could make money and live longer,too!

Other Comments by dvespertilio

17. Comment #294386 by ANTIcarrot on December 1, 2008 at 3:22 am

 avatarI think we should all know the chorus to this song by now:

Oh but wait! It turns out,
It's not that simple,
after all! Maybe we should
not have not dumbed it
down this much! And
there's no practical
applications after all.

Other Comments by ANTIcarrot

18. Comment #294387 by passutoba on December 1, 2008 at 3:23 am

'These genes, when stimulated by either the red-wine chemical resveratrol or caloric restriction, appear to have a positive effect on both aging and health.'

Does this mean I can continue quaffing copious amounts of Chateau Margaux '53 from my extensive cellar, and it's all helping me live longer and look better?

Other Comments by passutoba

19. Comment #294429 by Dune010 on December 1, 2008 at 4:03 am

 avatarRed-wine chemical?

RED-WINE CHEMICAL??

Why is it that EVERY time there is something to say about a health benefit to be derived from eating grapes, the media describe it in terms of wine. Why don't they say grapes??

I want to achieve immortality so that I can hunt down and kill every person who ever does this ever.

Other Comments by Dune010

20. Comment #294430 by cryolophosaurus on December 1, 2008 at 4:11 am

 avatarANTIcarrot:

"Oh but wait! It turns out,
It's not that simple,
after all! Maybe we should
not have not dumbed it
down this much! And
there's no practical
applications after all."

Sounds like the modern Discovery and Nationall Gegraphic channels when they admit in the last five minutes of a "documentary" that say, Noah's Ark or dinosaur cloning is still a bunch of crap after all.

Other Comments by cryolophosaurus

21. Comment #294465 by cryolophosaurus on December 1, 2008 at 5:12 am

 avatarDune010 , I suppose there are some chemicals that only form during the fermentation process? I rarely drink anything anyway.

Other Comments by cryolophosaurus

22. Comment #294516 by black wolf on December 1, 2008 at 6:10 am

 avatar#19 and #21,
Resveratrol is present in grapes before fermentation, and red grapes contain the most (mostly in the skin). During the wine-making process, the concentration increases by a factor of one thousand.
To get the same amount, you can either drink one thousand glasses of grape juice or one glass of red wine.
I think I'll keep calling it a red-wine chemical.

Other Comments by black wolf

23. Comment #294549 by aquilacane on December 1, 2008 at 6:41 am

 avatarIf they can couple this with a forced sterilization I can see it working. Want to extend your life, no problem, you can't have children anymore. As the population decreases controlled lab births are raised. A bit RAMA.

Other Comments by aquilacane

24. Comment #294591 by j.mills on December 1, 2008 at 7:35 am

 avatar#23 - nicely explained, black wolf. But by the same reasoning, presumably you could get all the resveratrol you need in, like, one pill per week rather than 10 glasses of wine.

Personally I'd be happy with the normal lifespan, but if they could concentrate on keeping us physically young and healthy during the time, that would be nice. :)

Other Comments by j.mills

25. Comment #294593 by SamKiddoGordon on December 1, 2008 at 7:39 am

 avatarThats awsome, but just think, if no one ever died, overpopulation would starve us all. In the future, you would either have to be genetically perfect(whatever that would be) to get a lisence to procreate or to even have "relations" or society will degrade to "you keep what you kill". Furians here we come.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

26. Comment #294657 by SteveO on December 1, 2008 at 8:38 am

 avatarI agree that one lifetime would be satisfying enough for me, but it would also be nice to have a little more assurance that I'm indeed going to get a whole lifetime.

Think of the implications for religion if fear of premature death or poor quality of life were removed from the picture.

Other Comments by SteveO

27. Comment #294672 by Caudimordax on December 1, 2008 at 8:51 am

 avatarWhen generations live longer, so do their outmoded ideas.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

28. Comment #294721 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 9:40 am

 avatarComment #294672 by Caudimordax:
"When generations live longer, so do their outmoded ideas."

I suspect the reverse, as the exit polls suggest for the passage of odious anti-gay measures here in the U.S.

Would anybody like to guess what I was taught as a child about aging?

Apparently, when Adam sinned it was like unplugging a fan (cutting him/us off from the great 220V a/c in the sky) and we begin to wind down until we stop.

Incidentally this was the first time I can remember swearing in front of my parents. When the elder "explained" it to me, I turned to my mother and said "sounds like a lotta shit."
I was 6 years old. :)

I'll spare you what happened next; suffice to say, it was another 9 years before I again screwed up the courage to call it bullshit and leave for good.

Ah Jehovah, I still have a hard time audibly speaking Your (Mistranslated) Name, thanks to my original programming.

Thankfully, I sucked at going door-to-door and nobody was led down the path by me.

Other Comments by Evilcor

29. Comment #294738 by aquilacane on December 1, 2008 at 9:56 am

 avatarEvilcor, I was the same age when I cried bollocks on the lot. Never had a hint of respect for any teacher who didn't agree. they had no comeback against a six year old. How embarrassing!

Throughout childhood I would simply point out that we teach proof as a vital ingredient to science, to law, to math, so why not religion? You can believe all you want, but unless you can prove it, I strongly suggest you put up or shut up, or risk loosing any respect I may have for your authority.

Other Comments by aquilacane

30. Comment #294746 by popecorkyxxiv on December 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

 avatarYet another step closer to acheiving clinical immortality. We had better hurry up and come up with ultra density habitation (like arcologies) or terraform Mars real soon, else the fact nobody ever dies will turn a minor overpopulation problem into an a real pandemic.

Other Comments by popecorkyxxiv

31. Comment #294757 by NewEnglandBob on December 1, 2008 at 10:38 am

 avatarI raise my glass of sirtuin in a toast to these researchers!

Live Long and Prosper! ....and take me with you!

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

32. Comment #294761 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 10:43 am

 avataraquilacane:

You underestimate the salutary effect of a god-inspired beating.

Keeps a wayward child on the path (for a while).

Other Comments by Evilcor

33. Comment #294763 by Caudimordax on December 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

 avatar
I suspect the reverse, as the exit polls suggest for the passage of odious anti-gay measures here in the U.S.


It would be interesting to see the voting broken down as to age - certainly kids in college today are blinder to race than the previous generation, but I don't know if the same applies to sexual orientation.

From Gay Marriage and a Moral Minority

We now know that blacks probably didn’t tip the balance for Proposition 8. Myth busted. However, the fact remains that a strikingly high percentage of blacks said they voted to ban same-sex marriage in California.


Other Comments by Caudimordax

34. Comment #294788 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

 avatarI live in California and watched the election closely. According to the exit polls, which I'm afraid I don't have the energy to track down at cnn.com, the only age group with majority support for Prop. 8 was the over-55s.
If memory serves, high-school drop-outs were in favor slightly, graduates were opposed slightly, college drop-outs were in favor slightly, graduates were opposed strongly, and from there opposition to the ban rose with education level but fell with age.

And don't believe the PC bullshit, HUGE turnout by black Californians tipped the scales for the ban. Blacks generally and Latino protestants were the only groups generally in favor.

The face of the enemy on this issue? An over-55 protestant black man who dropped out of either high school or college.

Who voted most predictably for liberty? A 20-something white or Asian post-graduate who doesn't believe in god and makes a high-five, or low-six figure income.

Women broke slightly against the ban, if I recall.

Other Comments by Evilcor

35. Comment #294830 by asupcb on December 1, 2008 at 12:24 pm

The votes on all the anti-gay measures had voters under 30 voting against, except in Florida according to the CNN exit poll results where even they voted against their fellow citizens. When broken down by religion the largest no vote went to those who said they had no religion and the largest was of course Christians. Basically non-theists, Jews, and in general the young were against these hateful measures, according to the exit polls.

Are there any atheists who are against marriage equality for gays? The only atheist I have ever met who is/was against legal marriage equality is an anarchist who is against any measure he feels "increases the power of the state." I'm not sure why an anarchist would be voting but who knows. Maybe he is against it but does not vote. He was a right curious fellow, who probably became a theist of some sort later on. He seemed rather woo woo and I don't mean that as an insult to French canines.

Other Comments by asupcb

36. Comment #294864 by Amnis73 on December 1, 2008 at 1:09 pm

 avatar#25 j.mills

I'd rather have 10 glasses of wine a week than one pill :)

The wine usually tastes better!

Other Comments by Amnis73

37. Comment #294876 by Caudimordax on December 1, 2008 at 1:25 pm

 avatar
The face of the enemy on this issue? An over-55 protestant black man who dropped out of either high school or college.

Who voted most predictably for liberty? A 20-something white or Asian post-graduate who doesn't believe in god and makes a high-five, or low-six figure income.


When generations live longer, so do their outmoded ideas.

Q.E.D.

Other Comments by Caudimordax

38. Comment #294895 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 1:47 pm

 avatarCaudimorax:
I just went back and re-read my response to your comment. Oops. My brain was still in first gear and I thought you were saying something stupid and I had to disagree.

I see now that you aint the one what is dum.

duh.

Still, it is a bit of a trick to vigorously disagree with someone and end by amplifying their point. Props to me on that, at least.

Rest assured I've had my coffee and am now functioning within established parameters.

Other Comments by Evilcor

39. Comment #294944 by j.mills on December 1, 2008 at 2:46 pm

 avatarI'm glad that misunderstanding is resolved, Evilcor, as it was baffling me!

I say, folks, we're missing something. You live longer if you drink the Blood of Christ..? Wot a fool I've been all these years!

Other Comments by j.mills

40. Comment #294958 by Caudimordax on December 1, 2008 at 3:14 pm

 avatarEvilcor - Not to worry - I figured there was shome mishtake shurely, since I couldn't figure out what the reverse of what I wrote would come out to be!

Other Comments by Caudimordax

41. Comment #294966 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 3:33 pm

 avatarI should just say I was divinely inspired. Then any baffling double-talk would be a "mystery" and "ineffable."

Didn't work on my wife, but what the heck.

Other Comments by Evilcor

42. Comment #294969 by Raynor on December 1, 2008 at 3:37 pm

Heh... two days late of /.

Some of the comments are very worthwhile:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/28/2315209

Also, I would highly recommend the following TED talk on immortality.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/aubrey_de_grey_says_we_can_avoid_aging.html

I fear people like him are being destroyed by drugs/social suppression. (He would be identified as having ADD/ADHD in the US)

Other Comments by Raynor

43. Comment #294998 by Alternative Carpark on December 1, 2008 at 4:34 pm

 avatarI don't wish to live forever, but I would appreciate being able to live out the remainder of my life in my present physical condition.

As for the article, did an editor even glance at it before it was posted?

Other Comments by Alternative Carpark

44. Comment #295160 by Eshto on December 1, 2008 at 9:33 pm

 avatar
When generations live longer, so do their outmoded ideas.


Oh god, I was feeling optimistic until I read that, now I'm severely depressed.

Other Comments by Eshto

45. Comment #295163 by Cartomancer on December 1, 2008 at 9:54 pm

 avatarHlasta!
Quetis Ilfirimain:
Corma turien te
Corma tuvien
Corma tultien te
Huines se nutien.
Tercáno Nuruva.
Tuvien Corma tultien te
Huinesse nutien
Corma turien te Corma!

Other Comments by Cartomancer

46. Comment #295166 by Evilcor on December 1, 2008 at 10:41 pm

 avatarAll right cartomancer, that's enough of that language! :)

Other Comments by Evilcor

47. Comment #295167 by Brian English on December 1, 2008 at 10:43 pm

 avatarTo much Elvish around these parts for my liking. I thought we were trying to rid ourselves of the pestilent supernatural creatures. Not invite them in as Carto seems to prefer.

Other Comments by Brian English

48. Comment #295193 by Sarmatae1 on December 2, 2008 at 1:19 am

 avatarNo assurances of good health the longer you live. This just assures you that you will eventually die of some disease. Statistical rates of infection combined with longevity makes It nearly a sure thing. I really don't mind the idea of dying (certainly life is preferential). What does frighten me is the thought of prolonged pain before death. There are certain advantages to hoping one might slip away in sleep in old age before that can happen. If you live forever do you think you are much more likely to come to a bad end? I wonder if opinions about suicide would change?

Other Comments by Sarmatae1

49. Comment #295218 by PJSPinheiro on December 2, 2008 at 1:53 am

 avatarIn 200 years from now we'll all have forgotten what we wrote here!

Other Comments by PJSPinheiro

50. Comment #295399 by PERSON on December 2, 2008 at 6:30 am

 avatarI think Aubrey de Gray is a crank, albeit fairly inspirational, well intentioned and not completely crazy and immune to reason. I share the concern of some scientists that his publicity-oriented approach could distort the expectations of the general public further and have negative effects on the direction of research.

Here's a documentary about him. Make your own minds up.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=Td-ImgIn_cQ

Other Comments by PERSON
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: