digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

See the original image at io9.com

Double Your Lifespan with a Drug that Mutates Your Ribosomes

io9.com — It's been known for a while that restricting your diet will increase your lifespan, but now researchers have shown one reason why: Eating less causes your ribosomes (your cells' protein factories) to mutate. Biologists at the University of Washington have managed to induce the life-extending mutation in ribosomes with a drug.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • JackStowe, on 04/18/2008, -19/+5I like this... but I don't want to grow that old. Huh!
    • zievo, on 04/18/2008, -3/+15I do. Eat less AND take the pill. Quad (triple?) lifespan FTW!
      • battlemoose, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0Be very very careful Zievo. We're not just hunting wabbits.

        They were able to double the life span of CELLS. I know of another biomedical process that does the same thing... Cancer. Cancer, in fact, extends the lifespan of a cell indefinetly (to your death to be exact).

        There are many known mechanisms which can double, triple or even quadruple the life span of cells. The question is whether they would provide benefits for the organism as a whole - instead of just giving me Cancer.
    • trogdor282, on 04/18/2008, -0/+10I think (I hope) it would mean doubling each stage of your life, not 100 years in a nursing home. Imagine being 50 and feeling like 25!
      • Tiak, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1More like being 25 and feeling like you're 50... This method basically cripples your ability to assemble proteins so you don't burn out... I don't know about you, but I LIKE being able to efficiently digest food, fight disease well, develop muscle, and use certain neurotransmitters.
    • TheUngod, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3But you'd still look young right? You could be banging a girl who looks like a hot 20 year old and find out she's really a cougar. Or, on the other side, you could be with a girl who looks 10 when shes actually 20. So yeah...lots of creep factor here.
      • consoneo, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2That last one could be a fantasy come true for a lot of guys in prison... lol
        • rentmitchum, on 04/19/2008, -0/+7That last one could be a fantasy come true for a lot of guys in 4chan... lol

          /fixed
      • trogdor282, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Growing up and aging are basically unrelated processes.
    • ClevelandBrown, on 04/18/2008, -4/+1who wants to live forever?
      • YoshinoAiki, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5I want to live forever, given that immortality goes with living forever. i.e. no disease, no aging, a certain amount of imperviousness (ability to regenerate and regrow lost body parts), etc. Living forever in a body that decrepifies is not cool.
      • Kaitsu, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I do. Given that it would also stop ageing. Though I'd like to reserve the option to end it at one point then.
      • TheCasablancan, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2Not me. I'm way too curious. I want to die eventually and see if there is actually a God or not. Maybe I'll go to Valhalla.
        • BrainInAJar, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2or more likely Hel, for doubting the norse gods and believing in the god of the jews.
      • po43292, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4good song
  • zephyear, on 04/18/2008, -3/+200well, i'm not going to be eating less any time soon

    give me the pill
    • DiggzDE, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13Cher and Madonna must have already known about this drug for a while now.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2I'd digg this comment twice if I could :)
    • ElectroOverlord, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2I'll drink to that.....
    • Meursault, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Perfection.
    • rentmitchum, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2Eating is one of my favorite things, next to eating. I'm glad they made a pill to make you think you didn't eat. Then you can keep eating.
    • mhuggins, on 04/19/2008, -0/+4Slow down, fatty! You're not on the moon yet!
    • dougdiggerton, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2what happens if you OD on it?
    • GafferXL, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1I guess this is the drug Keith Richards has been taking...


      In all seriousness, there still exists the issue of The Haystack Limit, which is essentially the limitation to the amount of times a cell can undergo mitosis before it essentially dies.
  • scsp85, on 04/18/2008, -2/+67Is it chewable?
  • Sinai, on 04/18/2008, -6/+122Sadly, we are not yeast cells.
    • breckinshire, on 04/18/2008, -5/+69Speak for yourself, you insensitive clod!
    • 42Vindictive, on 04/18/2008, -17/+1Aren't yeast cells bacteria, making them VASTLY different from ours? They don't even have mitochondria for christ sakes.
    • assbeard, on 04/18/2008, -7/+1why is it sad that we are not yeast cells? Would you like to be yeast... well.... ok, at least you'd be getting some poontang that way though.
      • HaoTian, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1"poontang"... hahaha... what's up, 1985?
    • DaneArden, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14so you could pee beer?
      • robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6man... some really twisted fantasies could become reality fi that were true
      • Hacker3dward, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2That's an alcoholics dream. Have you been thrown in prison, well now you can piss beer, you'll never have to sober up. Simply piss, drink, and repeat.
        • wedgemartin, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2I want my wife's ***** to spew beer.
        • slightlygifted, on 04/19/2008, -2/+3all beer is actually piss. it tastes and smells like piss. the beer companies just take piss out of sewage and bottle it, and since no one drinks their own piss they buy it back in bottles unknowingly. try drinking your own piss and tell me if its the same. i know it is.
          • robbiemuffin, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2thats AMERICAN beer .. and excluding sam adams, at that
    • Chrisga, on 04/19/2008, -1/+2I think the sad thing is that we ARE practically yeast cells. hahah. Yeast be one of the all-star model organisms of genetics.
      Our cell cycles are very similar and are regulated by homologous proteins made by homologous genes.
    • ryancalderoni, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2I am a yeast cell.
    • byt123, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2………………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,……………………………………
      …………………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,………………………………
      ………………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,…………………………….
      ……………,-*lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll lllll.……………………………
      ………….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll…………………………..
      …………..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,………………………
      …………...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,……………………..
      …………….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)…………………….
      ……………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../……………………..
      ……………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.……………………..
      ……………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...……………………
      …………….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,……………...
      …………….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,………….
      ……………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
      …………...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/………………..
      …………….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..……..
      ……………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,……………….
      ……................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….…….
    • peachy12, on 04/20/2008, -0/+1yea, seriously. yeast might be okay with mutated ribosomes, but it doesn't mean that humans will. ribosomes are pretty essential, and mutating them would definitely have really widespread implications that wouldn't be limited to the aging process.
  • smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11So really, the Friends of Ana and Thinspiration people are just trying to outlive us all.

    Don't laugh. They'll add ribosomes to their list of justifications.
  • shervin123, on 04/18/2008, -6/+69I don't want Paris Hilton to live forever!!!
    • g30ph, on 04/18/2008, -3/+26I don't think cocaine is going to extend her life.
    • theRedLasso, on 04/19/2008, -7/+0fu, that bitch is hot! you must be a f'n geek that likes faties

      GO OBAMA!!!!
      • Incomp3tnt, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You forgot the /sarcasm tag. I hope.
        • HeyLew, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1and the ... /i really meant ron paul tag
  • kidmaninwar, on 04/18/2008, -15/+2that's what the priest told me, but he wanted to mutate some other body parts
  • cobbwobbles, on 04/18/2008, -3/+6sign me up
  • plizard, on 04/18/2008, -3/+7i'll take 2
  • TwoKings, on 04/18/2008, -7/+13No thanks....my 401K wont last that long.
  • slutjammer, on 04/18/2008, -9/+12Go Huskies!
  • mytibt, on 04/18/2008, -4/+122Call me a pessimist, but seeing the trend, In 10 years, a report will be released that indicates drugs that modify Ribosomes are linked to cancer
    • cesclaveria, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5in 10 years? make that befor 2010, everything gives you cancer this days...
    • g30ph, on 04/18/2008, -2/+18Duh. The longer you live with cancer, the more treatments you need. The more treatments you need, the richer the drug companies get.
    • evodude, on 04/18/2008, -0/+13Well of course. Think about it logically here for a second. You are inducing mutations in ribosomes. Anyone who's taken biochemistry and cell bio will tell you that the operations of the cell are insanely complex. It's wholly possible that altering one facet of the whole operation could have unforeseeable effects on other parts of the cell/organism. They could be good, they could be bad, but they'll almost surely be there.

      Besides, it's a non issue. The general testing procedure is that you test single celled organisms, then multicellular ones like nematodes or drosophila, then you move to mammals like lab mice, then to primates, and then you start clinical trials, which take at least 10 years. Even if they skip straight to primates, I wouldn't expect anything until 2020, at the earliest.

      God, I hate these misleading titles.
      • NanoStuff, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1Your entire 'theory' is based around FDA approval. The molecule can be synthesized and can be synthesized now, only market demand is preventing the thing from being available now over the intertubes. Well, that and the fact that the story only came out today. Intertubes: FDA free 4 ever!

        Not that you shouldn't wait until solid evidence is available, point being is you won't have to wait until the government gives you permission for purchase, you can choose.
        • evodude, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1First off, what theory? Do you mean my estimate for when it could be marketed? My entire timeline is based around FDA approval, yes. There's a reason that FDA approval is needed for all drugs sold in this country (the notable, and disgusting, exception being anything that falls under the umbrella of "supplements"). This molecule, which has only been demonstrated in yeast, could be many things, not the least of which are dangerous and without effect. Yes, you probably could get the drug from any chemist with no conscience who's looking to make a quick buck, but that certainly doesn't mean that you should. This isn't a question of economics, it's one of biochemistry. Stupid people need someone to protect them from themselves. In the realm of pharmaceuticals, that falls to the FDA. So yeah, I think FDA approval is important. Especially in this case. If they'd just shown a lifespan extension in primates, that'd be one thing, but as it stands, they've still got a hell of a way to go.
    • verkon, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5In ten years, science shows that cancer is good for you!
      • Markpdotcom, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5No, thats in Soviet Russia you're thinking of! ;)
        • Spuy767, on 04/19/2008, -1/+1No, that's not soviet Russia. In soviet russia, caner has you.
    • tech42er, on 04/18/2008, -1/+2I would not be surprised if messing with ribosomes could lead to cancer in some cases. Cancer is just when cells keep reproducing and mutate so that natural anti-cancer proteins (such as p53) cannot kill the cell. Then they keep reproducing and create a tumor. Obviously, this explanation is greatly simplified, but that's the gist of it. People act like cancer is similar to AIDS, something you can develop through poor lifestyle choices. It's much closer to an autoimmune disease, though.
    • Punisher2K, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Cancer = immortal cells
      • Terasiel, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1As long as they have food, you're mostly right.
    • PaulSama05, on 04/18/2008, -0/+61. Cancer is NOT an autoimmune disease.
      2. Poor lifestyle choices CAN make you more susceptible to cancer, but not in the way AIDS does. (e.g., taking it in the butt probably won't give you cancer)
    • NecroSexy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1You, sir, underestimate the credulity of digg submitters! They'll have that article "dugg up" in less than a year.
  • SniperGX1, on 04/18/2008, -6/+130Sounds like a sure way to create zombies.
    • leerayIG88, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Dawn of the Dead (2004)
    • twigboy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2better get myself a copy of that "How to survive a zombie attack" book
    • sewerraccoon, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Ask me about my Zombie Plan!
    • shortync, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I'm pretty sure they prefer the term living impaired.
      • TheObviousChild, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I'll belive it when there's a South Park episode about it.
  • mytibt, on 04/18/2008, -10/+0Also, show me a drug that doubles my digg rating
    • smacksaw, on 04/18/2008, -1/+7Legalised Obama iPhones in capsule form.
      • credence, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5*made with 100% natural ***** THE RIAA.
    • Nollix, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Double of -7 IS -14, you know.
    • Spuy767, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3YOu should ask for something that squares your digg rating.
  • tfox2k1, on 04/18/2008, -6/+37We think drivers are bad now in their 70's. Imagine getting behind a 140 year old grannie.
    • TheMoniker, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Ha, ha. Though, if rejuvenative therapies really work, expect to mistake her for a 30-40 year-old.
    • kindernacht, on 04/18/2008, -1/+18"Imagine getting behind a 140 year old grannie"...heh, what an image.
    • absurdist, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Oh please. I'll wager most of those crappy drivers in their 70s were crappy drivers in their 30s and 40s. Have you SEEN how most soccer moms drive? Do you really think they're going to get much worse?
    • Foamator, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Oh god! There'll be Nissan Micras EVERYWHERE!
    • dhughes, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1 Even worse think of a 140 year-old driving a flying car, you think two dimensions is bad what about three!
  • RobotLeAwesome, on 04/18/2008, -6/+17I doubt it *actually* doubles the lifespan, we'd be living to 150 on average in that case - and from the experience of having family in the 100+ range, why would you want to live that long!?

    Now call me when you can stick my brain into a robot.
    • tfox2k1, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6What if its a sex robot for Michael Moore?
    • ryleyleckie, on 04/18/2008, -1/+27why wouldn't you want to live for as long as possible? you only live once- why wouldn't you want it to last as long as possible given that you could stay healthy?
      • g30ph, on 04/18/2008, -9/+4The way the world is looking right now, I don't think there is very much to look forward to. I think we're already running out of food and fresh water.
        • ryleyleckie, on 04/18/2008, -1/+8that's an emo comment and you know it
        • Spuy767, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Onyl cause people won't stop *****.
        • Incomp3tnt, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Psh, it's alright for some. There's the rest of us who can't start!
      • winmywii, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3I think it all comes down to how much money you have.
      • subliminalurge, on 04/18/2008, -0/+12Even if I wouldn't necessarily stay healthy, I'd still like to live as long as possible. Even if it came with some pain.

        The thing is, the hardest part about the inevitability of death for me to deal with is that I won't be around to see all of the cool ***** that we'll be accomplishing 100 - 150 years from now. And given the rate I've seen technology advance in just the past 20 years, I expect it will be some REALLY, REALLY cool *****.

        Even if I was more or less bedridden, I think it would be worth sticking around just to see some of that stuff happen.
        • ryleyleckie, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5i couldn't agree with you more
        • MiDri, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4Imagen all the, "In my day we..." comments you would have built up after a 120-130 years on this planet... Thats what I'm looking forward to!
          • subliminalurge, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1You little whippersnappers. In my day, we actually had to take our vacations here on EARTH!
        • dpdawson, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0Finally, someone who agrees with me. Hook me up to the machine. I want to live.
    • ArtificialAnus, on 04/18/2008, -0/+12See, we can't stick your brain into a robot now, but in 100 years, that might just be possible... so if you really want to cyborg yourself it might be a good idea to live long enough to see the day that it can actually happen.
    • TheMoniker, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The headline was sensational, to be sure. That said, the hope behind rejuvenative therapies is to reduce (reverse?) the effects of aging as much as possible, more years of life and more life in those years. If people are living to 180+ with the cognitive functioning and general health of a 40 year old, I think it would be quite worthwhile.
    • evodude, on 04/18/2008, -0/+4The goal isn't to extend life, the goal is to extend quality of life.
      • evodude, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Besides, they haven't even tested it in drosophila yet, they can't make any conclusions about what effect it will have on more complex organisms, let alone humans. An you can be pretty sure that that kind of lifespan extension won't come as a result of a single pill. Things just aren't that simple.
  • shownoregrets, on 04/18/2008, -11/+4But who really wants to live THAT long?
    • LexMortis, on 04/18/2008, -3/+11Me.
    • vornan19, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2I agree. Watching the way the world is going I shudder how it's going to be after I'm gone.
    • Asdfglpwglion, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Typically, the people who have most interest in living to be 100 are 99-year-olds

      Lets guess that you are 28. Do you want to live to see 29?
    • chikkychappy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0I want to because that will greatly increase the chances of me living to see age-reversal drugs in the market. So, after 80 more years being an oldie, I get to be young again, and maybe forever! Worth the wait, really.
  • thoriphes, on 04/18/2008, -4/+51So the Umbrella Corporation does exist.
  • Jikeller, on 04/18/2008, -0/+14Sooo 75's the new 40?
    • toxicshok, on 04/18/2008, -3/+2no 75 is the new 32.5
    • eviljolly, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Great, now I have to wait an extra 35 years to have a mid-life crisis.
  • dilbert, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1How does that up to people eating more whilst getting older than 50 years ago?
    • Stavrosian, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2My guess would be copious new drugs/treatments to stop us from kicking the bucket.
  • triskele, on 04/18/2008, -8/+38And you think we have overpopulation issues now.
    • nycmac247, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Industrialized countries have negative population growth
      • vornan19, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Then all the developing countries need to catch up!
      • Natnie, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Best news I've heard all day, and yet I'm having trouble believing it, seeing all the babymakers around me.
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6And... overpopulation was an argument to not introduce the polio vaccin?
    • thallium205, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2No I dont...
      • triskele, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2In that case, I wasn't talking to you.
    • drafhk, on 04/18/2008, -1/+3Time to start populating the moon. I'm absolutely for this.
    • Beanstudd2, on 04/19/2008, -2/+2that's what AIDS is for
    • slightlygifted, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1our population was 200million like 50 years ago? today its 300million.
    • blast_flame, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Simple solution: you can either have children or live forever but not both.
      I know what I'm choosing (hint: I didn't want children anyway)!
      • chikkychappy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1Great idea. I've always wanted to have kids, but this may wait until we've got planets to colonize.
  • Chahrlie5, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3About time
  • BryanG412, on 04/18/2008, -0/+11I think this drug has been around for sometime...Larry King has been alive forever
  • ryleyleckie, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3i'm down
  • uzbit, on 04/18/2008, -2/+21double != 1.50
    What we really need is a 1.50 multiplier on average intelligence. That will be good news. This is bad news.
    • loudog40, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4We'd definitely be better off had we discovered the 1.5x intelligence multiplier first, but this is still extremely significant. Now that biological evolution is being superseded by technical, scientific, and cultural evolution, is there really a need for humanity to be generational? In the context of biological evolution, generations are vital because with each generation is a new set of genes, and new potential for improvement. Now, genes are hardly the vehicle for advancement, which has been taken over by thought, science, technology, etc. Perhaps one day we'll all decide to live indefinitely, and scrap the antiquated idea of procreation altogether. Pretty wild but it's an interesting idea.
      • uzbit, on 04/18/2008, -0/+0I have several comments on this.
        1) We humans have an insatiable desire to, at the very least, practice reproducing. Now, if you could somehow enforce 100% effective birth control on everyone who takes this drug, this would be fine. Else wise, I think we would find ourselves in a serious predicament of exponential population growth coupled with serious lack of resources. Something would have to give.
        2) The assumption that technology will supersede the need for biological evolution is based on the fact that society will continue on a path as it has. The ability to genetically enhance ourselves, for whatever reason, requires extremely good understanding of biological mechanisms. This understanding (and implementation) will only come with the stability that we observe now. On the timescale of evolution, our technology is moot.
        • loudog40, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Rebuttal!
          1) You are correct in that humans do have a desire to reproduce. It is this trait that is largely responsible for the success of our species to date. However, as we all know, reproduction yields and exponentially growing population, something that doesn't scale past the hard limits of this planet's resources. It is inevitable that at some point reproduction will be heavily regulated, and it's likely that we'll reach a point where lottery is required to determine who can reproduce. Now, imagine science enables us to dramatically lengthen our life spans, perhaps indefinitely. Wouldn't that be an enticing alternative to simply having your reproductive rights limited AND having a shorter life?

          2) I see what you're trying to get at here, but I still disagree. Biological evolution is AMAZING. The sheer amount of complexity it enabled is absolutely stunning. It is the process responsible for creating the brain, enabling thought and conciousness. That said, the nature of biological evolution is random trial and error, which is why it's been referred to as an 'inelegant algorithm'. Over time, biological evolution can produce amazing order and complexity. Ideas and thought are, for lack of a better word, "ethereal" in nature, and can therefor can evolve far more rapidly than genes. It's true that the overall accomplishments of biology far outweigh those of science and technology, but then again we're only now getting started. :)
  • tundrajack, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9"The good news is that you may not have to starve yourself to mutate your ribosomes anymore. Biologists at the University of Washington have managed to induce the life-extending mutation in ribosomes with a drug"
    Oh great- a future with a bunch of overweight centenarians
    • Tarotsan, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Just imagine how fat you could get with an extra 75 years of piling on the pounds
  • Zanarkand, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3Yeah.....something like this worked REAL well in I Am Legend. Thanks but no thanks...the longer I live, the more I have to pay back my debt.
    • Theisos, on 04/18/2008, -1/+4Wrong man. They tried to create a cure for cancer in that movie using genetically re-engineered measles.
    • lukef17, on 04/18/2008, -0/+5It happened in a movie so it MUST be true!
  • RubineBoy, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1This is good news! Now the movie, pop and fashion stars have no reason left to stay sooo ugly skinny!
  • bbliss17, on 04/18/2008, -9/+3Strange. I dont really want to live to be 160 or 170

    way to old
  • VideoHost1, on 04/18/2008, -3/+5Really good video about life extension.
    Long though . . . .~ 30 minutes run-time

    http://2.0web.tv/index.php?option=com_seyret&task= ...
    • RubineBoy, on 04/18/2008, -0/+6What is 30 minutes when you have 160 years to live!
    • loudog40, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Not sure why this is getting dugg down. The content is interesting if you can look past the cheesy production.
    • Tarotsan, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1more like 90 minutes. And it still hasn't stopped now.
  • adwarereport, on 04/18/2008, -0/+49I don't know whether to digg this or bury it. On one hand, I want to digg it because it's an anti-aging article. On the other hand, the title is completely sensationalist and false.

    Calorie restriction is the perhaps the most scientifically studied technique of retarding the aging process in mammals. It does work, of that there is no doubt. However, it seems to work a lot less the larger we are. For instance, it only extends the lifespan of mice by about 40% and dogs, even less. There is every reason to assume that calorie restriction ... or any drug that mimics its effects ... will only increase our lifespan by a maximum of about 2-3 years.

    Second, mitochondrial activity is only one of a few known aging mechanisms. When the mitochondrial puzzle is cracked, we will then have the theoretical ability to live indefinitely. In practice however, it won't be sufficient unto itself to increase our average lifespan indefinitely. This is because something else ... alzheimer's, heart disease, autoimmune problems, etc. will kill us first.

    Make no mistake - longevity treatments *are* coming (and relatively soon, at that). But mitochondrial treatments will only extend our average lifespan by a small amount - 10-20 years at best. They will likely keep us much healthier during that time as well. But other reasearch needs to be done in conjunction to make a big impact.

    FYI, one example of these adjunct treatments is Elan Pharmaceutical's Alzheimer's treatment, going into phase 3 clinicals this month. What's interesting about this is that it appears to be an actual cure, not merely a preventative measure or a treatment which slows the progress of the disease.
    • liuite, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2this study is over-simplified. there are other factors to contend with such as glycation and radiation...the way you cook, what you eat, and how much uv you are exposed to can affect your cells.
    • robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1so is the content:
      "It's been known for a while that restricting your diet will increase your lifespan, but now researchers have shown one reason why: Eating less causes your ribosomes (your cells' protein factories) to mutate."
      ... ok... so where did they get that? From here the people who wrote up the study:
      "In this project, the UW researchers studied many different strains of yeast cells that had lower protein production. They found that mutations to the ribosome, the cell's protein factory, sometimes led to increased life span."
      Note the interesting leap that the journal was willing to make, but the researchers were not. That the lifespan of the yeast in those sentences can be replaced with the lifespan of a person.

      Sure, the researchers hope something like that will be the case. But ... don't hold your breath.

      I'm curious why we don't see a study of human cells for comparison of ribosomal mutation. Forget that the whole aging process is definitely different and probably a good bit more complex in humans than in yeast.

      I don't want to fault the journal. It's motto "strung out on science fiction" makes little promises and it is an entertaining read.
    • mleick, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1The reason calorie restriction is beneficial is that metabolism itself is inherently deleterious ! Glucose is highly reactive and can undergo nucelophillic reactions with both intra and extracellular components.

      Secondly, during oxidative phosphorylation in eukaryotes (humans) [taking place in the mitochondrion]we use proteins (like Ubiquinone) that make use of radical intermediates in the electron transport chain . during transport some of the radicals are released to the surrounding cell. We have enzymes that can deal with these--SOD-- but overtime these reactions will deleterious to the cell causing mutations, etc. This is why plants have so many antioxidants-- the very nature of their energy derivation uses the sun which trough electronic transitions encourages extensive radical production-- they need to terminate these radicals to live.
  • bag2p, on 04/18/2008, -4/+7the final blow for those who cannot afford health care has arrived!
    • KhanneaNL, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2Yah and it's called whining.
    • aladrin, on 04/18/2008, -1/+6You're getting dugg down, but you're right. I don't know how many scifi books have predicted that poor people won't be able to afford life-lengthening drugs and rich will. This is definitely on that road.
  • banme, on 04/18/2008, -2/+2we should all go on the somalia diet..maybe it will help us as much as it's helped them
  • fdgvieira, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3Here comes the zombie apocalypse.
  • Kumah, on 04/18/2008, -2/+10Wow this is really exciting. I worry about who will control such a drug if it ever reaches the market, seems like a goldmine. I would love to see 170, by then we should have even more advanced technology to make being old a bit easier. Maybe for my 130th birthday I can get a new body, reverse my aging, and double my intelligence.
    Then for my 150th birthday I'll get the new drugs that quadruple my age.
    IF this ever reaches the public market we could literally be buying the next major step for the human race.
    • imapotato, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1So the next addiction is the anti-aging drugs? You would, quite literally, be dependant on them. And at what point does witholding them from a person become tantamount to murder?
  • ChiefShaman, on 04/18/2008, -6/+4Science will continue to try to increase the normal life span because Christians are so afraid of dying - they all know there "going to hell" because they are such gullible idiots.
    • Paul1245, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1How can that be when science is the enemy of religion?
    • chikkychappy, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0Some atheists are also afraid of dying because they know there's nothing after. Count me as one.
  • zacheh, on 04/18/2008, -2/+1Interesting stuff and some good comments in here as well.
  • disher91, on 04/18/2008, -5/+0Didnt I see something like this in the I am Legend movie?

  • vanebeard, on 04/18/2008, -8/+2These "scientists" have gotten it all wrong. There is only a finite amount of food you can eat in a lifetime and once you eat that much you die. That's why fat people die sooner and restricting your diet makes you live longer. Ribosomes have nothing to do with it.
    • theshizzler, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2Your grasp of science is disturbing.
  • BikerDude69, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3So if I don't eat I will live forever? .. hey, wait...
    • naughtyboy, on 04/18/2008, -0/+7Zombie lesson 1:

      There's only one way to live forever, and that is to eat Jesus.

      "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life" John 6:53-54
  • DeFex, on 04/18/2008, -4/+3This might be good for Toronto sports fans (pick any team) if they want to see them win anything.
  • h4k0r, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Whats this gonna do to the retirement age??

    • mckinnej, on 04/18/2008, -0/+3That's pretty much toast these days anyways. Many seniors can't afford to retire, so many work until they die or physically can't work anymore.
  • carrtoonist, on 04/18/2008, -2/+3Sounds exciting. However I would rather just live a life that is satisfying enough so that when It comes to be my time I will exit gracefully and let the next generation have the planet.
  • coustoe, on 04/18/2008, -1/+5calorie restriction stimulates mitochondrial efficiency. this can be achieved in other ways then starving oneself. such as exercising.

    This seems somewhat related to work that has been done with resveratrol
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resveratrol
  • FineLemming, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1The title of this digg post is misleading. The article clearly states that this particular mutation of the ribosomes significantly increases the life-span of the proteins produced. While longer-living proteins will undoubtedly slow the effects of aging and have the potential to extend the lifespan of the individual, it doesn't directly result in "Doubling your lifespan".
    • FineLemming, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1Correction...

      "Biologists at the University of Washington have managed to induce the life-extending mutation in ribosomes with a drug that doubles the lifespan of yeast cells."

    • robbiemuffin, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1it is misleading. just not for that reason.
    • hatboysam, on 04/19/2008, -0/+0This is Digg
  • SeraphIXI, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0So where can I find this "diazaborine"?
  • HaSatan, on 04/18/2008, -6/+2Living forever is like dying every day.
  • cr42yr1ch, on 04/18/2008, -5/+0"... treating cells with the drug made them live about 50 percent longer than untreated cells."

    i.e. cancer. Normal cells are supposed to die when required, if they don't then they are at risk of being harmful.
    • PaulSama05, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0Cancer cells proliferate uncontrollably and are immortal. These cells proliferate more slowly and thus have a longer overall lifespan. Learn something about science before commenting on it.
    • elliotys, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Wow, you didn't really just call a cell "immortal" and then tell the guy above you to "to learn something about science".
      • d2340, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1I think he really did. Immortal Cells unit! Shape of, your lower intestine!
        • PaulSama05, on 04/18/2008, -1/+0One of you can't spell unite correctly. The other one doesn't know what an immortal cell is. I guess you can be blissfully ignorant together. Cute.

          Oh, I'm supposed to make some sort of pop culture reference here, so: Highlander cells! There can be only one!
        • elliotys, on 04/18/2008, -0/+2Please! End my blissful ignorance and school me oh wise one.
  • kalvinb, on 04/18/2008, -7/+10Death is the cure for over population.

    It was great to have you here, but please die in a timely fashion to make room for other people.
    • Naradar, on 04/18/2008, -1/+9***** that, we're here now.

      I would rather put a restriction on who can have kids and how many they can have then to have some ***** tell me I can't live forever when the cure for death is in reach. Lets face it, most of the people out there aren't fit to raise kids anyhow.

      Besides if you can live to 200+ years you're not going to be in any hurry to have kids. Are you really going to want to get married and have kids at the average of 20-30 years old like we do now? Hell no.

      If I live 200+ years there is no way I'm tying myself down to a family and kids until I'm at least 130+. Whats the rush? It's a big world with lots to do, marriage and kids is a huge commitment. I'll tackle that once I've explored the wide options open to me while being free and single. In fact, the average age that couple get married and have kids has been going up as life expectancy increases.
      • slightlygifted, on 04/19/2008, -0/+2if women reach menopause around 40-50 then yes you will still need to have kids before then.
        • aaabatteries, on 04/19/2008, -1/+3hmm, good point.
          although I'm sure by the time that it's been made possible to have humans living 200+ years it will also be possible to delay menopause.
    • ritzcracker, on 04/19/2008, -0/+3give limited reproduction rights to people, problem solved.
      • carpespasm, on 04/19/2008, -0/+1and the punishment for unlicensed childbirth would be? We need population control, but it has to be practical.
  • designerutah, on 04/18/2008, -1/+1Unless this also comes with lots of money, willing hot young babes, and a way to eliminate troublesome idiots who are also on this longevity drug (competition)... what's the point?
    • mckinnej, on 04/18/2008, -0/+1While you're getting dugg down, I submit this more realistic take on you point. At least now the a$$-holes you have to work with will eventually retire. IF this stuff works, your idiot boss will NEVER go away! How much will that suck?!

      Think about politicians too. They are almost all rich and it goes without saying that only the rich will be able to afford this, at least in the beginning. Just think about how much it will suck if congressmen stay in office for 100+ years! We may have to implement a mandatory death age. "Congratulations on your 100th birthday Mr. Jones! Please report to the Lifespan Control Bureau immediately."
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.