[extropy-chat] Anti-Aging Molecule Discovered

[Ian Goddard]

--- Robert Bradbury <robert.bradbury at gmail.com> wrote:

> Ian Goddard <iamgoddard at yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > Suppose a drug is found that reverses aging. 
> 
>
> All they are claiming is a removal of cells from 
> the "senescent" state they are not claiming 
> "reversing aging".  


 They do claim an age-reversing effect. In the media
report I cited they say: "We also found the synthetic
compound can reverse aging, by revitalizing
already-lethargic cells." 

 But they avoid such claims in their abstract. This
strikes me as an example of a phenomenon I see too
often where scientists have a paper published in a
peer-reviewed journal and therein they respect
scientific standards of skepticism and claim
restraint, but then they speak in the press with
little or no sign of uncertainty. It makes it seem
like the underlying philosophical tenets of science
are just a game, a pretense, as opposed to a necessary
approach to knowing per se. Of course I hope these
guys are right and I'm not trashing them, but there
are some signs of excessive claims.




> > However, all they seem to have so far are
> > cell-culture tests of a drug, and there's a big 
> > leap from in-vitro to in-vivo outcomes.  There 
> > might even be reasons why preventing cellular 
> > senescence is not universally beneficial to
> > a whole biological system.
> 
> 
> Well said.  Indeed, if the alternatives to
> senescence are apoptosis or cancer, then senescence 
> is clearly the better of the three.  And indeed the
> ATM gene that their CGK733 is affecting is a 
> critical DNA repair gene which when mutated results 
> in either a reduction in cell division or an 
> increased risk of cancer.  The two primary genes it 
> interacts with are p53 and BRCA1 [1], mutations in 
> which increase cancer risks.  So I would suspect 
> that interfering with ATM such that it reduces 
> cellular senescence would increase cancer.


 Thanks Robert for the insight and links (below)! 


> This is the kind of report is what happens when you
> have individuals who are not educated in the 
> biology of aging extending their claims into that
> swamp.  Their abstract is pretty conservative
> (sticking to the facts) but I have no doubt that 
> people unfamiliar with the field (i.e. the general 
> press & public) will misinterpret this as a 
> significant breakthrough.


  Note too that their terminology in the press report
is atypical for gerontologists yet typical for
"anti-aging" supplement sellers. Though that might be
language issue, their being Korean. Still, all-in-all,
one does get the feeling of claims that go too far
coming from scientists who may not be specialists in
the field in which their claims apply. However, none
of those factors falsify what they say; let's keep
listening and hope they're onto something! ~Ian


> 1. OMIM re: ATM:
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=607585
> re: AT
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/dispomim.cgi?id=208900
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com