Drug 'reverses' ageing in animal tests.
By James Gallagher for BBC News website
23rd March 2017
A drug that can reverse aspects of ageing has been successfully trialled in animals, say scientists. They have rejuvenated old mice to restore their stamina, coat of fur and even some organ function. The team at Erasmus University Medical Center, in the Netherlands, are planning human trials for what they hope is a treatment for old age. A UK scientist said the findings were "impossible to dismiss", but that unanswered questions remained. The approach works by flushing out retired or "senescent" cells in the body that have stopped dividing. They accumulate naturally with age and have a role in wound healing and stopping tumours. But while they appear to just sit there, senescent cells release chemicals that cause inflammation and have been implicated in ageing. The group of scientists created a drug that selectively killed senescent cells by disrupting the chemical balance within them. "I got very rebellious, people insisted I was crazy for trying and for the first three times they were right," Dr Peter de Keizer told the BBC.
On the fourth attempt he had something that seemed to work. He tested it on mice that were just old (the equivalent of 90 in mouse years), those genetically programmed to age very rapidly and those aged by chemotherapy. The findings, published in the journal Cell, showed liver function was easily restored and the animals doubled the distance they would run in a wheel. Dr de Keizer said: "We weren't planning to look at their hair, but it was too obvious to miss." He also said there were a lot of "grey" results - things that seemed to improve in some mice but not all. The drug was given three times a week and the experiments have been taking place for nearly a year. There are no signs of side-effects but "mice don't talk", Dr de Keizer said. However, it is thought the drug would have little to no effect on normal tissues. When asked if this was a drug for ageing, Dr Keizer told the BBC News website: "I hope so, but the proof of the pudding is in the eating as you say. In terms of mouse work we are pretty much done, we could look at specific age-related diseases eg osteoporosis, but we should now prepare for clinical translation."
Commenting on the results, Dr Dusko Ilic, a stem cell scientist at King's College London, said: "The finding is impossible to dismiss. [But] until more high-quality research is done, it is better to be reserved about these findings. Though, I would not be surprised if manufacturers try to capitalise on this and, in a few years, we could buy this peptide as a supplement over the counter." Prof Ilaria Bellantuono, Professor in Musculoskeletal Ageing, University of Sheffield, called for further tests on "heart, muscle, metabolic, cognitive function" to take place. But added: "The use of this peptide in patients is a long way away. It requires careful consideration about safety, about the appropriate group of patients for whom this peptide can be beneficial in a reasonable period of time so that positive effects can be easily measured at an affordable cost."
[Rather inevitably, as I’m getting older, this sort of thing interests me more and more. I doubt if any ‘wonder drug’ like this will be available in a timescale to extend my life by much but maybe a range of treatments will be around for the next generation or the one after that. What such things will do to our cultures is open to debate but no doubt the rich and shameless will be extending their lifespans long before the rest of us benefit from the technology!]
7 comments:
the last sentence said it: benefitting the elite... there are too many people on the planet so why are presumably smart persons pursuing this? just wondering what they expect to happen... or if they think, at all, about the future...
Scientists generally don't worry too much about the application of their work - especially 'blue sky' stuff. That's for politicians/society to decide and for technicians to design and build. Scientists produce ideas and possibilities and it is essentially up to us what we do with that. We certainly shouldn't be in the business of restricting scientific research (mostly) because we either can't see a benefit or we think that any benefits will accrue to one group disproportionately.
Firstly how would we decide what goes ahead and what doesn't? What about unintended discoveries that have been a great benefit to mankind and, here's the kicker, how do we stop 'inappropriate' research from moving ahead? I think that I have a well founded concern about the invention of AI and what it will mean to human civilisation. But I think that it's development is probably inevitable because there's a lot of desire to bring it about - despite the warnings - and that its development is impossible to prevent without a completely unprecedented global co-operation and control mechanism. AI is coming whether we like the idea or not, it's just a matter of when and what will happen to us when it does.
Though I am skeptical about individual stories like this, it seems obvious that as long as civilization does not collapse, the human lifespan will be greatly expanded. There is a possibility that immortality might be achieved. There are enormous implications for humanity. I have been thinking of devoting a blog post to this subject.
It is interesting how like yourself, many of us think more and more about these things as we get older.
In terms of your discussion about AI, that is another profoundly important topic. I highly recommend Nick Bostrom's Superintelligence. It is full of ideas and intelligent speculation on that topic.
i see what CK and Brian are saying and i understand the logic thereof; as a former geologist, my outlook maybe warped... or maybe not: i see poisoning the earth and draining it's resources as an act of slow suicide for the human race, and it's hard to understand why others don't see these things as well... but what Brian says is probably right: being older, i'm probably obsessing... tx for the responses...
@ Brian: Yes, life extension techniques have HUGE implications for humanity if we manage to live long enough to benefit from it. Although it'll only trickle down to the shallow end of the pool LONG after the rich have become effectively immortal!
I've seen 'Superintelligence' on Amazon. Looks interesting....
@ Mudpuddle: We are indeed slowly killing our planet - and its not like we have anywhere else to go ATM - and very few people seem to give a damn. They will, of course, when its too late - but then it'll be, you know, to late, at which point they'll cry out "Why didn't anyone tell us that killing the planet would suck this much!"
i can tell you've been around the block a couple of times... tx ...
Yes, I have.... a couple of times... indeed....
Post a Comment