Community Discussion Forum
Chat
Info and Media
Articles
Autism Talk TV
Books
Wiki
Contact Alex
Shop
Log in
|
Register
WP Members: > 75,000
New Today:
1
New Yesterday:
27
Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index
->
Health, Fitness, and Sports
Post a reply
Username
Subject
Message body
Emoticons
View more Emoticons
[quote="conan"][quote="TheKing"]scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer)[/quote] nup, sorry. telomere shortening is definitely a factor in DNA damage with respect to aging and cancer but it is a very small part of a foooooooking massive picture. Trust me, i'm studying molecular genetics :lol:[/quote]
Options
HTML is
OFF
BBCode
is
ON
Smilies are
ON
Disable BBCode in this post
Disable Smilies in this post
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Topic review
Author
Message
TheKing
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:37 pm
Post subject:
conan wrote:
it's not that simple. if you looked at the actual papers the scientist were writing they would really not be jumping to conclusions like almost every news source about science does.
it is fascinating stuff and will play a part but like i said. it is a small part of the picture. You can't cure aging or cancer with one enzyme. one problem is that there will be other problems that arrise if you then decide to extend the cell's proliferating capacity beyond normal.
Why is it that cancer cells are able to proliferate indefinitely rather than 80 times? partly because of telomerase in some cases! have a look at the HeLa cell line. from wiki "A proposed treatment for cancer is a telomerase inhibitor that would prevent the restoration of the telomere, allowing the cell to die like other body cells." This and many other things should lead one to the conclussion that gene expression leading to protein synthesis and it's effect are entirely contextual.
i'm not saying it's not going to happen but i'm saying just inducing expression of one gene does not mean much, particularly in multicellular organisms. it's certainly will happen if research is pushed in the right direction.
i'm not sure about stem cells and the Hayflick limit.
here
says that " Stem cells, by definition, have not yet been fully differentiated, and therefore many of these cells may continue to regenerate new cells for the entire lifespan of the organism, without limit, thus constituting a notable exception to the Hayflick limit in humans and other organisms."
i think there are many many exceptions to the hayflick limit
i can't say i'm that familiar with cancer or the process of aging beyond cell senescence and apoptosis and a bit about the cell cycle but i do know that any given cell is full of interdependencies, trade offs, contexts etc etc. still, it is an interesting point and i hope you become a biologist!
i used to want to be a BioMedical Gerontologist but im deciding to be a US History and Gov/Econ teacher, my aspie obsession is with learning and that led me to the Life Extension movement, i figure the longer i live the more i can learn. the Life Extension movement led me to Transhumanism and the exciting frontier of the future
TheKing
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 7:30 pm
Post subject:
conan wrote:
it's not that simple. if you looked at the actual papers the scientist were writing they would really not be jumping to conclusions like almost every news source about science does.
it is fascinating stuff and will play a part but like i said. it is a small part of the picture. You can't cure aging or cancer with one enzyme. one problem is that there will be other problems that arrise if you then decide to extend the cell's proliferating capacity beyond normal.
Why is it that cancer cells are able to proliferate indefinitely rather than 80 times? partly because of telomerase in some cases! have a look at the HeLa cell line. from wiki "A proposed treatment for cancer is a telomerase inhibitor that would prevent the restoration of the telomere, allowing the cell to die like other body cells." This and many other things should lead one to the conclussion that gene expression leading to protein synthesis and it's effect are entirely contextual.
i'm not saying it's not going to happen but i'm saying just inducing expression of one gene does not mean much, particularly in multicellular organisms. it's certainly will happen if research is pushed in the right direction.
i'm not sure about stem cells and the Hayflick limit.
here
says that " Stem cells, by definition, have not yet been fully differentiated, and therefore many of these cells may continue to regenerate new cells for the entire lifespan of the organism, without limit, thus constituting a notable exception to the Hayflick limit in humans and other organisms."
i think there are many many exceptions to the hayflick limit
i can't say i'm that familiar with cancer or the process of aging beyond cell senescence and apoptosis and a bit about the cell cycle but i do know that any given cell is full of interdependencies, trade offs, contexts etc etc. still, it is an interesting point and i hope you become a biologist!
i see your point, scientists have said that Telomerase is always present in cancer but to be fair they are working on having Telomerase create mutated Telomeres in cancerous tissue
http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/3/9/477.full
studies in mice show it greatly decreased tumor growth and some regression of the tumors
that's what i love about science, is its flexibility
i have a couple PDF docs on the subject, since i don't have a computer anymore, i am on my PS3 so here are the links to a few of them
http://staff.washington.edu/mwhiddon/Shayetal.pdf
http://www.agnos.nl/downloads-2/files/BlascoStemCells2007.pdf
http://www.terraternal.com/Files/TelomereShorteningAndAging.pdf
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tolsj/articles/V002/23TOLSJ.pdf
last year i wrote my own little thesis on Life Extension using synthetic biology and stem cells for my AP English class, me and several teachers got together to review it and biggest problem was cancer. i noticed cancer is the biggest problem of every theory for Life Extension
conan
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:10 pm
Post subject:
it's not that simple. if you looked at the actual papers the scientist were writing they would really not be jumping to conclusions like almost every news source about science does.
it is fascinating stuff and will play a part but like i said. it is a small part of the picture. You can't cure aging or cancer with one enzyme. one problem is that there will be other problems that arrise if you then decide to extend the cell's proliferating capacity beyond normal.
Why is it that cancer cells are able to proliferate indefinitely rather than 80 times? partly because of telomerase in some cases! have a look at the HeLa cell line. from wiki "A proposed treatment for cancer is a telomerase inhibitor that would prevent the restoration of the telomere, allowing the cell to die like other body cells." This and many other things should lead one to the conclussion that gene expression leading to protein synthesis and it's effect are entirely contextual.
i'm not saying it's not going to happen but i'm saying just inducing expression of one gene does not mean much, particularly in multicellular organisms. it's certainly will happen if research is pushed in the right direction.
i'm not sure about stem cells and the Hayflick limit.
here
says that " Stem cells, by definition, have not yet been fully differentiated, and therefore many of these cells may continue to regenerate new cells for the entire lifespan of the organism, without limit, thus constituting a notable exception to the Hayflick limit in humans and other organisms."
i think there are many many exceptions to the hayflick limit
i can't say i'm that familiar with cancer or the process of aging beyond cell senescence and apoptosis and a bit about the cell cycle but i do know that any given cell is full of interdependencies, trade offs, contexts etc etc. still, it is an interesting point and i hope you become a biologist!
TheKing
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:44 pm
Post subject:
conan wrote:
TheKing wrote:
scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer)
nup, sorry.
telomere shortening is definitely a factor in DNA damage with respect to aging and cancer but it is a very small part of a foooooooking massive picture. Trust me, i'm studying molecular genetics
http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/archive/00-057.shtml
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/mouse-aging-reversal/
thats the point, cells can only duplicate around 80 times before the Telomeres are so short that the cells die, scientists are trying to cure ageing and cancer with the enzyme Telomerase, which prevents the Telomeres from shortening.
shrox
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:27 pm
Post subject:
conan wrote:
TheKing wrote:
scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer)
nup, sorry.
telomere shortening is definitely a factor in DNA damage with respect to aging and cancer but it is a very small part of a foooooooking massive picture. Trust me, i'm studying molecular genetics
You beat me to this one, I was going to point out how bad Telomere shortening would be! You run out of telomeres, your DNA unravels!
conan
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:16 pm
Post subject:
TheKing wrote:
scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer)
nup, sorry.
telomere shortening is definitely a factor in DNA damage with respect to aging and cancer but it is a very small part of a foooooooking massive picture. Trust me, i'm studying molecular genetics
TheKing
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 1:04 am
Post subject:
advancedatheist wrote:
TheKing wrote:
. im a Transhumanist, i have optimistic hopes for the future and regarding questors claim Molecular Nanotechnology looks very promising in reviving the cryo patients, Indefinite Life Extension will probably be solved in my lifetime(scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer) so its unlikely i will need to sign up for Alcor anyway but if i do it will be for a "just in case" scenario
You sound like a young'un to me. I turn 53 this year, and I've lived with these ideas for nearly 40 years,since I read Robert Ettinger's book
Man Into Superman
. I've also had arrangements for my cryonic suspension with Alcor since 1990. Take it from a sympathetic elder: We cryonicists have a long, hard slog ahead of us, and we can't depend on gimmicky techno-fads like "Molecular Nanotechnology" to solve our problems. In fact I've lately suspected that "Molecular Nanotechnology" as presented by Drexler and his pals can't exist because it gets the physics wrong. By contrast look at the rapid progress in human genomics in the past 30 years. Why do organizations like 23andMe have the ability to tell you all kinds of stuff about your genome which you didn't know before, like how much Neandertal DNA you have, when we still don't have anything like a "nanoassembler" to speak of since Drexler popularized the idea in the 1980's?
Who has a more credible track record for doing many of the things they claim, in other words? Nanotechnologists? Or genomicists?
that's just a possible idea, Nick Bostrom(professor of philosophy at Oxford) said the beauty of Transhumanism is that there are countless ways to get to our goals. im glad to see a fellow Cryonicist here, are you a Transhumanist also by chance? i have only been into Transhumanism for 3 years but i have dozens of books and articles about Transhumanism on PDF and have been absorbing as much as i can, my age is a gift and a curse, im too young to get seriously involved in anything(after i get a job i want to start attending events like the Singularity Summit), but it's also a gift because i may still be alive when most of the technology we discuss actually comes about, i wish i was smart enough to actually help out, i don't have a superior intelligence, only above average. but i will support it however i can until our goals are met, it's the least i can do
TheKing
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 12:38 am
Post subject: Re: Cryogenics
advancedatheist wrote:
questor wrote:
Don't waste your money, this is a scam. Although there are ways to jump start the heart and lungs, there is no known way, and none likely in the foreseeable future of reanimating your brain.
Refer to my post about Sebastian Seung's book regarding the scientific aspects of preserving human brains to protect their connectomes.
As for the "scam" accusation,, why do cryonics organizations accept as members people who according to the actuarial tables won't likely die for many decades?
out of Alcor's 1000+ members, only a little over 100 are dead
advancedatheist
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:14 pm
Post subject:
TheKing wrote:
. im a Transhumanist, i have optimistic hopes for the future and regarding questors claim Molecular Nanotechnology looks very promising in reviving the cryo patients, Indefinite Life Extension will probably be solved in my lifetime(scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer) so its unlikely i will need to sign up for Alcor anyway but if i do it will be for a "just in case" scenario
You sound like a young'un to me. I turn 53 this year, and I've lived with these ideas for nearly 40 years,since I read Robert Ettinger's book
Man Into Superman
. I've also had arrangements for my cryonic suspension with Alcor since 1990. Take it from a sympathetic elder: We cryonicists have a long, hard slog ahead of us, and we can't depend on gimmicky techno-fads like "Molecular Nanotechnology" to solve our problems. In fact I've lately suspected that "Molecular Nanotechnology" as presented by Drexler and his pals can't exist because it gets the physics wrong. By contrast look at the rapid progress in human genomics in the past 30 years. Why do organizations like 23andMe have the ability to tell you all kinds of stuff about your genome which you didn't know before, like how much Neandertal DNA you have, when we still don't have anything like a "nanoassembler" to speak of since Drexler popularized the idea in the 1980's?
Who has a more credible track record for doing many of the things they claim, in other words? Nanotechnologists? Or genomicists?
advancedatheist
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:04 pm
Post subject: Re: Cryogenics
questor wrote:
Don't waste your money, this is a scam. Although there are ways to jump start the heart and lungs, there is no known way, and none likely in the foreseeable future of reanimating your brain.
Refer to my post about Sebastian Seung's book regarding the scientific aspects of preserving human brains to protect their connectomes.
As for the "scam" accusation,, why do cryonics organizations accept as members people who according to the actuarial tables won't likely die for many decades?
advancedatheist
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 11:00 pm
Post subject:
Neuroscientist Sebastian Seung defends cryonics as a reasonable medical experiment in his new book
Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are
.
TheKing
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 8:32 pm
Post subject:
shrox wrote:
The problem of water crystallizing still has not been fully solved. Like a can of soda left in the freezer, the cell walls rupture as the remaining water in the antifreeze-flushed cells freezes and expands.
the process of Vitrification is used to reduce damage. im a Transhumanist, i have optimistic hopes for the future and regarding questors claim Molecular Nanotechnology looks very promising in reviving the cryo patients, Indefinite Life Extension will probably be solved in my lifetime(scientists are researching Telomere shortening and the enzyme Telomerase as a possible cure for both aging and cancer) so its unlikely i will need to sign up for Alcor anyway but if i do it will be for a "just in case" scenario
shrox
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:24 pm
Post subject:
Maybe running a very powerful magnetic field through the body as it freezes could hold the hydrogen atoms of the water molecules in place to prevent crystallization.
conan
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 5:52 pm
Post subject:
things could very well have changed quite a lot by the time you die and maybe the freezing process could be improved.
I find this quite interesting
http://labs.fhcrc.org/roth/
http://www.ted.com/talks/mark_roth_suspended_animation.html
Fnord
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 3:56 pm
Post subject:
In the fifty-plus years of cryonics, there is no record of anyone having been frozen at the moment of death, and then being successfully revived.
The cryonic process eventually turns their brains into organic mush.
Forums ©
Read more Articles on Wrong Planet
Wrong Planet is a Registered Trademark.
Copyright 2004-2013,
Wrong Planet, LLC and Alex Plank
. Alex does
public speaking for Autism.
Advertise on Wrong Planet
Terms of Service - You must read this as a user of Wrong Planet
|
Privacy Policy
Subscribe:
Wrong Planet News
Wrong Planet Forums