• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo

A Harvard professor says he can cure aging, but is that a good idea?

george church crispr

  • Please log in to reply
24 replies to this topic

#1 alc

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 02 December 2015 - 07:50 PM


https://www.washingt...-aging-process/

 

 

from the article:

 

" “Someone younger at heart should replace you, and that should be you. I’m willing to. I’m willing to become younger. I try to reinvent myself every few years anyway.”

So on Tuesday, I asked him if he was still on track to reversing the aging process in the next five years or so. He said yes — and that it’s already happening in mice in the laboratory. The best way to predict the future, he said, is to predict things that have already happened."



#2 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 03 December 2015 - 04:52 PM

Very optimistic:

 

"he expressed confidence that in just five or six years he will be able to reverse the aging process in human beings."



Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 03 December 2015 - 05:40 PM

Useful as a way to make the public accept rejuvenation but I doubt it will cure aging.

#4 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 03 December 2015 - 06:05 PM

Not sure how much people are familiar with George Church's work ... but his team delivered impressive work for past years:

 

http://arep.med.harvard.edu/gmc/

 

he is one of the original developers of CRISPR/Cas9

 

For who wants to become more famiiar with his work, here are some articles:

 

 

Transplanting from pig to human

http://medicalxpress...-pig-human.html


George Church on Mammoths

http://strangebio.co...rge-church-is-a

A Tale of Do-It-Yourself Gene Therapy

http://www.technolog...f-gene-therapy/

Bill Gates and others just invested $120 million in a revolutionary medical startup

http://www.techinsid...-editing-2015-8

Woolly Mammoth Clones Closer Than Ever, Thanks to Genome Sequencing

http://www.livescien...-sequenced.html


and more articles here:

http://arep.med.harv...u/gmc/news.html


Just watch the  Max Birnstiel Lecture by George Church:

 

 

 For me it's clear why I'm paying a lot of  attention to what his Lab does.



#5 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 03 December 2015 - 06:58 PM

There are interesting things, actually.

 

This with the spare parts from pigs got my attention the best.

As far as I understood it from the graphics, that he showed on the video, they take a cell from a piq, clear it from 65 things, responsible for rejecting it from our immune system, and clone a pig from that cell. Did I understand it correct?

 

Lets hope, that he will cure the aging in 5-6 years. After 5-6 years we will see.



#6 sthira

  • Guest
  • 2,008 posts
  • 406

Posted 03 December 2015 - 07:32 PM

Depending on an individual's size and weight and age and general health and gene inheritance and their environmental history... and who knows what other factors... there are like 15 to 70 trillion cells in an individual's body. And so within nearly every one of those cells roughly 30,000 strands of DNA are in constant motion and change.

So stating the obvious here: getting in and editing (through the use of CRISPR) some of those strands (while not simultaneously causing harmful downstream effects to other processes) in order to mitigate diseases caused by aging is an enormously daunting project.

Respect to those involved -- give them more damned money to work on this stuff. Five to six years to "reverse aging" via gene editing alone would be nearly miraculous, I think.

Edited by sthira, 03 December 2015 - 07:38 PM.

  • Agree x 3

#7 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 05 December 2015 - 04:01 PM

There are interesting things, actually.

 

This with the spare parts from pigs got my attention the best.

As far as I understood it from the graphics, that he showed on the video, they take a cell from a piq, clear it from 65 things, responsible for rejecting it from our immune system, and clone a pig from that cell. Did I understand it correct?

 

Lets hope, that he will cure the aging in 5-6 years. After 5-6 years we will see.

 

George Church team edited pig DNA in 62 locations - to make harmless the latent porcine retroviruses that are not attacking the native host (porcine) but once transplanted, will attack the new host (humans, etc.)

 

See here the complete article from Harvard/Wyss:

 

 

http://wyss.harvard....essrelease/222/

 

 

"Lets hope, that he will cure the aging in 5-6 years. After 5-6 years we will see." -

 

Typically George Church doesn't make comments without doing research before.

 

He is not into SENS' approach, despite he appear on their advisory board. If you look at his presentations during past years

he was never buying into their approach.

 

He recently backed telomerase activation, as an approach:

 

"Church, the Harvard professor, says he thinks targeted DNA changes could in fact extend the normal human life span, which has a maximum length of about 120 years. Earlier this month, at a meeting of the National Academy of Sciences organized to weigh policy on genetic interventions, Church proposed telomerase as one bearing serious consideration. “I think we are very close. I think the world is close, so long as we don’t have a setback,” he says. “The extension of life span is quite dramatic in model organisms … it would be amazing in humans.”

 

http://www.technolog...f-gene-therapy/

 

And this becomes a mounting problem to SENS, as more and more scientists are going that way.

 

Also, see the recent Carol Greider's team about ATM Kinase, that reinforces previous idea of telomere:

 

ATM Kinase Is Required for Telomere Elongation in Mouse and Human Cells

 

http://www.hopkinsme...telomere_length

 

http://www.cell.com/...1247(15)01205-X

 

While I cannot comment anything on what exactly Church's lab is doing, I would say that based on their track of record, things look very interesting.



#8 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 05 December 2015 - 04:05 PM

Here is some information on what Church's Lab is doing:

 

Primary Research Project: Age-reversal, anti-ageing & longevity

 

"Age reversal project

The primary project is to examine ways of reversing the ageing phenotype in a system that is translatable to humans. Genetic and epigenetic modifiers are being explored to alter the ageing process in a human system without altering the identity of the cell or tissue. The rejuvenation of aged cells to a more youthful state is verified using multiple ageing biomarkers. This project has the potential to have a profound impact on the lives of the ageing population and address age-related disorders."

 

Link to one of the researchers from the lab, Dr. Sukhdeep (Bobby) Singh Dhadwar, PhD.:

 

http://arep.med.harv...bby Dhadwar.htm


  • Informative x 1

#9 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:25 PM

As far as I understood it, that woman - Parrish, went in Colombia and made herself two forms of gene therapy. 

 

In one treatment, she received injections into her muscles containing the gene follistatin, which increase muscle mass. 
 
She also received an intravenous dose of viruses containing genetic material to produce telomerase. 
 

Will that be enough to stop absolutely all kinds of aging changes? And all types of diseases, that she may get? I don't think so. For example, during the aging, she may receive a damage of some cholesterol receptor in the liver, and accumulate the atherosclerotic plaque indipendently from the telomere lengths and the follistatin injections. Or she may receive a cancer, and die from it. Or she may rise her blood preassure at some point and die from a brain haemorrhagy. 

The complexity of aging is exactly in that the processes are too many and too interconnected. I still believe, that the correct path in beating aging is: stem cells -> organs -> transplantations. 

 

"Lets hope, that he will cure the aging in 5-6 years. After 5-6 years we will see." -

 

"Typically George Church doesn't make comments without doing research before."

 

I know, I know. Hitler also was confident, that he will take Russia in two weeks. :) And as we all know, he kind'a didn't. At the same way these genetics pretend that will defeat the aging in five years, but most probabbly the aging will defeat them. We can't know with an absolute certainity what will happen, since all who tried, failed: 

 

 

 


Edited by seivtcho, 05 December 2015 - 10:30 PM.

  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#10 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2015 - 03:41 AM

"which increase muscle mass" - look at the trial done at Nationwide Children's Hospital here in Columbus, OH. The study prove the findings in previous  studies in mice and primates that folistatin "improve muscle mass and strength" and has an "anti-fibrotic effect"

Here is  something from that study:

 

"The choice
was between two isoforms generated by alternative splicing. The
FS344 variant includes a C-terminal acidic region that undergoes
peptide cleavage to generate the serum circulating, nontissue
binding, FS315 isoform. This isoform avoids off-target effects
especially affecting sites within the pituitary-gonadal axis.56–59 Our
initial gene transfer experiments using AAV1.CMV.FS344 in the
mdx mouse demonstrated enhanced muscle mass and strength for
more than 2 years without adverse effects.18 We extended these
studies to nonhuman primates for up to 15 months without histologic
or functional adverse events to any key organ systems.19
The intramuscular injection of AAV1.CMV.FS344 to BMD
subjects in this clinical trial represents a successful proof-of-principle
study with an excellent safety profile that mirrored preclinical
findings."

 

Some people do not read the clinical studies and they just move ahead with their initial assumption ... one individual from this forum totally misunderstood the study and went on pooh-pooh-ing the study on a different blog.

 

Anyway, you can look at the study here:

 

A phase 1/2a follistatin gene therapy trial for becker muscular dystrophy.

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/25322757

 

Dr. Jerry Mendell Discusses Phase 1/2a Follistatin Gene Therapy Trial for Becker Muscular Dystrophy :: March 2015

 

http://www.nationwid...cular-dystrophy

 

http://www.nationwid...ontentid=136200

 

... but main idea is: "Researchers observed substantial increases in 6MWT (6-minute walk test), above those that would be predicted over the course of one year in untreated BMD patients. Pituitary-gonadal hormone levels remained normal throughout the trial. Additionally, patients did not experience any significant adverse effects related to follistatin gene therapy or abnormalities in the liver, kidneys or bone marrow."

 

... you cannot substantial improve in 6MWT if only the "mass" of muscle was increased without increasing the strength ... as some of the pooh-pooh-ers (miss)understood.

 

The question is: is the same technology doing the same thing in Liz Parish? We need to wait and see.

 

btw Dr. Jerry Mendell now runs Milo Biotech that "The company’s technology, a gene therapy-based up-regulation of the muscle-strengthening follistatin protein, was developed at and is exclusively licensed from Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Ohio, U.S.A.)." ... according to some individuals this is a "conflict of interest", since they developed a technology and then they tried to put in practice.

 

http://milobiotechnology.com/

 

 

 

 

... as far as as your comparison between "H" guy military campaign and George Church, I'll keep my comments ... they are light-years apart and there is no even comparison in what they were/are tryind to do... but I do have a hint for you to look a bit on what these "geneticists" like George Church are trying to do: if you want you can do a search for reverse dna-methylation to address reverse aging ... see what a simple Google search can do ...

 

 


  • Informative x 1

#11 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 06 December 2015 - 04:02 AM

Alright,   @alc   :) 

 

I stop pooh-poohing lol. 

 

I still believe, that the correct path for defeating aging is the constant rejuvenation via transplanting structures made from stem cells. However, I always consider, that no matter what I think, there is always a chance that I may not be right. Lets see what that guys will do. Five years are not that far in the time. 


  • Disagree x 1

#12 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 06 December 2015 - 05:07 AM

George Church says:  “The extension of life span is quite dramatic in model organisms … it would be amazing in humans.”

 

What does he even mean by this?  That the extension of life span in humans would be larger than that seen in model organisms (yeast, worms, fruit flies, mice)?   Or that it would be "really cool" to see life extension in humans?  I hope it's the latter (although that isn't clear), because everyone who has worked in life extension for a long time knows that it's easy to extend life in short-lived species, but that it gets much harder in long-lived species like humans.   For example, Maria Blasco's group got a 24% increase in median lifespan in mice with TERT gene therapy when started at 1 year, and 13% when started at two years.  For comparison, Fathi Moussa's group got a 90% increase in median lifespan in rats with c60oo.   In the Blasco mTERT paper, they say:

 

Interestingly, even though mouse telomeres are much longer than human telomeres at younger ages in spite of their shorter life spans, recent evidence suggest that mouse telomeres suffer a dramatic shortening at old ages and that telomere length can be rate-limiting for mouse longevity (Flores et al, 2008; Garcia-Cao et al, 2006).

 

This implies that rescuing telomeres will be particularly helpful in mice, while the extent to which it will help humans is likely to be less.  Similarly, rodents are susceptible to oxidative damage to a greater degree than humans, thus it is extremely unlikely that c60oo would provide anything close to a 90% increase in median human lifespan.  I think it's great that Church is interested in life extension and hope that he makes a big effort here, but our expectations should be tempered by reality.


  • Agree x 1

#13 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 06 December 2015 - 02:42 PM

George Church says:  “The extension of life span is quite dramatic in model organisms … it would be amazing in humans.”

 

What does he even mean by this?

 

 

Above, I posted a link with couple explanations from one of the lab members that is part of the Age Reversal Project. That tell a bit of " what he meant". Again, same copy-and-paste:

"The primary project is to examine ways of reversing the ageing phenotype in a system that is translatable to humans. Genetic and epigenetic modifiers are being explored to alter the ageing process in a human system without altering the identity of the cell or tissue. The rejuvenation of aged cells to a more youthful state is verified using multiple ageing biomarkers. This project has the potential to have a profound impact on the lives of the ageing population and address age-related disorders."

 

Link to one of the researchers from the lab, Dr. Sukhdeep (Bobby) Singh Dhadwar, PhD.:

 

http://arep.med.harv...bby Dhadwar.htm

 

 

 

I would say that we can simply cut the Gordian Knot, and ask George Church directly (or Dr. Sukhdeep)?

 

We can prepare a list of questions from Longecity community  and send it to their Lab.

 

I'm sure we will have clear answers.

 

Not that they will tell us all the things, but they will clarify simple things that are misinterpreted here on on other blogs (where people like to fantasize and draw clear conclusions with what George Church will/not do ...)

 

Also, how about interviewing George Church here on Longecity?

 

Any of the administrators reading this?

 

Below, I'll start a list with questions for George Church's Lab on Age Reversal Project.

 

Let's be constructive people, it's 2015 and in few weeks 2016!


  • like x 1

#14 corb

  • Guest
  • 507 posts
  • 213
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 06 December 2015 - 09:37 PM

Below, I'll start a list with questions for George Church's Lab on Age Reversal Project.

 

I have a question: What markers and metrics do they use to measure the return to a "youthful" phenotype?


  • Good Point x 1

#15 HighDesertWizard

  • Member
  • 830 posts
  • 788
  • Location:Bend, Oregon, USA

Posted 08 December 2015 - 02:57 AM

George Church says:  “The extension of life span is quite dramatic in model organisms … it would be amazing in humans.”

 

What does he even mean by this?  That the extension of life span in humans would be larger than that seen in model organisms (yeast, worms, fruit flies, mice)?   Or that it would be "really cool" to see life extension in humans?  I hope it's the latter (although that isn't clear), because everyone who has worked in life extension for a long time knows that it's easy to extend life in short-lived species, but that it gets much harder in long-lived species like humans.   For example, Maria Blasco's group got a 24% increase in median lifespan in mice with TERT gene therapy when started at 1 year, and 13% when started at two years.  For comparison, Fathi Moussa's group got a 90% increase in median lifespan in rats with c60oo.   In the Blasco mTERT paper, they say:

 

Interestingly, even though mouse telomeres are much longer than human telomeres at younger ages in spite of their shorter life spans, recent evidence suggest that mouse telomeres suffer a dramatic shortening at old ages and that telomere length can be rate-limiting for mouse longevity (Flores et al, 2008; Garcia-Cao et al, 2006).

 

This implies that rescuing telomeres will be particularly helpful in mice, while the extent to which it will help humans is likely to be less.  Similarly, rodents are susceptible to oxidative damage to a greater degree than humans, thus it is extremely unlikely that c60oo would provide anything close to a 90% increase in median human lifespan.  I think it's great that Church is interested in life extension and hope that he makes a big effort here, but our expectations should be tempered by reality.

 

niner...  Even though I ingest C60-OO daily, I must not have been paying attention when the study was published demonstrating that the Mechanism of Action in the Moussa study was relief from oxidative damage. Would you mind providing a link to the study demonstrating the MoA in a way that is as conclusive as the Blasco study? Thanks...



#16 nowayout

  • Guest
  • 2,946 posts
  • 439
  • Location:Earth

Posted 08 December 2015 - 10:57 AM

 

“I think we are very close. I think the world is close, so long as we don’t have a setback,” he says. “The extension of life span is quite dramatic in model organisms … it would be amazing in humans.”

 

Oh really?  Which lab animals.  Specifically, which higher vertebrates?

 

Must be "unpublished work," because there is no published experimental higher vertebrate model of "dramatic" (or even any) maximum lifespan extension except CR, which works in some animal models and not in others.  But we have known about CR for, what, a century already?  

 

And "dramatic" in model organisms with short lifespans most of the time translates not to "amazing" but to "disappointing" in animals that already have long lifespans.  Even the old CR, effective in some rodent models (though not others) appears to be a dud when imposed on lab primates. 


Edited by nowayout, 08 December 2015 - 10:59 AM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#17 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 13 December 2015 - 02:20 PM

Alright,   @alc   :)

 

I stop pooh-poohing lol. 

 

 

@ seivtcho - I'm pretty much sure you were not the one pooh-poohing ... don't worry ... I was referring to certain people that always look and mention just certain/ or parts of studies, ignoring or simply making erroneous comments on studies that do not line up with their apriori principles.

 

One thing for sure: we cannot solve aging if we look just at things that we like or agree with it, and ignoring the others. This is not an essay for literature where we put together nice words.

 

Regardless, sciences moves on and we will see more studies coming up.


 

Below, I'll start a list with questions for George Church's Lab on Age Reversal Project.

 

I have a question: What markers and metrics do they use to measure the return to a "youthful" phenotype?

 

 

@ corb - thanks, I'm starting to prepare a list with questions. This one is on the list.



#18 ceridwen

  • Guest
  • 1,292 posts
  • 102

Member Away
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 December 2015 - 05:20 PM

Perhaps he is referring to Sinclair's mice? That's what I thought when I read it. Thought he'd been reading about NR so nothing we don't already know.
@nowayout

#19 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 13 December 2015 - 05:37 PM

@alc ,

how exactly do you imagine immortality through CRISPR? 


  • Enjoying the show x 1

#20 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 19 December 2015 - 03:47 AM

@ seivtcho -

 

CRISPR/cas9 is becoming a very important player in the reverse aging field.

 

Just want to mention that actually what we see now it is just the tip of the iceberg, and in fact there are (probably) new technologies lining up, technologies that will (probably) deliver

more and at higher efficiency.

 

Here is what Feng Zhang's lab is doing:

 

Alternative CRISPR system could improve genome editing

 

http://www.nature.co...editing-1.18432

 

New CRISPR Protein Slices through Genomes, Patent Problems

 

http://www.technolog...atent-problems/

 

and his lab @ MIT:

 

http://zlab.mit.edu/team.html

 

 

 

 

Anyway, going back to your question, CRISPR can deliver a lot for human improvements that will make us look like "immortals", but probably not 100% .

 

That is because, if you drop an atomic bomb on me (if I were one that I undergo a CRISPR somatic "upgrade") I'm supposed to withstand the nuclear blast. And probably we cannot achieve that as of now using CRISPR.

 

Though, on the web, there are already people discussing about human enhancements using CRISPR that allow us to withstand high levels of radiation ( a dream from Cold War era), or able to see UV, or FIR, improving bone strength, change skin to be immune to  UV damage, etc.

 

Long story short: I think all these are achievable (I'm in the same line of thought with George Church), and sooner or later, people will do all of them.

 

A lot of us will become like tardigrades (Tardigrada macrobiotus):

 

http://www.bbc.com/e...nimals-on-earth

 

http://www.extremete...ave-foreign-dna

 

 

But to achieve immortality, we need to be more like "liquid metal" which support information and also you cannot destroy me via physical interaction.

 

First I like to become young again via a robust rejuvenation, then in time hopefully we'll see the full immortality coming along.

 

 

 

 


  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1

#21 Kalliste

  • Guest
  • 1,147 posts
  • 158

Posted 19 December 2015 - 07:41 AM

If gene edits can be used to legitimize rejuvenation that is good enough for me. There seems to be enough pop culture gene-editing for most people to quickly accept it. It will open the door to true repair treatments.


  • Agree x 3

#22 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2016 - 03:17 AM

Here a short piece of media with George Church on Stephen Colbert show:

 



#23 Danail Bulgaria

  • Guest
  • 2,212 posts
  • 421
  • Location:Bulgaria

Posted 09 January 2016 - 11:52 AM

@ seivtcho -

 

CRISPR/cas9 is becoming a very important player in the reverse aging field.

....

 

Anyway, going back to your question, .....

 

First I like to become young again via a robust rejuvenation, then in time hopefully we'll see the full immortality coming along.

 

Alright. How exactly CRISPR will rejuvenate you?

 

Do you mean that it will edit all broken genes in your body?

 

Fine, but how? There are many cells in your body. How the changes will be applied to all cels?



#24 alc

  • Topic Starter
  • Validating/Suspended
  • 208 posts
  • 102
  • Location:Columbus, OH
  • NO

Posted 09 January 2016 - 02:08 PM

"How exactly CRISPR will rejuvenate you?" 

 

 

... just do a Google search and you will find the answer ...


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

Click HERE to rent this GENETICS advertising spot to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#25 albedo

  • Guest
  • 2,063 posts
  • 732
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 22 June 2016 - 08:52 AM

An interview (by Greg Fahy) to George Church on CRISPR and Aging in the last LEF magazine:

 

Human Age Reversal at Harvard University

http://www.lifeexten...16/CRISPR/index







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: george church, crispr

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users