How long will the worms live?

See here or here for background.

Nason Schooler is testing to what extent lipofuscin accumulation affects lifespan and using lasers to find out. IF lipofuscin is the key type of cellular junk that clogs up the clean-up and turnover machinery of the cell, and IF the laser treatment successfully removes lipofuscin, then one would think there should be an effect on lifespan.

Make your guess-timation as to how much longer (or shorter) the treated worms will live vs. controls. C. elegans lifespan is often quoted at 2 to 3 weeks. 14 to 21 days - so let us say 17.5 days. So for example, a 50% increase in lifespan would be an increase of 8.75 days, making the total lifespan 26.25 days.

For the purposes of this poll - let us guesstimate for the group of worms that are getting just 1 pulse of the laser. (there is a second group getting 3 pulses)

I admit, I don't know much about c. elegans, however, I am optimistic there will be a benefit to worm lifespan. I voted 5 to 9% lifespan increase.

This should be especially interesting for those taking carnosine or beta-alanine which has been proposed, with no recent research and likely not very much evidence, as a lipofuscin precursor. Still, a harmful effect would be something to consider, especially for those taking grams of beta-alanine each day in order to increase sports performance.
http://www.imminst.o...o...=0&p=165385

Edited by Blue, 15 November 2009 - 08:16 PM.

Guessing the lifespan change in the worms was of course supposed to be a revenue generating raffle, but I couldn't get enough information on the legality of it from Alabama and elsewhere to move forward. Sigh, maybe in the future.

Currently, I am pretty grossly clueless about the etiology of C. elegans diseases, so I've decided not to answer the poll question until I'm better informed. So if anyone could fill me in, what disease(s) usually kills these worms? Is it expected by Aubrey and others that all 7 SENS categories applies to these worms as well as humans? I tried google and wikipedia, but I could not find any relevant info. Thanks!

Edited by 31stCentury, 16 November 2009 - 03:16 AM.

Please feel free to state why you voted for increase or decrease. My reasoning is just a hunch, based on talking with Nason and a layman's understanding of lipofuscin.

Please feel free to state why you voted for increase or decrease. My reasoning is just a hunch, based on talking with Nason and a layman's understanding of lipofuscin.

Do you know when we will find out?

The testing began on November 14th. If the worms live longer than normal then it will be sometime in early December that we will find out. Get your votes in soon.

As a crude (very crude) approximation, worm aging is supposed to be a model for post-mitotic cell aging. So they tend to die from things that tissues like neurons or heart muscle die from -- lipofuscin accumulation, cell loss, mitochondrial issues, but not cancer.

As a crude (very crude) approximation, worm aging is supposed to be a model for post-mitotic cell aging. So they tend to die from things that tissues like neurons or heart muscle die from -- lipofuscin accumulation, cell loss, mitochondrial issues, but not cancer.

Thanks for the explanation

Do you know of any good sites a layman could go to to learn more about elegans' causes of death?

I don't understand. How will a laser possibly reach the areas that are critical to sustaining life function. The skin is merely one part of the organism, and it is safe to assume that the laser will affect the skin primarily. Basically, wouldn't it be the functional equivalent of a skin care treatment for C. elegans?

Can we get a little more details on the experiment? I'm confused.

EDIT: From my base assumptions above, I will assume no change in lifespan.

Edited by Elus Efelier, 23 November 2009 - 03:56 PM.

The laser can be focused to a depth of 3cm in most tissue. C. Elegans can be uniformly and completely treated with the laser because they are so small.

For humans a surface treatment down to 2 or 3 centimeters would not cover the entire volume of the body but would be a significant percentage and could perhaps generate some benefit. More important is to establish what effect if any, this treament has on aging/lifespan via lipofuscin destruction/removal.

I don't understand. How will a laser possibly reach the areas that are critical to sustaining life function. The skin is merely one part of the organism, and it is safe to assume that the laser will affect the skin primarily. Basically, wouldn't it be the functional equivalent of a skin care treatment for C. elegans?

Can we get a little more details on the experiment? I'm confused.

EDIT: From my base assumptions above, I will assume no change in lifespan.

Operate, and laser the innards.

There's a sentence I never thought I'd compose.



--Inkstersco

I don't understand. How will a laser possibly reach the areas that are critical to sustaining life function. The skin is merely one part of the organism, and it is safe to assume that the laser will affect the skin primarily. Basically, wouldn't it be the functional equivalent of a skin care treatment for C. elegans?

Can we get a little more details on the experiment? I'm confused.

EDIT: From my base assumptions above, I will assume no change in lifespan.

Operate, and laser the innards.

There's a sentence I never thought I'd compose.



--Inkstersco

LOL.

I see over 600 people have viewed this forum but only 21 votes. Unless the laser treatment creates immortal worms, the first run of this treatment will be over in a couple weeks. Get your vote in, just for fun, if nothing else.

Check here for updates; includes link to Nason's research blog.

Edited by niner, 28 November 2009 - 03:17 AM.

No data from round 1 yet ?

round 2 was supposed to start on the 25th, right ?

No data from round 1 yet ?

round 2 was supposed to start on the 25th, right ?

I think there were some problems; some of the worms got "lost". I'm not sure what that means. If you follow the links above to Nason's research blog, it's there.

No data from round 1 yet ?

round 2 was supposed to start on the 25th, right ?

I think there were some problems; some of the worms got "lost". I'm not sure what that means. If you follow the links above to Nason's research blog, it's there.

Probably they created a super-worm, so the worm just leaved. Now serious, i really expect the result for these test.

I think there were some problems; some of the worms got "lost". I'm not sure what that means. If you follow the links above to Nason's research blog, it's there.

I did, actually. The lost worms should only affect the accuracy/reliability of the data from round 1.

I would have hoped for some data, though.

I don't think round 1 is over, just that the sample size has been reduced...making the results less statistically significant. From what I read, it seems he is still treating the remaining worms.

I think there were some problems; some of the worms got "lost". I'm not sure what that means. If you follow the links above to Nason's research blog, it's there.

I did, actually. The lost worms should only affect the accuracy/reliability of the data from round 1.

I would have hoped for some data, though.

Maybe we need to wait longer until they start dying of whatever it is they die of...

Maybe we need to wait longer until they start dying of whatever it is they die of...

Maybe the treated worms are taking longer to die than expected. /optimist

The laser can be focused to a depth of 3cm in most tissue. C. Elegans can be uniformly and completely treated with the laser because they are so small.

For humans a surface treatment down to 2 or 3 centimeters would not cover the entire volume of the body but would be a significant percentage and could perhaps generate some benefit. More important is to establish what effect if any, this treament has on aging/lifespan via lipofuscin destruction/removal.

Oh, okay. Now I get it. Thanks for clearing this up. *Anxiously awaits results*


Just a question: How does a laser selectively destroy lipofuscin without damaging other tissues and cells?

Edited by Elus Efelier, 30 November 2009 - 03:21 AM.

Just a question: How does a laser selectively destroy lipofuscin without damaging other tissues and cells?

The idea is that lipofuscin has an absorbance peak at a particular frequency that healthy tissue doesn't absorb at. You irradiate the cells with that particular frequency, at an intensity that is high enough to melt or otherwise disrupt the lipofuscin, but low enough to not cause irrevocable damage to other tissue. I'm not sure how the lipofuscin gets disposed of. (Waves hands...) "and then a miracle happens". I guess I ought to read Nason's presentation again. I recall he had a cogent argument for why this would work, at least in younger organisms.

I'm not sure how the lipofuscin gets disposed of. (Waves hands...) "and then a miracle happens". I guess I ought to read Nason's presentation again. I recall he had a cogent argument for why this would work, at least in younger organisms.

I believe the lipofuscin is densely packed within lysosomes. The enzymes within the lysosome can't actually dispose of the lipofuscin because it's tightly packed. It should be possible to modulate the laser so the lipofuscin is shaken up to make it vulnerable to the lysosome's enzymes, but the cell itself is not destroyed.

Allow the cell to destroy lipofuscin, and it's "young" again, by one parameter.

Yes, Rwac that's right. This is similar to how a tattoo removal laser destroys pigment without destroying healthy tissue.

Suggestion: rather than writing his data (#alive, #deaths, #lost) every other day on some paper or excel sheet, Nason could directly post it here : we would see the lifespan curve evolve with time, and appreciate the quality/difficulties/etc of his research much better.

Just thought I would chime in briefly. I've been postponing experiment 2 so that it could be more informed by the apparently curious preliminary results from experiment 1. More on that later. I plan to 'lay eggs' for experiment 2 tomorrow or the next day. I expect experiment 1 to draw on for at least a week more before we have the final data...

Nason

Lost worms: do you find some dead ones on the border of the plates or burried inside the medium?
In the former case, I'm sure you know it but just in case: to limit the number of lost worms food should be added at the center of the plate only (not close to the borders; not too much food). In the latter case, is the solid medium broken during your analysis? (one trick could be to add some repealant in the solid medium but i don't know which one)