3 replies to this topic

[VidX]

I've created one topic on this (.M.R.Rose presentation) that's why I state "One more time"). It's really a brilliant in depth review for these who hasn't still had a chance to delve into this (talks about CR, sirtuins, sens too..)
I kind of get back to this type of viewpoint again and again as it makes a lot of sense from all "angles". Though if that's true (and it seems so) then we have a completely informational type of problem to solve, regarding halting aging. I'm not sure yet whether it's good or bad news for us, that are still alive and want to keep going (esp. as by present knowledge it seems that even success in finding the right tools to halt aging/continue health span means that they shoudl be applied until about 40yo - the approx. mark of an end of a reproduction in a human. Though it's way too early to say whether these tools would be completely useless in "reversing aging" so it may be not so bad, time will show..) .



_{Abstract
Aging is not simply an accumulation of damage or inappropriate higher-order signaling, though it does secondarily involve both of these subsidiary mechanisms. Rather, aging occurs because of the extensive absence of adaptive genomic information required for survival to, and function at, later adult ages, due to the declining forces of natural selection during adult life. This absence of information then secondarily leads to misallocations and damage at every level of biological organization. But the primary problem is a failure of adaptation at later ages. Contemporary proposals concerning means by which human aging can be ended or cured which are based on simple signaling or damage theories will thus reliably fail. Strategies based on reverse-engineering age-extended adaptation using experimental evolution and genomics offer the prospect of systematically greater success.}



Full text:
http://www.impactagi...ull/100053.html

Edited by VidX, 13 August 2010 - 05:20 PM.

[AgeVivo]

Very nice, indeed. Everyone: free access, if you have 15 minutes, read it briefly!

http://www.impactaging.com/
"Open-Acess Impact Journal on Aging"
this new Journal look very good!

[Elus]

I've created one topic on this (.M.R.Rose presentation) that's why I state "One more time"). It's really a brilliant in depth review for these who hasn't still had a chance to delve into this (talks about CR, sirtuins, sens too..)
I kind of get back to this type of viewpoint again and again as it makes a lot of sense from all "angles". Though if that's true (and it seems so) then we have a completely informational type of problem to solve, regarding halting aging. I'm not sure yet whether it's good or bad news for us, that are still alive and want to keep going (esp. as by present knowledge it seems that even success in finding the right tools to halt aging/continue health span means that they shoudl be applied until about 40yo - the approx. mark of an end of a reproduction in a human. Though it's way too early to say whether these tools would be completely useless in "reversing aging" so it may be not so bad, time will show..) .



_{Abstract
Aging is not simply an accumulation of damage or inappropriate higher-order signaling, though it does secondarily involve both of these subsidiary mechanisms. Rather, aging occurs because of the extensive absence of adaptive genomic information required for survival to, and function at, later adult ages, due to the declining forces of natural selection during adult life. This absence of information then secondarily leads to misallocations and damage at every level of biological organization. But the primary problem is a failure of adaptation at later ages. Contemporary proposals concerning means by which human aging can be ended or cured which are based on simple signaling or damage theories will thus reliably fail. Strategies based on reverse-engineering age-extended adaptation using experimental evolution and genomics offer the prospect of systematically greater success.}



Full text:
http://www.impactagi...ull/100053.html

This sounds like the "improving on evolution" approach that Aubrey de Grey was hoping to avoid when he implemented the engineering approach in SENS. I'll take a closer look, though, thanks.

EDIT: Also, does he show anywhere how the "derelictions of function at many different levels of biological organization" do not fit into one of the seven types of damage that de Grey proposes?

Edited by Elus, 13 August 2010 - 09:11 PM.

[VidX]

This sounds like the "improving on evolution" approach that Aubrey de Grey was hoping to avoid when he implemented the engineering approach in SENS. I'll take a closer look, though, thanks.

EDIT: Also, does he show anywhere how the "derelictions of function at many different levels of biological organization" do not fit into one of the seven types of damage that de Grey proposes?

Well there's a part about SENS and basically what he says is that from the point of "lack of adaptation of genome" ("program" kind of "stops" there and starts to go wacko, as there weren't evolutionary pressure to develop it further in a human specie) MANY stuff goes wrong, many interconnected stuff that affects each other and so on, so beating all these little and big genetic programs at work to a 7 causes is.. well - over optimistic (BUT I'm sure that getting to solve these would add to the "bridge to the escape velocity" greatly).
What appeals to me is that his theories are a real science in a sense that they can be tested and the result - repeated (significant life AND HEALTH span extension).

Basically how I understand this at the moment with the knowledge that I have about it :

1.There's a COMMON mechanism of aging in basically all species (that's why we all age so similarly, be it a human or a mice). This is GOOD as it makes it easier --->

2.Easier to search for the exact mechanism on a genetic level of what when and how happens and most importantly - to see how it can be "fine tuned" by evolution itself, so we get a desired result. And as a mechanism actually MAY really be shared amongst diff. species - we can test that stuff on something as that fruit fly and apply the results to humans.

3.So a real solution (if looking from this point and assuming it's the right one) is to apply a damn complex algorhytms and computational power to understand what's happening AND then to search for a method to affect our own genome in hope to replicate that result. It almost sounds like a "Software upgrade" in our own body.

I have no idea how complicated it really is, but it seems that a powerful software that can analyse the software in our DNA is needed and then... Gene therapies? Some "simple" biochemical interventions? ... who knows..


The best part is that we are talking about an EFFECTIVE functioning of an organism, not a trade off of some sort as we can witness in almost all practical or theoretical methods of tweaking this or that gene/pathway to date.


Dude with a thread about reprogramming the methylation patterns (http://www.imminst.o...-reprogramming/) has hit the nail (theoretically) in a sense that if it'd be possible to "wind back" the sequence of gene expressions (and again, and again, in other words - on demand) maybe we wouldn't even need to upgrade our soft with a new instructions. Obviously - I have no idea how realistic is that, just a thought.

Edited by VidX, 13 August 2010 - 10:48 PM.