All:
You will not be surprised to learn that we've several inquiries put to Dr. de Grey and/or Dr. O'Connor who heads our mitochondrial mutations obviation lab at SENS Research Foundation . It also roused significant interest on FightAging! and other Forums. I'm not terribly impressed with the science underlying the main findings in the report, the analysis is worse (Aubrey notes this albeit in severely compressed form in his comment quoted above), and as niner suspects the concentrations of glycine they used for the cell culture study required are much higher than the physiological range -- high enough that they would be life-threatening if they are even achievable.
The Aβ and α-synuclein vaccines are in clinical trials now; Cosmicalstorm already noted the senolytics, and other groups are pursuing senescent cell ablation technologies; the catalytic TTR-cleaving antibodies under development with Foundation funding are looking very promising; we're no longer the only group pursuing microbial xenohydrolases as a regenerative therapy against atherosclerosis; stem cell therapy is finally starting to look like it's delivering real treatments in humans. The key point is that you do have to develop the technology to test it — and whether 'foreseeable' means three decades or ten depends on our coming together to push for them.
The things on the SENS list were originally coauthored by Dr. de Grey — who, along with his computer science degree, has a PhD in biology from Cambridge University for work on (wait for it!) the role of mitochondria in aging — along with several distinguished coauthors, and buttressed by subsequent collaborations in SENS roundtables and the progress in the field as a whole.
First, there no need for the "mitochondrial mutations obviation" project, since, contrary to de Grey's old and failed hypothesis, mitochondrial mutations do NOT accumulate with age. I am aware that long time ago, based on the insufficient data, de Grey proposed that, once damaged, mitochondria should not be able to signal/initiate mitophagy that would take them out. He reasoned that this should lead to accumulation of dysfunctional mitochondria, resulting "in the metabolic derangement of aging and in accelerating the course of the degenerative aging process as a whole" -- as you write on the site. Though it has become apparent years ago --a decade?-- that there are other ways that maintain mitochondrial quality, SENS has apparently remained oblivious of these findings. On the page that you linked it is still stated that accumulation of mitochondrial mutations with age is "inevitable", as if it was a fact. Turns out, it's not.
Now even de Grey himself states that "it has long been very obvious that mito dysfunction in the elderly is hardly at all caused by mutations".
Has long been very obvious? -- why would then SENS still finance the project whose specific goal is to express mitochondrial genes allotopically in order "to provide the necessary proteins even when mutations have compromised the mtDNA’s ability to do so"? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for this very interesting research -- it only came up à propos to Reason's frequent laments that limited resources are being wasted on basic research instead of going for more practical "solutions".
Second, was not this failed mitochondrial hypothesis at core of de Grey's publications, for which he got his
honorary PhD? (and, incidentally, didn't him getting this honor also coincide with his generous donation to Cambridge?) But the point here is not whether his education makes him "qualified". Biology is not rocket science. ..though it does require a solid base. Unfortunately, that de Grey does not have such a base shines through in his talks and SENS publications. Surely you understand that, if only this was not the case, the question of his education would never even come up! His advocacy efforts are praiseworthy and one could even make a case for his bold, on the border with wackiness, "solutions", along with his beard of course, being a great PR gimmick. The problems only start when some lay people confuse his advocacy efforts with science.
Third, re Aβ and α-synuclein vaccines, not only are they "in clinical trials
now", but, as far as I know, at least one such trial has already completed --and!-- though it successfully "ablated" the amyloid from the brains of the AD patients, not only this failed to ameliorate their condition but instead, it appears, hastened their demise. ..which is not particularly surprising in the light of the ever-gaining popularity idea that amyloids are actually accumulations of antimicrobial peptides (a part of the innate immune response to an infection).
Incidentally, were not you the one who came up with idea for a therapy that would preferentially kill "useless T-cells" that specialize in "non-dangerous viruses"? This craziness is still actively promoted by Reason; and this is precisely what makes one question the education of SENS leaders and their supporters.
Imagine! Medicine might have side-effects!
In any case, interventions that act by removing cellular and molecular damage (which is, by definition, deleterious) rather than interfering with regulating metabolic pathways (which are, by definition, essential to life), are by their intrinsic nature less likely to lead to side-effects.
I admit I can't fathom the "intrinsic nature" of such interventions (don't say, nano-machines?) I can't imagine messing with the complexity of an organism --that has been optimizing its functions for hundreds of millions of years-- without inadvertently affecting its essential metabolic pathways. But please do tell us about this "intrinsic nature". I'm all ears
Edited by xEva, 31 May 2015 - 11:16 PM.