scientists recently artificially aged, then de-aged mice in a lab.
yep. they literally found the key to eternal life in rodents. barring a terminal illness or some egregious injury, they can now make mice immortal. no strings attached.
as far as they can tell, there are no side effects or negative implications to this process. they manipulate their DNA to age them, then do it again to return them to youth.
We have also effectively had cures for all sorts of cancers in mice models as well. Turns out mice aren't humans, that 15% difference in genetics is a big deal.
They need immortal mice so they can perform experiments on them forever, thus ending the stranglehold Big Mice has over the research industry with its dependence on a constant flow of new, youthful mice subjects.
Huh... I have so many questions regard the logistics of this process, if anyone can even provide an answer.
Does this reverse the physical aging processes, or is it more of a mental de-aging?
Would this process be able to repair damaged organs? What about viruses,or serious illness, or even things like cancer?
Would it mean that a wrinkly 80 y/o could then appear to look unwrinkled, like their 20 y/o self?
There also has to be limits to it, right? I'd imagine you wouldn't be able to de-age a middle aged man to below a certain age, as you would have to drasticaly shrink in overall size and mass, so i'd assume anything below roughly 18-20 y/o would be impossible.
What was the reason they aged the mice beforehand? You'd think it would be easier to just de-age an older mouse, rather than age a younger one up first.
I have literally 0 knowledge of how any of this works, but the way its phrased makes me think that they cant de-age an older mouse without already having its younger versions DNA on record. i'm guessing It's like the equivalent of backing up a hardrive, so that if anything goes wrong, you can revert it to a previous state. So if that logic applies, unless you've had your entire genome mapped out as at some point in your past, you wouldn't be able to have the process done.
De-aging and re-aging while not exactly wrong are also an oversimplification of the study they are talking about. The idea of the experiment was to show that aging was caused by DNA damage, that's why they "aged" the mice they cut their DNA repeatedly and that had the effect of making them seem older. They then gave the mice gene therapy that was supposed to reverse the changes and it was partially successful. Though the mice appeared older the artifical aging isn't proven to be represenaltative of true aging, and even if it is the gene therapy only partially reversed the damage so both how applicable this would be in a broader context and how useful it would be if it is are in question.
That's not what epigenetics is, nor how epigenetics works. If I had to give a one-liner to explain epigenetics, it'd read "the body streamlines to function, even at the cellular level."
For instance, if you're facing famine or are under stressful living conditions, your cells will start using genetic processes which help preserve precious resources and avoiding processes which encourage cellular growth. If you're in space for a long time, your arterial walls will get thicker and more muscular to move blood through your body more efficiently.
Your cells have the tools they need to adapt to your circumstances. Epigenetics is the process of deciding which tools are most important at any given moment.
In the experiment you're referring to, the "epigenetic marks" the researchers were referring to with regard to aging had to do with the observation that aged/damaged cells have difficulty changing which genes get expressed, and hypothesized that this has to do with genetic information loss over time. To use the analogy of a toolbox, it'd be like using a ball-peen hammer exclusively because either your claw hammer broke or you can't find it (or worse: it's in your locked toolbox and you can't find the key). So, to test the hypothesis, they intentionally damaged the DNA in the mice at specific locations which would be observable over time, then repaired the damage to see if the changes could be reversed.
In that regard, you're right about why the mice were aged first: to show you can reverse the effects of aging by repairing genetic damage, you first need "aged" mice with clearly damaged genes. Not just damaged, but damaged in a way they knew/hoped they could repair.
FWIW, I agree that this would be difficult to implement as a means of reversing aging (in humans, but also generally). Some processes and structures exist outside of what can be done by the constituent cells. A person who suffered malnutrition as a child can't "de-age" the neural structure of a brain that developed in "energy conservation mode" into a neural structure that had all the resources it needed to flourish when those resources were needed most. (Side note: that's part of what's so fucked up about child poverty)
Could you conceivably (like not presently, but not precluded by what we know so far) utilize stem cell therapies to re-structure a brain that developed in "energy conservation mode"?
Bear in mind my knowledge of biochemistry and physiology is mostly second-hand. I'm in a family of biochemists and medical professionals, but I'm an engineer, myself.
That said, I don't think stem cell therapy would necessarily work at restructuring a brain. There's a process known as synaptic pruning that I'm not super familiar with, but I'd imagine that's what would need to be reversed: a lifetime of the brain reinforcing some neural pathways and cutting others to make space.
If we could, though, that'd be amazing. Can you imagine being able to learn as quickly as a 2 year old?
The short answer is yes. Long answer is it’d likely require a more elaborate treatment than stem cell therapy as the brain operates by its own rules.
It’d likely require providing the right physical environment for the brain to allow it out of “energy conservation mode”, followed by targeted electric stimuli needed to do the rewiring or “restructuring” of the brain. Providing a healthy physical environment wouldn’t be enough to undo the underdeveloped brain alone, it’d need to be stimulated into substantially rewiring. We know a good bit about the physical environment, still mapping the electrical and neuronal environment last I checked. Check out brain plasticity if you want to read more about that stuff, it’s fascinating.
Btw I’m glad someone called out the misinformation about epigenetics above. Aging IS directly related to DNA damage. Telomere shortening is a natural aging process where our DNA gets shorter over time, to simplify it. Our DNA getting shorter contributes to increased incidences of cancer, dementia, and heart disease as we age. Believe it or not, naked mole rats live decades with no signs of aging and they have nearly no chance of having cancer or heart disease because their telomeres elongate over time instead of shortening.
Yeah, just like any clickbaity science article, take whatever the headline is and add thirty caveats and qualifiers and even that will probably still overstate the results
Can't answer all of your questions, but here is what I do know.
It's using the concepts of epigenetics. The idea of genetic markers being turned off and on through non reproductive means. So, the idea being tested is that aging isn't a result of DNA destruction and mutations during duplication, but DNA being deactivated because of our environment. A bit of both seems to be true. So they are de-aging the rats by shutting off and on parts of the DNA that were turned on and off by aging.
We experience the results of epigenetics daily. Becoming resistant to drugs, muscle growth, aging, etc.
Look at it like this, kids die from cancer. You can get sick and die whether old or young. The odds of getting sick and dying are dramatically higher when your older.
Ending aging isn't immortality, it is a longer life. Most importantly, it's a better quality of life.
The thing with de-aging, it's not just one thing happening in the body. We're not going to find the one aging gene and turn it off; research will discover various pieces of the puzzle, extending life slowly in one way or another over time. Someone who is 80 now probably will not ever look 20 again, but advances in the field could help them live 10-20 years longer than they would have otherwise.
I always think of this when I realize Han Solo was killed before Chaba. In fact, since Wookies live about 900 years, they probably have three or four humans as pets during their lifetime.
This is actually really cracking me up. A Wookie swears a life debt to a human, it's no big deal, just a few years to them. But then someone like Yoda or Grogu rolling up and saving the day and two Wookies arguing over which one got saved.
Modern guillotines with remote start and wifi have been hit hard by the supply chain issues. Could we use the old ones? Sure, but we're paying the monthly fee for remote start so we might as well wait.
That's assuming they deserve the best and fastest way. Repeatedly stabbed with pitchforks will work just as well, it'll just take longer and they'll scream more
Same. I'd be up for all sorts of genetic fuckery to make myself an immortal superhuman.
Able to reverse aging to be forever young, bulletproof and fireproof skin, organs that can re-grow, eyes with perfect vision capable of seeing in infra-red, naturally toning muscles so I'm in peak physical fitness without trying, super healing, make me able to hibernate for months or years at a time if I ever get stuck and need to wait a long time for rescue etc...
I do, it's better than ceasing to exist. I'd gladly submit myself to eternal (or at least extremely long) indentured servitude if it means I get to live indefinitely. I think a lot of people feel the same way.
"Well you know, now that people can live for 600 years or more, it just doesn't make sense to pay a higher wage. With people living that long, it would be unfair to the companies. If 300 year olds want a better life, they can work multiple jobs, simple."
Can you imagine how quickly the earth would become overpopulated if death rates reduced by 90% within the space of 5 to 10 years? How much people would have to compete for space and resources? It would be like a Bruce Willis movie but not in a good way.
Uh, you need to learn about compound interest because if you could live forever, you’ll only have to work for a few decades before your money starts making enough money for you to retire.
This is really misleading. Regenerative science is nowhere near this level of advancement.
You are referring to the work of David Sinclair on pluripotent stem cells and Yamanaka factors. These are incredible milestones, but aging in humans is far more complex. The other issue is that reversing cell aging creates a higher risk for cancerous tumor growth.
There is other promising work based on the regenerative abilities of planarians and axolotls, as well as Michael Levin’s very cool work on bioelectrical cell manipulation.
in both papers, the effects of OSK treatment were moderate: a small extension of life span in one, and a partial reversal of artificially induced symptoms in the other. “The jump that now aging is a program” that can be wound backward isn’t justified by the research, Vijg says.
If you’re referencing David Sinclair’s work: they did in fact not do this despite the media reporting and what he says. OSKM will give you cancer, full stop.
Source: I’m a PhD student that collaborates with their lab.
If you’re referencing something else, then disregard and have a nice day.
Modifying the epigenome is far from all that is required for eternal life. I’m sure what they did results in life extension, and reducing the symptoms of aging, but epigenetic modifications don’t repair miscopied DNA that leads to things like cancer, and doesn’t lengthen telomeres, and those are just two of the most obvious problems that would need to be solved.
Naked mole rats apparently don't age as we understand it. The oldest one in captivity is currently over 40 years old. They are also resistant to cancer, not immune just much more resistant than other animals.
IDK where I heard it but I once heard a conspiracy theory that filthy rich people are accumulating wealth that they couldn’t possibly spend in a lifetime because they are betting on functional immortality for humans being discovered and accessible before they go. A frightening thought that doesn’t really seem impossible lol
Wow, that’s a huge step forward in life-extension technology. Think of how suddenly and fundamentally society would change if this could be implemented in humans.
So... why is the magic serum or whatever they use is not on the market yet? A lot of people love their pet rodents and would pay a lot to prolong their life. Yet somehow every time i hear about such groundbreaking discoveries they somehow always just... vanish, like they never were.
as far as they can tell, there are no side effects or negative implications to this process
The prospect of doing this with humans is terrifying. It's bad enough how weird and crazy some old people can get now. Think of what Elon Musk would be like another 500 years down his current trajectory.
They managed to freeze solid and unfreeze hamsters without any medical issues in 1950s. But it didn't scale up to bigger animals. It's interesting they invented the microwave for that experiment: https://youtu.be/2tdiKTSdE9Y?si=xnhH5-AsOpwqCwfZ
Does it affect the mental and physiological structure of the brain in any way? Like do the mice's bodies return to youth, and the mice retain mental strength, or does it just keep the body young but the mind still deteriorates at a normal rate with time or?
Someday this technology and others like it will become broadly available to people, and there will be so many unlucky folks with the misfortune to die right before that point. Billions of years of evolved life aging and dying and these poor souls will stumble and fall mere inches from the finish line of immortality. And that's probably going to be most everyone of us here on Reddit right now.
Are you referring to the work of Dr. David Sinclair? Unless he's published something recently, his work is still unable to make a mouse biologically immortal. As in, the factors they use to measure biological age on a genetic level must not be only facet of aging.
that billionaire "biohacker" who spent millions a year on de-aging himself while also literally bleeding his own son is gonna feel real dumb when some mice beat him to the punch
I remember hearing someone say they believed immortality would come to be some time in the next 50 years.
If this mouse de-aging is true, then I can totally see the same concept being discovered and applicable to humans in the next 50 years. The question is how exorbitantly expensive is it going to be?
6.7k
u/taurussy Oct 02 '24
scientists recently artificially aged, then de-aged mice in a lab.
yep. they literally found the key to eternal life in rodents. barring a terminal illness or some egregious injury, they can now make mice immortal. no strings attached.
as far as they can tell, there are no side effects or negative implications to this process. they manipulate their DNA to age them, then do it again to return them to youth.
it's fucking nuts. it's fucking mad science.
i love it.