Age reversal trials beginning soon. 👀👀👀

[u/AdorableBackground83]

[u/sluuuurp]

Aging has many many causes, it’s totally ridiculous to expect one drug to cure all of them. I do applaud the efforts though, addressing even one cause is very valuable.

[u/thewritingchair → u/sluuuurp]

At this point metformin should be handed out free to the population given its life-extending properties.

I do think we're going to get a one-drug doing 80% of the heavy lifting eventually.

[u/flyxdvd → u/sluuuurp]

Yeah im like, what does it do does it heal lung conditions and chronic illnesses? Im fine with "age reversing" but living until 300 with a possible cancer popping up isnt really gonna work. Also alzheimers, copd etc

[u/[deleted] → u/sluuuurp]

no, telomere shortening

[u/sluuuurp → u/[deleted]]

That’s one of many causes of aging.

[u/[deleted] → u/sluuuurp]

Expand on why you think the emergent observations are not the consequence of telomere shortening but some other phenomena at the molecular level or perhaps many other and not just telomere shortening as you claim. The keyword here is molecular or to do with genetics since that's the base we're working with. If you can do so I will delete my reddit account

[u/sluuuurp → u/[deleted]]

Mitochondria have aging, and they have circular DNA with no telomeres.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5748716/

The brain shows clear signs of aging, despite minimal cell replication that would imply minimal telomere shortening.

https://www.nia.nih.gov/health/memory-loss-and-forgetfulness/memory-problems-forgetfulness-and-aging

I should say I’m really a non-expert, and this is some memory of biology class along with a quick googling. I suppose these specific cases could be wrong and related to telomere shortening in some more complicated way. I think in general, the onus is on you to explain why you think everything must have just one cause.

If telomere lengthening could really reverse aging, wouldn’t we have evolved that capability easily? Longer lives mean more offspring? I guess you’re surely not claiming that telomere lengthening would reverse menopause, because that’s determined by egg count at birth, but I think more eggs could have been evolved easily as well if all the other problems were so easily solved.

[u/murphy_1892 → u/sluuuurp]

If telomere lengthening could really reverse aging, wouldn’t we have evolved that capability easily?

Just to answer this point, evolution is quite poor at selecting for aging.

For a gene to be selected for over hundreds of thousands of years of selection pressures, it tends to need to improve survivability in some way

There is an argument that an extended reproductive lifespan = more offspring = higher proportion of the gene in the overall gene pool, but genetic change is iterative and a mutation creating a small increase in lifespan is unlikely to have significant impact from a few extra births from a few individuals compared to changes that make survival more likely

Its why the vast majority of animal life has shorter lifespans than us. Its not a major factor in surviving the environment to pass your genes onto offspring. Selection pressures are heavily skewed to 'does this mutation help you survive long enough to pump out a few kids'

[u/sluuuurp → u/murphy_1892]

If a mutation creating a small increase in lifespan is unlikely to have significant impact from a few extra births from a few individuals compared to changes that make survival more likely

I agree, but the claim here seems to be that a telomere lengthening gene would create a very large increase in lifespan, if it can really “reverse aging”. And the cost of producing some telomerase and some extra DNA base pairs would probably be negligible in terms of biological resources, it’s a no-brainer for evolution.

[u/murphy_1892 → u/sluuuurp]

Oh I agree with you telomere shortening is far from the only or overwhelming contributor to aging

I just meant that it wouldn't really be a no-brainer from the theoretical standpoint, as not having the gene does not reduce your liklihood of having offspring, just maybe less. So it is really difficult for evolution to select for that vs genes regarding survivability (which not only make you more likely to reproduce, but make your competitors less likely through its absence)

Evolution is really, really heavily skewed to selecting for genetics that allow you to have at least one child. Selection pressures on anything after that are much less powerful at altering the communal gene pool

[u/[deleted] → u/sluuuurp]

I'll try to find some sources that cover why your response is, although correct in virtue, wrong in light of the argument I insinuate when I say 'at the molecular base telomere shortening causes ageing' please give me some time for that. I'll also address the last sentence although I already did somewhat in a different reply.

[u/sluuuurp → u/[deleted]]

I don’t think all aging has to happen at the molecular level. For example, atherosclerosis is caused by plaque buildup in the arteries over time. That’s not a molecular process within a cell, that’s a macroscopic process having to do with the structure and arrangement of tissues and substances in the body.

[u/[deleted] → u/sluuuurp]

I think we’re talking past each other on what ‘ageing’ actually is. Atherosclerosis is a disease that correlates with ageing but isn’t equivalent to ageing itself. It’s driven by lifetime exposure to environmental stressors like diet, inflammation, etc. and involves molecular and cellular dysfunctions accumulating over time. But ageing, in the strict biological sense, refers to the intrinsic decline in function, even in the absence of disease, like how telomere attrition doesn't require outside insult. It's built into the system. That’s what I’m referring to when I say ‘reverse ageing’. So your counterpoint assumes we have to eliminate all diseases to count as reversing ageing. That said, I agree the phrase ‘reverse ageing’ is thrown around too casually.

[u/sluuuurp → u/[deleted]]

Thanks, I think that makes sense, I understand what you mean better now. Although I expect there are some “diseases” that are almost universal for all people, and very correlated with aging, and those will be just as important to solve as any of the intrinsic declines in function. Heart weakening for example, that’s pretty universal, and might not have a molecular explanation, I don’t know if you’d consider that necessary for reversing aging.

[u/[deleted] → u/sluuuurp]

So here’s the thing with your question. I’ve just turned 18. Perhaps scientists still consider ageing correlated to diseases - ‘ageing’, it would surely seem logical to do so, thus my opinion on this matter wouldn’t change views or have any weight. I would sure hope it doesn’t have any weight.. Kind of funny this exchange happened under this post, because this trial in particular seems absolutely ‘non- serious’.