Jump to content
VickyRN VickyRN (New Member) New Member

Purging Cells in Mice Is Found to Combat Aging Ills

Aging   (1,142 Views 5 Comments)
article_pluralized; 130,056 Visitors; 2,885 Posts
If you find this topic helpful leave a comment.

fascinating article (11/3/2011) in the nyt:

in a potentially fundamental advance, researchers have opened up a novel approach to combating the effects of aging with the discovery that a special category of cells, known as senescent cells, are bad actors that promote the aging of the tissues. cleansing the body of the cells, they hope, could postpone many of the diseases of aging. the findings raise the prospect that any therapy that rids the body of senescent cells would protect it from the ravages of aging. but many more tests will be needed before scientists know if drugs can be developed to help people live longer.

senescent cells accumulate in aging tissues, like arthritic knees, cataracts and the plaque that may line elderly arteries. the cells secrete agents that stimulate the immune system and cause low-level inflammation. until now, there has been no way to tell if the presence of the cells is good, bad or indifferent. the answer turns out to be that the cells hasten aging in the tissues in which they accumulate. in a delicate feat of genetic engineering, a research team led by darren j. baker and jan m. van deursen at the mayo clinic in rochester, minn., has generated a strain of mouse in which all the senescent cells can be purged by giving the mice a drug that forces the cells to self-destruct.

rid of the senescent cells, the mayo clinic researchers reported online wednesday in the journal nature, the mice’s tissues showed a major improvement in the usual burden of age-related disorders. they did not develop cataracts, avoided the usual wasting of muscle with age, and could exercise much longer on a mouse treadmill. they retained the fat layers in the skin that usually thin out with age and, in people, cause wrinkling. “i am very excited by the results,” said dr. norman e. sharpless, an expert on aging at the university of north carolina. “it suggests therapies that might work in real patients,” he said....

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/science/senescent-cells-hasten-aging-but-can-be-purged-mouse-study-suggests.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23&pagewanted=print

what do you think? will it be possible some day to rid our body of aging cells to expand our "health span?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Fascinating article (11/3/2011) in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/03/science/senescent-cells-hasten-aging-but-can-be-purged-mouse-study-suggests.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha23&pagewanted=print

What do you think? Will it be possible some day to rid our body of aging cells to expand our "Health Span?"

I am sure it will become available for a huge price. Probably one would have to go to Europe because it will get hung up in the FDA, or DEA, or some other fed. regulatory agency.

I wonder if we could get Medicare to pay for it since it would decrease ongoing medical costs. (she asks with tongue firmly in cheek) Talk about draining Social Security!

Personally I could go for a body not aging so miserably, but have no desire to hang around too long. I just read my life expectancy is 80.5 years. Not sure I want to hang out that long even.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First thought: Mice don't live long :D

Second thought: Humans are designed with an expiration date AEB all of those dudes in the history books. I'm not so sure all of the medical technology for temporary things are all that great either (jmo). Messing with nature isn't necessarily a LONG TERM positive.

Folks are s'posed to croak- helping with an illness that results in independent functioning is one thing; prolonging life to extend the technical status of "alive" is something else. :up:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally I could go for a body not aging so miserably, but have no desire to hang around too long. I just read my life expectancy is 80.5 years. Not sure I want to hang out that long even.

oh gosh, i'm with you kath.

i have no problem with preserving health, and avoiding the pitfalls that can come with aging.

still, i think our (natural) life span is more than sufficient and wouldn't care to go beyond that.

what purpose would it serve?

as it stands, our alleged 'tasks' (marrying, family, volunteering, work, fellowship, etc) carry us through our lives...

and there's a reason why we pass the torch when we're old.

i can't see any immediate purpose to live, just for the sake of living, at the age of 92.:twocents:

i think some researchers have their priorities wrong.

leslie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd rather they find something to fix progeria ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
×