(Page 3 of 3)
TR: What genes do you think will be most crucial for longevity?
TP: I think genes that modulate risk for heart disease will be very important. That's still the number-one killer, even among the very old. In addition, more and more scientific studies show that fat metabolism will play a big role.
These people must certainly lack genetic variations that lead to high cholesterol or early cancer. But there might also be something protective, so-called longevity-enabling genes, especially in very old people who show no signs of disease or who have terrible health habits and yet still survive to 100 years and older. This is a very controversial idea in the field, but they may have genes that play a role in the rate of aging. If you could translate that into drugs, it would be huge. [For an in-depth look at how scientists are using longevity studies in animals to develop drugs to treat the diseases of aging, see "The Fountain of Health," March/April 2006.]
TR: Have you identified any candidate genes?
TP: We previously found that centenarians were more likely to have a certain variant of the gene for microsomal transfer protein, which plays a role in packaging cholesterol. However, subsequent studies have had different results. One study confirmed the findings, while a few others did not. That shows how important it is to confirm results in different populations and suggests that the importance of various genetic longevity factors varies from one population to another.
TR: Previous studies in animals suggest that caloric restriction is one of the most effective ways to extend life. Is this a factor in your studies?
TP: Male centenarians are almost always lean. But there is no evidence that they had low calorie intakes compared to the average for their birth cohort, certainly not to the degree that would be analogous to calorie-restriction diets in primates and mice. Interestingly, many of the centenarian women can be stocky. Women may be able to get away with having more fat because they are much better able to deal with age- and fat-related diseases.
TR: What excites you most about starting the Long Life Family Study?
TP: It's been a while since I had the chance to go out and visit centenarians. They are historical treasures and tend to be very gregarious. They've been around for 100 years, so they have a lot to say and are terrific fun to be with.
For more information on the study, visit http://www.bumc.bu.edu/centenarian, or call 1.888.333.6327.
To calculate your own life expectancy, try Perls' life expectancy calculator.
Scientists can predict who will live past 100 using a subset of 150 genetic variations.
A small population of dwarves in rural Ecuador could hold the answer.
Guest (Martin Cohen)
Sounds like Heinlein's "Methuselah's Children". Approximate quote: "The best way to live a long time is to have grandparents who lived a long time."
See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671577808/ref=cm_lm_byauthor_prod_9_0/103-8561885-8282224?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance&n=283155
(sorry about the long url)
Guest (Robert Young)
Yes, the boring, mundane world of proving 'everyday truths' like 'longevity is related to genetics'. It's not exciting like science fiction, is it?
Guest (Expert)
Yes, it is well known to scientists since 1930s that longevity runs in families.
See for example numerous scientific publications by Raymond Pearl on this very subject, including his famous books.
Not sure what is new here.
Guest (Methuselah )
What will my long life allow me to see and do?
I tried Perl's life expectancy calculator and found I'm good for another 38 years - not bad for someone who just turned 60. So I guess I should get out the topographical maps and start charting where the new ocean front property is going to be once Antarctica and Greenland melt. And I better find a place where I can walk where I want to go because we're running out of oil. And at a high latitude so the temperature is bearable.
Considering all the ill effects of FDA-approved drugs, I better continue to not take any prescription drugs. And stay away from politically hot spots so I don't become an innocent bystander.
Sorry guys, when you are preordained to live so long, you tend to focus on some of the other problems we don't seem to be able to get around to finding solutions for....
Guest (RK Murthy)
What will my long life allow me to see and do?
I agree, Methuselah, I agree. Just live along! You are destined to love so, live along! I always remember J Krishnamurti's teachings, that by "negation you reach positive". If you have to clean a surface, what you do is to remove (negate) the dirt from that surface. What remains is a clean surface! You had not been doing anything else except removing dirt! Similarly if you do not add up dirt in the ingredients of daily life concerning you, your life goes on!
Guest (Brett Bennett)
Obviously this research has grave errors, especially in regards to the study's leader's perspective on calorie restriction. By looking at the longest lived people across the world, usually eating a western based diet, the diet only considers people on a 'traditional' diet, which does not tell whether or not calorie restriction is important or not. Merely looking at the genetics of old people is fine--it tells us much--but if the base, i.e. the diet, is not ideal, the only thing gained by the study is the genetic characteristics of older people, which is important indeed, but it seems to lack in sophistication. But, the author does not categorically deny CR or any diet, and so he can be let off the hook slightly.
Guest (Robert Young)
We are not 'on your hook' or beholden to your 'CR agenda.' Also, you misinterpet much...we are finding that many of the supercentenarians do in fact practice reduced-portion diets, if not your definition of severe caloric restriction. Would you please stop the 'friendly-fire' and discuss these matters through private dialogue first?
Guest (Curious)
Brett Bennett wrote:
"Obviously this research has grave errors..."
Could you please elaborate more on this topic?
Guest (Robert Bradbury)
Disease predisposition vs. longevity genes
The problem is that the lack of disease predisposition genes does not equal extended longevity. Long lived people such as centenarians and supercentenarians could simply have hit the genetic lottery. All one will discover in such studies is that they lack the gene variants which predispose them to specific diseases. Because of the large numbers of genes involved large numbers of individuals will be required to clearly prove this. That is one of the major reasons that Aeiveos Sciences Group discontinued its Centenarian genotyping project in 1997.
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (Harvey S. Frey MD)
Longevity research
So is Pontin going to offer a prize to anyone who can demonstrate that this research isn't worth even discussing?
Reply
Guest (Jason Pontin)
Not So
On no occasion have I attacked legitimate anti-aging science as being, in principle, wrong. We are very interested in the potential of anti-aging science to compress morbidity, or even extend human lifespans. I was dubious that SENS was good science; and I remain convinced that its timelines are highly unlikely.
Reply
Guest (Robert Bradbury)
A non-aging genome
TR should ask better questions. If we can disassemble the human genome in less than 10 years for less than $3 billion why can't we assemble a non-aging human genome for similar amounts?
After all, are we not spending 10x that amount each year ($30+ billion in BigPharama R&D) to addict people to more drugs that fail to cure the fundamental problems (genome defects)?
A scientist might tell you that first you have to understand everything about a problem before you can fix it. An engineer will simply solve the problem -- even if they don't fully understand how they did so.
Reply
Guest (Robert Young)
Let's be honest, no one has given the NECS $3billion for this study...I'm sure a lot more could be done with that kind of money.
Reply
Guest
Ha! Well, by using deduction instead of induction, one is always more safe, but often, more conservative. SENS is right on. Without creativity we would know nothing of the structure of DNA, or other important biological functions. We must begin, or at least incorporate, SENS studies, Calore Restriction studies, and so on.
Reply