Submitted by duffmanhb t3_10b08uq in singularity
duffmanhb OP t1_j482qwm wrote
TL;DR:
For a while the leading hypothesis around aging had to do with DNA damage through a variety of different means. However, this hypothesis was always on shaky ground, because we couldn't find direct correlations when we look at other animals with even more severe damage at much younger ages. The correlation was just hard to find, even though the theory made sense.
However, this research is showing that it actually seems to be epigenetic "noise". Basically, with time as epigenetic "switches" turn on and off they kind of become less and less "useful". Basically a lot of noise in their performance code making their specific purpose less efficient as all these epigenetic changes start to pile up.
What this research shows is when you use similar techniques used to create stem cells, you can "reverse" the epigenetic age, effectively "restarting it" by telling them to return to their original state before all the epigenetic changes. Think of it like a computer being on for a week slowly just getting bogged down until you reset the computer and everything is running clean again.
When they did this in mice, they found age reversal. Further, when they did the opposite, by increasing the epigenetic noise in very young mice, suddenly the mice started resemble old mice (frail, low stamina, grey hair, weight loss, etc), which is further evidence that epigenetics are indeed playing a significant role in aging.
What's wild about this, that if this is true, this is a very solvable problem. It would take the problem of aging down from the rank of baffling enigma, to something we can solve because much of the science needed to do these reversals is pretty well developed and understood.
Trials are moving onto primates. If we get the same results as we expect, this is going to lay the groundwork in a massive paradigm shift putting age reversal literally within reach.
Mountain-Award7440 t1_j48a6oc wrote
Great summary, thanks.
>Further, when they did the opposite, by increasing the epigenetic noise in very young mice, suddenly the mice started resemble old mice (frail, low stamina, grey hair, weight loss, etc), which is further evidence that epigenetics are indeed playing a significant role in aging.
This to me is the most fascinating and important part. Being able to shift aging both ways makes the “noise” argument very convincing.
That said, I’m checking my hype until the primate trials show the same results. It often seems like every new health or disease treatment out there works on mice and then we never hear about the treatment again.
phoenixjazz t1_j49pt87 wrote
If this works as described I’m wondering how society’s are going to deal with a change as massive as this and not shatter under the stress of it. If the death rate drops and the Birth rate stays the same we will need more resources. Will there be enough? If we get a second life after 60 years of toil will it be one of leisure / pursuit of personal interest or will it be 60 more years of toil? Societal changes will likely be huge and the disruptions larger than one might think.
Mountain-Award7440 t1_j49udz7 wrote
I think with the advancements of this type of tech there will also be advancements in other types of supplemental tech. Lab grown food, terraforming, etc. I’m not worried about resources running out for humanity once we reach AGI and ASI.
I also think as more and more of our workforce gets automated we will have to institute UBI or something similar, but ultimately we will become a post-scarcity society where people don’t have to work at all and where everyone will be able to cheaply acquire or create anything they need.
What really fascinates me are the social ramifications that perhaps even our generation will experience: imagine being the same physical age as your children AND grandchildren. That’s a really weird possibility that seems like it might be on the table for us. How do marriages work if you’re living 250 years? How do families work or friendships? How does crime and punishment work? Are we going to imprison murderers for centuries? Will people start wearing full mech suits knowing that if they die it’ll be hundreds of years of life missed instead of 50-70 years?
As you say there will be very large disruptions, tons of which we probably won’t even anticipate. The near-ish future is gonna look completely different to the world we’ve grown up in. The 90s and 2000s will seem literally medieval compared to the 2060s. I really hope I’m here to see it all.
Sh1ner t1_j4b279k wrote
A bit of theory crafting:
The majority poor people of the world can't get enough food or minerals to sustain their bodies. They suffer from malnutrition and easily curable diseases that will kill many of them.
If its pill form and the rich nations get this we may have a new divide. The ones that live longer vs the ones that have short lives, we may have a new form of protests/terrorism until the rich nations figure out how to get the poor nations of the world improving conditions for their people.
If this is available only to the 0.1% of the wealthy of the world, I assume they will have to start going into hiding to avoid controversy until it comes to the masses. Same issue of protests that may lead into terrorism until it becomes cheap enough for more people.
banuk_sickness_eater t1_j4br6go wrote
Advancements in artificial intelligence will usher in an era of post scarcity, specifically energy post scarcity as companies like Google DeepMind begin to tackle fundamental problems in the realm of fusion.
AwesomeDragon97 t1_j48vo5k wrote
I always thought that telomere shortening and tumour suppressing genes were the main causes of aging, has this been proven false?
duffmanhb OP t1_j48yn32 wrote
Telomeres were also just a theory, based off observations of older people who aged well, and other species. That long telomeres prevent the cell damages as they act like a sort of redundant absorption for mutations. However, much like the DNA damage theory, it had a lot of conflicting evidence that made direct correlation hard to prove... It's likely long telomeres are more likely a symptomatic correlation rather than causal.
Tumor suppression probably also exists within the epigenetic side of things as well. As we age, our bodies get worse and worse at fighting things off. They replicated this by artificially aging the mice which suddenly got more tumors. So as the epigenetics of the cells get more noisy, so does their ability to precisely work as intended, thus more tumors.
AsuhoChinami t1_j49lhpw wrote
The article's behind a paywall; does it say when the primate trials begin? And how accurate are primate models? I heard that mouse models translate to humans less than 10 percent of the time, whereas testing on human cells does so 81-87 percent.
ManasZankhana t1_j49x529 wrote
Also does it say anything about human organoid trials begun
Sea-Cake7470 t1_j4akcq9 wrote
What is epigenetic noise???
Sh1ner t1_j4b2f1s wrote
> epigenetic
From googling: “epigenetic noise,” which disrupts gene expression patterns, leading to decreases in tissue function and regenerative capacity.
My take: corruption of replication which adds "noise" which brings in increasing inefficiencies over time to eventual collapse of systems?
Sea-Cake7470 t1_j4bckkz wrote
Replication of what??? And why corruption of replication happens??? Why can't there be replication without this corruption???
Sh1ner t1_j4bgpdn wrote
Going through your post history, you need to learn how to google, read multiple links and come to your own conclusion like the rest of us do... instead of having everything spoon fed to you. Stop being lazy. There is nothing wrong with asking a question but your post history reveals how often you ask others to do the work for you.
MercySound t1_j4bs23f wrote
>come to your own conclusion like the rest of us do
Pretty sure people that draw their own conclusions based on due diligence research are the minority on the internet, not like "the rest of us".
Sea-Cake7470 t1_j4co7rv wrote
I'll keep on asking people what i wanna ask....and if they wanna answer they'll answer and if they don't wanna answer... they'll not.... It's simple they'll not respond to it... instead of wasting a minute or 2 in first searching my post history and then in writing a long-ass paragraph on not answering it... You could've chosen not answering it and leaving it as it...but wasting your 2 min was more important and natural and wise instead of answering it and thereby helping someone else to know more abt this interesting topic and in addition not only you did the above mentioned things but you also chose to belittle them... If you were that bothered to answer why didn't you just leaft it as it is without answering it??!!! Someone else might have answered it or perhaps wouldn't have answered it ... But I'm sure nobody would have write a long paragraph on refusing to answer and then belittle someone....
Sh1ner t1_j4dppje wrote
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.
You are actively doing yourself a disservice by not looking it up yourself. How do you know the one or two comments you get are accurate or biased or trolling? You can't see it as you see my comment as an attack but I am giving you good advice that will help you in the long run.
In short: Learn to fish.
[deleted] t1_j4bmvnp wrote
[deleted]
duffmanhb OP t1_j4bng11 wrote
It uses the same technique used to turn revert normal cells back into their stem cell state. Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure on the details.
Moist_Chemistry1418 t1_j4a1knc wrote
good luck with that, see "Aging clocks, entropy, and the limits of age-reversal"
OutOfBananaException t1_j4aaypt wrote
Organisms aren't closed systems, entropy as some inescapable feature doesn't apply
Desperate_Food7354 t1_j4adxhl wrote
If entropy was a valid argument we wouldn’t exist as we are the result of fighting entropy.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments