digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

A Protein That Helps Create Immortal Cells

eurekalert.org — It may take just one or two proteins to polish off a simple cellular task, but life-or-death matters, such as caring for the ends of chromosomes known as telomeres, require interacting crews of proteins, all with a common goal but each with a specialized task.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • johnnywatkins, on 08/25/2008, -4/+8They should make a Viagra Protein like that.
    • nycmac247, on 08/26/2008, -4/+3"Immoral" cells!!!!
    • Culyt, on 08/26/2008, -1/+31m0rt4l1ze your p3n1s today!

      All natural ingredient!

      ☢
    • xero69, on 08/26/2008, -0/+3Sounds good in theory but it might be difficult to hide an "immortal erection"
    • floorman56, on 08/26/2008, -1/+5Sooo did any one understand all that? Can I live forever or not? When can I go to the 7-11 and get a bottle of "Live Fer Ever" with my Nos?
  • Waterrat, on 08/26/2008, -3/+6Only the rich would be able to afford this.
    • systmc, on 08/26/2008, -0/+11At first, yeah. But there was a time when "only the rich" could afford dentistry, AC, cars, air travel, computers, and just about every other modern convenience. I'm happy they can afford to pay the initial premium cost - they fund the necessary R&D that leads to a better, more affordable product for everyone else.
      • Markpdotcom, on 08/26/2008, -2/+2Sadly, you're wrong. If everyone could live forever what would happen? Population overload. The governments of the world can never let this happen, as there are just not enough resources to support such a scenario.
      • systmc, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2Living longer is different than living forever. Slowing down or even stopping the aging of cells doesn't keep you from dying from a nasty virus, an aggressive bacterial infection, murder, genocide, suicide, a fatal accident in your flying car, or a hundred and one other ways you can die. However, the longer you live the longer you're a tax-paying consumer.
    • Stevethegreat, on 08/26/2008, -3/+7And? There's no such thing as socialized technology, even in our ancient tribes it were the high ranking members who handled the best technology (hunting tools).

      If it was not for the rich to be the first adopters then the poor would never be able to adopt the technology at all. Thank god for the rich paying the inventions' overhead, actually making the tech affordable for everybody eventually....
      • Culyt, on 08/26/2008, -1/+2Yeah, back when the high ranking members could just have you killed.

        Now days its almost impossible to stop medical treatments, you might need to fly overseas however.

        If its patented, it will expire in 20 years at which point you will be able to get a generic brand (which is a problem for us now days but not for future generations).

        ☢
      • mchisari, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1
        "If it was not for the rich to be the first adopters then the poor would never be able to adopt the technology at all."

        In our current economic system, definitely. But I'm sure you could imagine other social and economic systems that wouldn't work that way.
      • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -2/+1Nope, actually mchisari, I can't. No matter the system, no matter what laws or policies are passed, there will always be haves and have nots. There will always be people who will be put in the front of the line for a limited resource either because of what they do, what they have done, or what they will do in the future.

        You could create what you believed was the perfect society and there would still need to be leaders in order to get things done. It wouldn't matter if those leaders were elected, appointed, or seized power on their own, they would always have better food, housing, medical care, transportation, etc... then the common man. Human nature makes it impossible for it to be any other way. There will always be those who seek power and position and there will always be people who are lazy and don't want to pull their own weight.
      • mchisari, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2
        "No matter the system, no matter what laws or policies are passed, there will always be haves and have nots."

        You suffer from a paucity of vision, then. There have been plenty of complex societies which haven't been class stratified. You might want to read about them. We can start with this one.

        http://www.nefac.net/anarchiststudyofiroquois

        "there would still need to be leaders in order to get things done"

        I never said anything about a lack of leaders. I argued against a lack of class stratification. I think maybe you're out of your league in this argument.

        "Human nature makes it impossible for it to be any other way. "

        Human nature is extraordinarily malleable. It's what sets us apart from any other animal.
  • nypix, on 08/26/2008, -3/+55Time to start a rumor about how this protein is contained in semen.
  • Smurph0404, on 08/26/2008, -3/+62The downside: you can only get it by chopping of the heads of other immortals.
  • chmstar, on 08/26/2008, -4/+2Not such a big deal, aging involves damage, signaling changes, accumulation of junk the body, etc.. Wake me up in 2020.
    • RobotBuddha, on 08/26/2008, -0/+3Eh, usually can't cure something without first understanding the mechanism of action. Any news in this area is good news as far as I'm concerned.
      • splendic, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2Agreed!

        Wanna live forever, and will do it in a robot body if a must, but my own body is preferrable... although only slightly.
      • Zarokima, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2My body doesn't have built-in missiles, machine guns, lasers, or internet directly in my brain. I'll gladly become a cyborg.
      • iticu, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2I'd do it for the internet. Screw the machine guns.
      • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0Agreed, I want to live long enough to see mankind walk on another planet outside our solar system.

        I saw a thing on the science channel a while back where they claimed that the first human to live to be a thousand has likely already been born and the first human to be several hundred years old is likely in his 40's or 50's now. That is ***** cool!
      • worldnick, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1I'd do it even with BigDog robot body.

        http://www.bostondynamics.com/content/sec.php?sect ...
    • worldnick, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1Ok explain me this party pants... if aging is the accumulation of junk why do babies get to start over from scratch? Shouldn't the junk of the parents be present in the baby?
  • jnava121, on 08/26/2008, -4/+22Immortals?!??!?! We shall put them to the test!
  • protogenxl, on 08/26/2008, -3/+24There Can Be Only One!
  • mstachiw, on 08/26/2008, -0/+4lets see how quickly corporations jump on this bandwagon and exploit it as the next craze... I'll have the Cup O' Christ Venti
  • narupo, on 08/26/2008, -6/+2Poutine creates Immortal cells eh?
  • masterxxshake, on 08/26/2008, -1/+11this is only a very small step into fully understanding telomeres. I work in a lab where we also have discovered the structure and purpose of several protiens that are involved with telomere production and regulation.

    http://dimer.tamu.edu/shippen/
  • beaverfetus, on 08/26/2008, -4/+18ask any cancer patient how great it is to have cells that won't die in the tightly regulated fashion that cells usually do. Telomeres may contribute to our cells limited capacity to divide and eventual aging process, but they are a huge blockade against cancerous transformation.

    You cells are either mortal or cancerous. bummer. Looks like were going to stay mortal.
    • chmstar, on 08/26/2008, -0/+3Fear not, sperm cells beget sperm cells that beget spem cells for millions of years. We will overcome these limitations.
    • Lone1, on 08/26/2008, -0/+4what if the choice is to die in the regular ways or live to be 200 but constantly fighting off horrible new cancers. give me the robot body plzthanx
    • Feanor, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2This research seems to be pointing at better understanding of how Telomeres and their protein buddies behave. While this research may not prove to be a fountain of youth, perhaps it could be a key to stopping rapid uncontrolled cell division, aka cancer.
    • iamnobody8614, on 08/26/2008, -1/+2You're sort misunderstanding the role of telomeres. The telomeres themselves do not limit the capacity to divide, it's the reaction to their deterioration. Telomeres are sort of caps that protect the end of DNA, so that when it divides all the information remains intact. Each time a cell divides the telomeres of its DNA get shorter. Cancer cells (well most of them anyway) are a result of cells bypassing senescence (halting of their proliferation) which occurs naturally when cells run out of telomeres and telomerase (which restores telomeres). If a cell continues to divide without telomeres it will eventually mutate to the point of its death or become "immortal" due to a mutation reactivating the creation of telomerase, which means the now mutated cell will continue to divide unhindered by death --> cancer.

      Now, this research involves making cells "immortal" from the get-go, or at least way before their telomeres run out, thus making cells that reproduce perfectly without its telomeres ever wearing down so much that they become ineffective by making the application of telomerase more efficient. They have to do this without making telomerase over-express itself, because that causes mutations as well. I can't really see them ever creating an effective way of making all of a person's cells do this unless they start from an embryo.

      (I hardly consider myself an expert but I have taken a few genetics classes and this subject was one of the few that I really seemed to grasp pretty well.)
      • iamnobody8614, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1*sort of
      • beaverfetus, on 08/26/2008, -2/+1haha I've taught a few genetics classes and there is no inaccuracy in my statement. go go grad school!


        /seriously, there is fertile areas of research in telomeres if you are interested, just don't overestimate your understanding. Bcl2, BAK, FAS and a litany of proteins are under investigation for their roll in cancer.

        If you like longevity research I'd pursue the Sir2 stuff
      • iamnobody8614, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1Whoever let you teach genetics was sorely mistaken if you think that telomeres themselves contribute to the aging process. As I said, it's their deterioration that triggers senescence and the absence of this process that leads to most cancers.

        The problem with Sir2 is it only offsets p53's destructiveness, it doesn't fix telomere deterioration. In abundance Sir2 will promote longevity in cells, but the telomere problem will have to fixed in tandem or all you get is cancer again.

        Also, when you mess with Sir2, you better damn well get it right, because if you get it wrong it's pretty much guaranteed to lead to mutation.
    • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1Personally, I think immortality and the cure for cancer will come within a decade of each other.
  • fx666, on 08/26/2008, -3/+25This article is too scientific for my taste. There is a simpler solution -- join the Church of Scientology and learn how to develop your supernatural abilities to such degree that it does not matter whether you're alive or dead. L. Ron Hubbard has already reached the highest level a human being could reach and he is waiting for you on the other side of the Bridge of Total Freedom. I was able to cover the first half of that Bridge but then I fell from it, but you may have more success in joining LRH. Why did I fell? Because the evil galactic ruler named Xenu the Great pushed me from that Bridge!
  • zantos420, on 08/26/2008, -0/+3anyone think we'll see life lengthening benefits from this in our lifetime? would this be able to reconstruct existing telomere? would that make people somehow look younger? i want answers damnit!
    • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -1/+0yes to all of those, but it's got a LONG way to go.
  • borez, on 08/26/2008, -2/+13Not wanting to spoil the part here but... cells that keep splitting and become immortal when they should have died all have a common name, it's called Cancer.
    • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0Not exactly. Cancer cells are not only immortal, but they also replicate at a much faster rate then regular cells. If they can get our cells to reproduce with telomeres that don't shorten, then we will have effectively stopped aging. If they can get those cells to also reproduce at a faster rate then normal, but still control it and later switch it off, they will actually be able to make someone (genetically at least) younger. Once we have achieved that level of genetic control over our cells, things like regrowing limbs, curing the blind and the deaf, and repairing spinal damage will be a snap.

      IMHO, this is going to be the next bit thing in human history. The industrial revolution > digital revolution > and soon, the genetic revolution. It’s going to require VAST and difficult changes in the way that human societies operate, but the long term benefits will outshine the last two revolutions for thousands of years.
      • borez, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1There are already far too many people on this planet, sustaining the life of the individual human being can only lead to one thing... an epic catastrophe.

        /we all die eventually, why prolong it
      • Ickthud, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1Not wishing to inject further pedantry, but you're confusing eternal life with eternal youth, and one without the other is no fun. Ageing is not a simple function of telomere erosion.
        Ageing is a whole series of different thing going on at the same time. The cells in your skin for example continue to replicate throughout your life, but the collagen matrix on which they sit becomes steadily more inelastic, which is why you get wrinkles. Even if your cells still have the capability to replicate, they accumulate oxidative damage and mutations over time which reduce function and may eventually become dangerous. Very few people die yet due to a failure of cell replication; generally the failure of your body to eliminate malfunctioning cells leads to cancer and disease picking you off long before that becomes an issue.
        Besides, who wants to live to be 500 if you're going to spend 420 years of that looking and feeling like a prune.
  • dalnet22, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1Wasn't this on the front page yesterday?
  • gsiliceo, on 08/26/2008, -2/+4One step closer to zombification. Inmortal cells = human bodies survive shotguns shots on the chest.
    • Techx4, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2real zombies make for more interesting news.. i'd rather hear about a zombie horde attacking Manhattan than anything more about the Olympics or Obama... meh
  • MisterEX, on 08/26/2008, -0/+7"...hyperactive telomerase could promote uncontrolled cell division and cellular immortality associated with cancer."

    Yeahhh, that's bad.
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 08/26/2008, -3/+1We need cells with more morals.
  • binaryloop, on 08/26/2008, -4/+1As alway, scientists are big on the theory and the "blah blah blah" factor and short on practical answers and solutions. Hey, egghead, when you release a cure for aging let me know. Until then, I'll file this right up there with Unicorns, Leprechauns, and magical pixie dust.
  • werthog, on 08/26/2008, -1/+3Bring on the singularitarians!
  • RudeTurnip, on 08/26/2008, -0/+7I always found it funny that the cure for death was cancer and that the cure for cancer was death.
  • sportscheck, on 08/26/2008, -3/+1I hate Zombies. They never play fair!
  • acidsurgery, on 08/26/2008, -2/+2Your insurance doesn't cover it.
  • bsmang, on 08/26/2008, -3/+2I could have sworn that headline said "Immoral" the first two times I looked at it.
  • JoeVet, on 08/26/2008, -3/+1All my telomeres are getting short and wrinkly.
  • Intervene, on 08/26/2008, -4/+1Mortal Kombat
  • ChoixAkion, on 08/26/2008, -2/+1This is great and all but if everyone was immortal there would eventually be a serious population problem and not enough food to go around. Our ideal future in immortality is with cybernetics.
    • calipan, on 08/26/2008, -0/+2not without systematic population control like they do in China. Slow birth rate down to match death rate from causes that still mean death (accidents, natural disasters, acts of god).

      You give people an option. Forgo retirement benefits, social security, etc and pay into an immortality plan which regulates your life, or give up the life extension benefits and retire and then die.
      • acknotSW, on 08/26/2008, -0/+0Cool, I'll take the immortality plan please.
  • Andrwmorph, on 08/26/2008, -9/+1THERE CAN ONLY BE ONE!
  • Infowarmachine, on 08/26/2008, -1/+6(insert twentieth highlander reference here)
  • SkyJedi, on 08/26/2008, -0/+4This protein is active in cancer cells. Its one of the defining characteristics of cancer.
  • InRaged, on 08/26/2008, -1/+0People live too long as it is, what with rampant reproduction still seeming a status quo these days. Frankly I think we should find ways to shorten the human lifespan to something like 50 years. That way people might make more of themselves and generally get more out of their day-to-day lives.

    Then again maybe it'll just breed kamikaze die-hards who do nothing but drink and whore and indulge their every ultra-hedonistic fantasy. Oh wait we have those already... Shucks. :(
  • ivengo, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1YESSS !!! Now all they need is move the research to a small underground lab under Raccoon City. Brilliant !
  • cultist667, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1Kankel!!! The being of cancer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betterman
  • mikeyeah, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1Buried. Highlanders figured out how to do this centuries ago.
  • VitriolAndAngst, on 08/26/2008, -1/+1You don't want to just add more telomeres to a protein. The limited number of copies has to do with genetic damage. So if you don't take care of the genetic and protein damage that builds up in a cell -- you will be copying malfunctioning cells over time.

    That's another reason why our ability to repair cells slows down; making too many new cells as we age would promote more cancer.

    More promising are the efforts to create more of the scavenger proteins that sense damage in the cell and remove it. If we can introduce better repair and new cells, then adding telomeres to cells might make sense.
  • worldnick, on 08/26/2008, -0/+1Here is my plan: Introduce life extension technology and quickly push to get into space ASAP. Also limit reproduction for the time being (that would be an ok trade off for life extension) just to nothing excessive like 8 children. Next during the following enlightenment build schools, hospitals etc. All the self defeatism of the world will be ended. Drug addicts will stop using drugs, men will have new hope. I also believe this would put an end to war.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.