Re: [DIYbio] Re: Gene therapy againt aging

Telomerase gene therapy in mice extends life modestly: there are years
of pretty robust results to demonstrate that. Average telomere length
appears to be a reflection of aging, most likely not a significant
contributer to aging. It is a poor measure, as the trend downward with
age is statistical over populations. Average telomere length is some
function of stem cell activity (delivering new cells with long
telomeres) and cell division rates (shortening telomeres with each
division). Stem cell activity declines with aging. Average telomere
length is presently measured in white blood cells, which are going to
have a whole lot of influences on cell division and replacement rates
that don't exist in other tissues, due to immune system reactions to
circumstances. Telomerase is clearly doing a lot of other things beyond
telomere lengthening. Look at the work suggesting it is acting as a
mitochondrial antioxidant, for example, or other cryptic activities.

The present consensus is that telomerase therapies in mice extend life
through increased stem cell and/or immune activity. These telomerase
therapies are clearly heading in the direction of human trials one way
or another, given the results to date in mice, and the determined
support of the research groups doing this. Mice have very different
telomere dynamics, however, and there are concerns regarding cancer risk
in humans. Trying it in dogs or primates would be the next safe thing to
do - move to a mammalian species with telomere/telomerase dynamics that
are closer to ours.

There is an argument that runs along these lines: telomerase gene
therapy is just (primarily) another way of triggering old stem cells to
get back to work, and therefore vis a vis cancer and risk should fall in
the same ballpark as stem cell therapies carried out over the past
fifteen years, and therefore full steam ahead because all of that work
produced far less cancer that was feared. Prudence would suggest trying
it out in something other than mice first, but I suspect the sudden ease
of gene therapy means that this will be bypassed by the adventurous.

(I'm totally in favor of adventure when it comes to gene therapies for
follistatin/myostatin - I think the risk situation there is pretty much
as low as it can get prior to hundreds or thousands of enhanced human
patients. I'm more cautious on the cancer and telomerase front; I think
more data there would be desirable before I stepped up to try it out).

On 04/24/2016 01:39 AM, Koeng wrote:
> At first glace, I am skeptical of the results. Long telomeres are
> associated with some diseases. Short telomeres are associated with some
> diseases.
>
> There is a *correlation* with telomeres and aging. From what I've read,
> causation hasn't been established, meaning that lengthening telomeres most
> likely won't do much. If there's any research to contradict this, my
> opinion can change, but from the current papers I've read my opinion is is
> that not much will happen. It'll probably do a lot of nothing.
>
> -Koeng
>
> On Friday, April 22, 2016 at 1:44:32 PM UTC, Mike Petersen wrote:
>> Now this sounds interesting
>>
>>
>> http://bioviva-science.com/2016/04/21/first-gene-therapy-successful-against-human-aging/
>>
>> I ask myself how exactly do they make the telomers longer and who is sure,
>> there won´t be some terrible side effects?
>>