<rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Wilkins wrote: > > In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean > > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Dr. Thomas wrote: > >>> Ron Dean wrote: > >>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of > >>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of > >>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells > >>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the > >>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells > >>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which > >>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells > >>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used > >>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to > >>>>> facilitate reproduction. > >>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > >>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > >>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > >>>> build new volvox. > >>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > >>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > >>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of > >>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > >>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > >>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > >>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > >>>> falsified.
> >>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > >>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > >>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed > >>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > >>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > >>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > >>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > >>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > >>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > >>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > >>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > >>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > >>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > >>>> died in 1951.
> >>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > >>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > >>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > >>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > >>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > >>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > >>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > >>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > >>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > >>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > >>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > >>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > >>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> >>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > >>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > >>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > >>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > >>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > >>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing > >>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > >>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > >>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > >>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > >>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > >>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > >>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > >>>> seems to acquire immortality.
> >>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > >>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > >>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > >>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > >>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > >>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > >>>> The manuscript was rejected.
> >>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > >>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been > >>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > >>>> of medical research.
> >>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > >>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > >>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > >>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > >>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > >>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > >>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > >>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > >>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> >>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > >>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > >>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > >>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > >>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > >>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > >>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > >>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > >>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > >>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > >>>> number of repeats.
> >>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > >>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > >>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > >>>> minus one link. > >>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > >>>> less than the parent cell.
> >>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > >>>> mortal soma cells.
> >>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> >> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any > >> further.
> > I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had > completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it > was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. > Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any > comments?
None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
John Wilkins wrote: > In article <z8KIm.6971$Xf2.5...@newsfe12.iad>, Ron Dean > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John Wilkins wrote: >>> In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean >>> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Dr. Thomas wrote: >>>>> Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of >>>>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >>>>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >>>>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >>>>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >>>>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >>>>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >>>>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used >>>>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >>>>>>> facilitate reproduction. >>>>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. >>>>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer >>>>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to >>>>>> build new volvox. >>>>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in >>>>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells >>>>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of >>>>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were >>>>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called >>>>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically >>>>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly >>>>>> falsified.
>>>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a >>>>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. >>>>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed >>>>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings >>>>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken >>>>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer >>>>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an >>>>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called >>>>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive >>>>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called >>>>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom >>>>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to >>>>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta >>>>>> died in 1951.
>>>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- >>>>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in >>>>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for >>>>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing >>>>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human >>>>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the >>>>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells >>>>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then >>>>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure >>>>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just >>>>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! >>>>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- >>>>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
>>>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist >>>>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did >>>>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional >>>>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X >>>>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman >>>>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing >>>>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while >>>>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. >>>>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman >>>>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. >>>>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young >>>>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, >>>>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow >>>>>> seems to acquire immortality.
>>>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental >>>>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the >>>>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to >>>>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that >>>>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so >>>>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". >>>>>> The manuscript was rejected.
>>>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another >>>>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been >>>>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history >>>>>> of medical research.
>>>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate >>>>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA >>>>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about >>>>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning >>>>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells >>>>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By >>>>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds >>>>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick >>>>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
>>>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, >>>>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, >>>>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young >>>>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This >>>>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A >>>>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. >>>>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, >>>>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called >>>>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of >>>>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the >>>>>> number of repeats.
>>>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the >>>>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, >>>>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end >>>>>> minus one link. >>>>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link >>>>>> less than the parent cell.
>>>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from >>>>>> mortal soma cells.
>>>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
>>>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any >>>> further. >>> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
>> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had >> completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it >> was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. >> Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any >> comments?
> None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the > Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular > interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
I touched on HeLa cells in part II. Here is what I know about this. > In 1951 Henrietts Lacks drove from Virginia to The John Hopkins Hospital with unsual bleeding. Here she was diagnosed with cancer. Without her knowledge a small section of her cancer was taken and given to George and Margaret Gey who had wanted to get a cancer growing in a lab. (A cancer in a test tube) In this way, they hoped, anticancer therapies and drugs could be tested before they were given to people. The 1/2 inch piece was sectioned into smaller pieces and placed it in glass bottles with a nutritional culture. Within a few days the people in Gey's lab witnessed an explosive growth in this artificial environment.
Over the next months it became evident that Dr. Gey had an immortal human cell line consisting of human cancer cells that would continue to grow indefinitely. Dr. Gey appeared on national TV with a vial of Henrietta's cells which he called HiLa cells to hide their origin. He boasted. "It is possible that, from fundamental studies such as these, we will be able to learn a way in which cancer can be completely wiped out".
These cells were destined to be sent to research cells around the world even into space on board of Discoverer XVII satellite. These cells continue to live today, almost 60 years after Henrietta died.
Normal human somatic cells are not immortal, they will repeat only about 50 times, aging during this time, then they will die even when provided with with the right nutrients and conditions. But Henrietta's cells were truly human somatic cells which became immortal once they became cancerous. Eventually, they would play a role in the quest to discover what mechanisms are involved in immortal cells and how they differed from mortal cells.
I should emphasize, again that immortal does not mean that immortal cells cannot be killed by starvation, heat poison etc. It only means they are not Programed to age and die. > I have no more time, but I will get back to this.
<rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > John Wilkins wrote: > > In article <z8KIm.6971$Xf2.5...@newsfe12.iad>, Ron Dean > > <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> John Wilkins wrote: > >>> In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean > >>> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Dr. Thomas wrote: > >>>>> Ron Dean wrote: > >>>>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of > >>>>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of > >>>>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells > >>>>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the > >>>>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells > >>>>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which > >>>>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells > >>>>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used > >>>>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to > >>>>>>> facilitate reproduction. > >>>>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. > >>>>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer > >>>>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to > >>>>>> build new volvox. > >>>>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in > >>>>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells > >>>>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of > >>>>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were > >>>>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called > >>>>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically > >>>>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly > >>>>>> falsified.
> >>>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a > >>>>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. > >>>>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed > >>>>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings > >>>>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken > >>>>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer > >>>>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an > >>>>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called > >>>>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive > >>>>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called > >>>>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom > >>>>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to > >>>>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta > >>>>>> died in 1951.
> >>>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- > >>>>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in > >>>>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for > >>>>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing > >>>>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human > >>>>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the > >>>>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells > >>>>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then > >>>>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure > >>>>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just > >>>>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! > >>>>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- > >>>>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
> >>>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist > >>>>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did > >>>>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional > >>>>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X > >>>>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman > >>>>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing > >>>>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while > >>>>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. > >>>>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman > >>>>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. > >>>>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young > >>>>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, > >>>>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow > >>>>>> seems to acquire immortality.
> >>>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental > >>>>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the > >>>>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to > >>>>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that > >>>>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so > >>>>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". > >>>>>> The manuscript was rejected.
> >>>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another > >>>>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been > >>>>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history > >>>>>> of medical research.
> >>>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate > >>>>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA > >>>>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about > >>>>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning > >>>>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells > >>>>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By > >>>>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds > >>>>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick > >>>>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
> >>>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, > >>>>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, > >>>>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young > >>>>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This > >>>>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A > >>>>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. > >>>>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, > >>>>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called > >>>>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of > >>>>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the > >>>>>> number of repeats.
> >>>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the > >>>>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, > >>>>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end > >>>>>> minus one link. > >>>>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link > >>>>>> less than the parent cell.
> >>>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from > >>>>>> mortal soma cells.
> >>>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
> >>>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any > >>>> further. > >>> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
> >> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had > >> completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it > >> was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. > >> Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any > >> comments?
> > None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the > > Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular > > interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
> I touched on HeLa cells in part II. Here is what I know about this.
> In 1951 Henrietts Lacks drove from Virginia to The John Hopkins > Hospital with unsual bleeding. Here she was diagnosed with cancer. > Without her knowledge a small section of her cancer was taken and > given to George and Margaret Gey who had wanted to get a cancer > growing in a lab. (A cancer in a test tube) In this way, they hoped, > anticancer therapies and drugs could be tested before they were > given to people. The 1/2 inch piece was sectioned into smaller pieces > and placed it in glass bottles with a nutritional culture. Within > a few days the people in Gey's lab witnessed an explosive growth in > this artificial environment.
> Over the next months it became evident that Dr. Gey had an immortal > human cell line consisting of human cancer cells that would continue > to grow indefinitely. Dr. Gey appeared on national TV with a vial of > Henrietta's cells which he called HiLa cells to hide their origin. He > boasted. "It is possible that, from fundamental studies such as these, > we will be able to learn a way in which cancer can be completely > wiped out".
> These cells were destined to be sent to research cells around the > world even into space on board of Discoverer XVII satellite. These > cells continue to live today, almost 60 years after Henrietta died.
> Normal human somatic cells are not immortal, they will repeat > only about 50 times, aging during this time, then they will die even > when provided with with the right nutrients and conditions. But > Henrietta's cells were truly human somatic cells which became > immortal once they became cancerous. Eventually, they would play > a role in the quest to discover what mechanisms are involved in > immortal cells and how they differed from mortal cells.
> I should emphasize, again that immortal does not mean that immortal > cells cannot be killed by starvation, heat poison etc. It only means > they are not Programed to age and die.
> I have no more time, but I will get back to this.
> Thanks
> Ron
Gracias. I must have missed Part II while I am travelling. Rebecca Skloot has a new book on Henrietta Lacks and her cells. I haven't seen it yet, so I don't know how deeply into the biology she goes.
> Iain wrote: > > On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Iain wrote: > >>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. > >>> No, we just do. > >>>> But > >>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? > >>> No. > >>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and > >>> instead restore tissue to its former state.
> >> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully > >> understood. A great deal is currently known.
> > No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging > > process is not understood.
> > > We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. > Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the > green sea turtle live hundreds of years? > This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in > which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about > 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms > of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to > be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
> > You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet > > wound.
> > What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of > > rejuvenation?
> > > Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process > is the expectation.
But you'd need to understand aging much much more in order to do that. And you can only do that up till a point.
Whereas one doesn't need to understand aging at all in order to actually offset the aging process absolutely. One only needs to understand the static difference between an old person and young person (this is a matter of free observation), and then contrive a regenerative medicine to restore tissue to its former state.
Iain wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:47 am, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Iain wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Iain wrote: >>>>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. >>>>> No, we just do. >>>>>> But >>>>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? >>>>> No. >>>>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and >>>>> instead restore tissue to its former state. >>>> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully >>>> understood. A great deal is currently known. >>> No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging >>> process is not understood.
>> We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. >> Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the >> green sea turtle live hundreds of years? >> This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >> which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >> 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms >> of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to >> be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
>>> You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet >>> wound. >>> What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of >>> rejuvenation?
>> Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process >> is the expectation.
> But you'd need to understand aging much much more in order to do that. > And you can only do that up till a point.
> Whereas one doesn't need to understand aging at all in order to > actually offset the aging process absolutely. One only needs to > understand the static difference between an old person and young person > (this is a matter of free observation), and then contrive a > regenerative medicine to restore tissue to its former state.
> Scientist know the difference between old and new cells: why some cells such as our somatic cells age and die, and why other cells such as our germ cells, cancer cells and some simple cells such as Tetahymena, a pond scum are immortal. They can be killed by poison, starvation or hit with a hammer. That is they never die a natural death - unlike somatic cells, they are not programed to age and die. So, the goal is not to eliminate natural aging and death, but to extend life beyond the average 75 years life span. I have discussed this in to parts: "We are programed to age and die" and (same title) part II.
> Iain wrote: > On Nov 5, 6:47 am, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Iain wrote: >>> On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Iain wrote: >>>>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. >>>>> No, we just do. >>>>>> But >>>>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? >>>>> No. >>>>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and >>>>> instead restore tissue to its former state. >>>> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully >>>> understood. A great deal is currently known. >>> No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging >>> process is not understood.
>> We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. >> Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the >> green sea turtle live hundreds of years? >> This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in >> which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about >> 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms >> of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to >> be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
>>> You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet >>> wound. >>> What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of >>> rejuvenation?
>> Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process >> is the expectation.
> But you'd need to understand aging much much more in order to do that. > And you can only do that up till a point.
> Whereas one doesn't need to understand aging at all in order to > actually offset the aging process absolutely. One only needs to > understand the static difference between an old person and young person > (this is a matter of free observation), and then contrive a > regenerative medicine to restore tissue to its former state.
> Scientist know the difference between old and new cells: why some cells such as our somatic cells age and die, and why other cells such as our germ cells, cancer cells and some simple cells such as Tetahymena, a pond scum are immortal. They can be killed by poison, starvation or hit with a hammer. That is they never die a natural death - unlike somatic cells, they are not programed to age and die. So, the goal is not to eliminate natural aging and death, but to extend life beyond the average 75 years life span. I have discussed this in two parts: "We are programed to age and die" and (same title) part II.
> John Wilkins wrote: >> In article <z8KIm.6971$Xf2.5...@newsfe12.iad>, Ron Dean >> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> John Wilkins wrote: >>>> In article <r7EIm.5728$gi1.5...@newsfe19.iad>, Ron Dean >>>> <rd...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Dr. Thomas wrote: >>>>>> Ron Dean wrote: >>>>>>>> Volvox minor, is made up of >>>>>>>> cells that are in a cluster which subtly change. Some of >>>>>>>> the cells on the outside form a kind of shell. These cells >>>>>>>> divide until they reach about 2000 cells, at which point, the >>>>>>>> outside cells die and _release_ the original unaltered cells >>>>>>>> which in turn make a new Volox minor. The cells which >>>>>>>> made up the shell were called "somatic". These cells >>>>>>>> were programed to age and die, having been used >>>>>>>> merely to obtain food and transportation and to >>>>>>>> facilitate reproduction. >>>>>>> For Volvox death seems as inevitable as for a mouse or man. >>>>>>> Once it has offspring the body (somatic cells) are no longer >>>>>>> needed, and dies: but the immortal germ live on to build to >>>>>>> build new volvox. >>>>>>> Weismann, in 18881 delivered a lecture to fellow scientist in >>>>>>> which he made the astonishing claim that some animal cells >>>>>>> including human, were could divide only a limited number of >>>>>>> times, which he called somatic cells. but other cells were >>>>>>> capable of an infinite number of divisions, which he called >>>>>>> germ cells. Weizmann was later vindicated, but tragically >>>>>>> he lived just long enough to see his life's work seemingly >>>>>>> falsified.
>>>>>>> Nobel prize winner, Alex Carrel placed chicken cells in a >>>>>>> "liquid cuisine", of nutrients and they began to grow. >>>>>>> After several months, he reported that the cells showed >>>>>>> no indication of aging: so Weismann was wrong. His findings >>>>>>> were later apparently confirmed when cancer cells were taken >>>>>>> from a woman named Henrietta Lacks was given to a cancer >>>>>>> researcher, Dr. George Gey. He placed these cells in a an >>>>>>> artificial environment, which a reporter called a called >>>>>>> "cancer in a test tube". These cancer cells began an explosive >>>>>>> growth, dividing far beyond expectations. They are called >>>>>>> HiLa cells, to protect the identity of the person from whom >>>>>>> they were taken. Samples of HiLa cells have been sent to >>>>>>> researchers all over the world and are alive today. Henrieta >>>>>>> died in 1951.
>>>>>>> One of the great strength of science is that it is self- >>>>>>> correcting. Lenard Hayflick of the Wistar Institute in >>>>>>> Philadelphia was trying to get clean human cells for >>>>>>> the purpose of identifying possible cancer causing >>>>>>> viruses. But Hayflick was have trouble getting human >>>>>>> cells to grow in vitro (in glass). He could not match the >>>>>>> success Carrel or Gey had in earlier years. His cells >>>>>>> would divide until they reached about 50 divisions then >>>>>>> they would stop dividing. He complained about his failure >>>>>>> and someone jokingly said, "well, Len your cells are just >>>>>>> growing old". Could it be? How scandalous would that be! >>>>>>> Hayflick knew that some human cells were clearly immortal- >>>>>>> HeLa cells were human cells and they were immortal.
>>>>>>> So, in frustration Hayflick requested other scientist >>>>>>> take samples of his cells and run the experiment. They did >>>>>>> and had the same results. Hayflick decided on additional >>>>>>> test, in which he used cells from an old man with the X >>>>>>> chromosome needed for distinction, and a young woman >>>>>>> together in the same enviroment during the same testing >>>>>>> procedure. The old man cells soon ceased dividing, while >>>>>>> the young female cells continued dividing long afterwards. >>>>>>> This old man and young woman test was reversed old woman >>>>>>> mixed with young male cells. The results were the same. >>>>>>> The old woman cells ceased dividing long before the young >>>>>>> man cells. So, it was evident that normal human cell did, >>>>>>> in fact, age. Normal cells, after becoming cancerous somehow >>>>>>> seems to acquire immortality.
>>>>>>> Hayflick sent a manuscript to the "Journal of Expermental >>>>>>> Medicine" describing his results. A Nobel Laureant on the >>>>>>> staff read the manuscript and said, "The largest fact to >>>>>>> come out of tissue cultures in the past 50 years is that >>>>>>> cells are inherently capable of multiplying will do so >>>>>>> indefinitely if supplied with the right conditions". >>>>>>> The manuscript was rejected.
>>>>>>> Hayflick eventually re-summited his manuscript to another >>>>>>> journal and it was published. This paper has since been >>>>>>> one of the most frequently referenced papers in the history >>>>>>> of medical research.
>>>>>>> There is a terrible genetic disease visited upon unfortunate >>>>>>> children called progeria. Children with this mutated DNA >>>>>>> age at an accelerated rate, seem normal until they are about >>>>>>> ten. Around 12 they have gray hair, wrinkled skin thinning >>>>>>> bones and they rarely reach 20 years of age. Skin cells >>>>>>> from these children also show extremely rapid aging. By >>>>>>> contrast, the Galapagos tortoises, which can live hundreds >>>>>>> of years, has cells that can divide far beyond the "Hayflick >>>>>>> limit" of some 50 divisions for human somatic (soma) cells.
>>>>>>> Research has shown that aging is linked to cell division, >>>>>>> and not to time itself. One of Hayflick lab assistants, >>>>>>> Woody Wright exchanged the old man's nucleus with a young >>>>>>> cell and a nuclei of a young cell into an old cell. This >>>>>>> show that something in the nucleus kept a count down. A >>>>>>> "clock" in the nucleus kept up with the number of divisions. >>>>>>> The way this happens, is that at the linear end of chromosomes, >>>>>>> there is a series of repeats, discovered by and called >>>>>>> "telomeres" by Hermann Muller. These are like the ends of >>>>>>> shoe laces. They serve as the "clock" keeping track of the >>>>>>> number of repeats.
>>>>>>> Research demonstrated that each time a cell divided, the >>>>>>> daughter cell inherits the properties of the parent, >>>>>>> including the DNA repeats (links)at the chromosome's end >>>>>>> minus one link. >>>>>>> Each time a cell divides daughters telomere is one link >>>>>>> less than the parent cell.
>>>>>>> Next to come, immortal cells and how they differ from >>>>>>> mortal soma cells.
>>>>>> SO far, so good. I'm anxious for your next installment.
>>>>> Since no one seemed interested I saw no reason to pursue this any >>>>> further. >>>> I am interested, but not enough to put you to any trouble,
>>> It is the time and trouble of writing Part III. However, I had >>> completed approximately 50% of the next part when I felt it >>> was a waste of time and effort, since no one appeared interested. >>> Did you read my two previous post on the subject? If so, any >>> comments?
>> None, other than I am now much better informed about telomeres and the >> Hayflick limit than I was before I read them. I am in particular >> interested to hear what you have to say about HeLa.
> I touched on HeLa cells in part II. Here is what I know about this.
> In 1951 Henrietts Lacks drove from Virginia to The John Hopkins > Hospital with unsual bleeding. Here she was diagnosed with cancer. > Without her knowledge a small section of her cancer was taken and > given to George and Margaret Gey who had wanted to get a cancer > growing in a lab. (A cancer in a test tube) In this way, they hoped, > anticancer therapies and drugs could be tested before they were > given to people. The 1/2 inch piece was sectioned into smaller pieces > and placed it in glass bottles with a nutritional culture. Within > a few days the people in Gey's lab witnessed an explosive growth in > this artificial environment.
> Over the next months it became evident that Dr. Gey had an immortal > human cell line consisting of human cancer cells that would continue > to grow indefinitely. Dr. Gey appeared on national TV with a vial of > Henrietta's cells which he called HiLa cells to hide their origin. He > boasted. "It is possible that, from fundamental studies such as these, > we will be able to learn a way in which cancer can be completely > wiped out".
> These cells were destined to be sent to research cells around the > world even into space on board of Discoverer XVII satellite. These > cells continue to live today, almost 60 years after Henrietta died.
> Normal human somatic cells are not immortal, they will repeat > only about 50 times, aging during this time, then they will die even > when provided with with the right nutrients and conditions. But > Henrietta's cells were truly human somatic cells which became > immortal once they became cancerous. Eventually, they would play > a role in the quest to discover what mechanisms are involved in > immortal cells and how they differed from mortal cells.
> I should emphasize, again that immortal does not mean that immortal > cells cannot be killed by starvation, heat poison etc. It only means > they are not Programed to age and die.
> I have no more time, but I will get back to this.
> Thanks
> Ron
Hi Ron,
Thanks for posting. I am also interested in this. You write clearly, so it reads like a novel and I wonder if it ends somehow with an immortality-trick, like adding sequences to the telomeres. :-)
Regards, Erwin Moller
-- "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult." -- C.A.R. Hoare
> Iain wrote: > > On Nov 5, 6:47 am, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Iain wrote: > >>> On Oct 27, 11:04 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> Iain wrote: > >>>>> On Oct 23, 3:47 pm, Ron Dean <rd...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>>> We are programed by our DNA to age and die. > >>>>> No, we just do. > >>>>>> But > >>>>>> can we be _re-programed_ not to do so? > >>>>> No. > >>>>> The way not to age would be to leave the aging process alone and > >>>>> instead restore tissue to its former state. > >>>> This, of course, could happen once the aging process is fully > >>>> understood. A great deal is currently known. > >>> No. The whole point is that this is all we can do while the aging > >>> process is not understood.
> >> We do understand a great deal, while there is much to know. > >> Why does a dog live just a few years over 10, while the > >> green sea turtle live hundreds of years? > >> This we do understand. There is a childhood condition in > >> which a child seems normal until he or she reaches about > >> 10 years old. Then the child begins to show all the symptoms > >> of rapid aging and usually dies in their teens appearing to > >> be advanced in age. The reasons are reasonably well understood.
> >>> You don't need to know how a gun works in order to repair a bullet > >>> wound. > >>> What has the study of aging got to do with the possibility of > >>> rejuvenation?
> >> Rejuvenation? Maybe nothing. But greatly slowing the aging process > >> is the expectation.
> > But you'd need to understand aging much much more in order to do that. > > And you can only do that up till a point.
> > Whereas one doesn't need to understand aging at all in order to > > actually offset the aging process absolutely. One only needs to > > understand the static difference between an old person and young person > > (this is a matter of free observation), and then contrive a > > regenerative medicine to restore tissue to its former state.
> > > Scientist know the difference between old and new cells:
Yes, which is why undoing that difference is the only way to go.
Undo aging. Don't try to prevent it: that's futile.
> why some cells > such as our somatic cells age and die, and why other cells such as our > germ cells, cancer cells and some simple cells such as Tetahymena, a > pond scum are immortal. They can be killed by poison, starvation or hit > with a hammer. That is they never die a natural death - unlike somatic > cells, they are not programed to age and die. So, the goal is not > to eliminate natural aging and death, but to extend life beyond the > average 75 years life span.
What's the point in extending life without elimenating natural aging?
|
