Monday, February 28, 2005
Killing Immortality
French biologists say thay have proof that immortality is impossible. Single-celled bacteria like E. coli, and even some humans, have long nutrured hope that they may eascape aging and death. No so, says Eric J. Stewart of the Institut des Hautes Etudes Scientifique in France. "No life strategy is immune to the effects of aging and suggest that this may be because immortality is too costly or is mechanistically impossible," he writes. "This may be bad news for people who had hoped that advances in science might eventually lead to human immortality."
Scientists have assumed that cells that divide symmetrically do not age and are functionally immortal. Stewart and his colleagues tested this idea by analyzing repeated cycles of reproduction in Escherichia coli, a bacteria that reproduces without a juvenile phase and with an apparently symmetric division.
E. coli is a rod-shaped organism that reproduces by dividing in the middle. Each resultant cell, Stewart writes, inherits an old end or pole and a new pole, which is made during the division. The new and the old pole contain slightly different components, so although they look the same, they are physiologically asymmetrical.
Stewart found that the cells "inheriting old poles had a reduced growth rate, decreased rate of offspring formation, and increased risk of dying compared with the cells inheriting new poles. Thus, although the cells produced when E. coli divide look identical, they are functionally asymmetric, and the old pole cell is effectively an aging parent repeatedly producing rejuvenated offspring."
That may take some wind from the sails of transhumanists and others who believe in the possibility of immortality in some shape.
At least Stewart did try to offer some solace. He said his research provides "an excellent genetic platform for the study of the fundamental mechanisms of cellular aging and so could provide information that might ameliorate some of the unpleasantness of the human aging process."
Scientists have assumed that cells that divide symmetrically do not age and are functionally immortal. Stewart and his colleagues tested this idea by analyzing repeated cycles of reproduction in Escherichia coli, a bacteria that reproduces without a juvenile phase and with an apparently symmetric division.
E. coli is a rod-shaped organism that reproduces by dividing in the middle. Each resultant cell, Stewart writes, inherits an old end or pole and a new pole, which is made during the division. The new and the old pole contain slightly different components, so although they look the same, they are physiologically asymmetrical.
Stewart found that the cells "inheriting old poles had a reduced growth rate, decreased rate of offspring formation, and increased risk of dying compared with the cells inheriting new poles. Thus, although the cells produced when E. coli divide look identical, they are functionally asymmetric, and the old pole cell is effectively an aging parent repeatedly producing rejuvenated offspring."
That may take some wind from the sails of transhumanists and others who believe in the possibility of immortality in some shape.
At least Stewart did try to offer some solace. He said his research provides "an excellent genetic platform for the study of the fundamental mechanisms of cellular aging and so could provide information that might ameliorate some of the unpleasantness of the human aging process."
Comments:
<< Home
Help me out here. Each resultant cell receives an old pole and a new pole, right?
So all cells have old inherited poles, so why are some suffering from reduced growth rates (due to old poles)?
Maybe the problem is not the old data, it's the new pole made during the division. Like a xerox copy of a copy of a copy.
Link
So all cells have old inherited poles, so why are some suffering from reduced growth rates (due to old poles)?
Maybe the problem is not the old data, it's the new pole made during the division. Like a xerox copy of a copy of a copy.
I like your Xerox copy idea, though the paper doesn't support it. Here's the mechanism described in the paper: after the initial division, the "old poles" grow more slowly, divide less frequently and die more often than the "new poles." Rather like parents and their offspring. Take a look at this diagram. It's gives you a pretty clear idea how the division works:
http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=slideshow&type=figure&sici=journal-pbio-0030045-g001
Link
http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=slideshow&type=figure&sici=journal-pbio-0030045-g001
Thanks, I needed the diagram and what the fellow says makes some sense.
Still I wonder why when bacteria reproduce, the copy is better than the original? Or are the "offspring" of old bacteria not as healthy as the offspring of newer bacteria?
I need a grant to study this.
Link
Still I wonder why when bacteria reproduce, the copy is better than the original? Or are the "offspring" of old bacteria not as healthy as the offspring of newer bacteria?
I need a grant to study this.
The idea is that a bacteria cannot divide without one part getting older. If you look at the diagram, you'll see that a new pole is a copy of the original, so it doesn't get better than the parent. Click on the headline. It will take you to the entire paper. It's actually quite readable.
Link
Post a Comment
<< Home