QUOTE
Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan with a life cycle in which it reverts to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of a metazoan capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary stage (Piraino et al. 1996, p. 302). It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation. Theoretically, this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Turritopsis nutricula is a hydrozoan with a life cycle in which it reverts to the polyp stage after becoming sexually mature. It is the only known case of a metazoan capable of reverting completely to a sexually immature, colonial stage after having reached sexual maturity as a solitary stage (Piraino et al. 1996, p. 302). It does this through the cell development process of transdifferentiation. Theoretically, this cycle can repeat indefinitely, rendering it biologically immortal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_nutricula |
A potentially "immortal" jellyfish species that can age backward—the Benjamin Button of the deep—is silently invading the world's oceans, swarm by swarm, a recent study says.
Like the Brad Pitt movie character, the immortal jellyfish transforms from an adult back into a baby, but with an added bonus: Unlike Benjamin Button, the jellyfish can do it over and over again—though apparently only as an emergency measure.
Cancer Fighter?
What impact the jellyfish are having on their new ecosystems is still unknown and requires further study, Miglietta said.
Another mystery is how the jellyfish achieve their remarkable age reversal. Miglietta speculates that the creatures have very effective cellular repair mechanisms that allow them to age without incurring the usual ravages of time.
Miglietta dismissed news reports from this week that implied the jellyfish could hold a key to anti-aging drugs for humans.
"Nobody is looking into that," she said, "and I don't think you're going to find any secrets in these creatures."
But while they won't yield the next Botox, the jellyfish just might help fight one of human health's greatest threats—cancer—according to biologist Stefano Piraino of the University of Salento in Italy.
Like cancer cells, "some cells of this jellyfish that were supposed to [die] … are able to switch off some genes and to switch on some other genes, reactivating genetic programs that were used in earlier stages of the life cycle," Piraino said.
By studying how exactly the immortal jellyfish's cells do that, he said, scientists may find clues for the struggle against that other silent, rapidly expanding invader.
more here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...fish-swarm.html
Apparently jellyfish are going to do rather well with global warming.
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 23 2009, 10:28 PM)
Apparently jellyfish are going to do rather well with global warming.
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
Yes, I've been wondering why this aspect seems to have been dismissed by Miglietta.
Perhaps we're too unrelated to the jellyfish as a species. Must be worth throwing a few (s)Quid at some research!
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
Yes, I've been wondering why this aspect seems to have been dismissed by Miglietta.
Perhaps we're too unrelated to the jellyfish as a species. Must be worth throwing a few (s)Quid at some research!
QUOTE (Guest+Feb 23 2009, 11:22 PM)
Yes, I've been wondering why this aspect seems to have been dismissed by Miglietta.
Perhaps we're too unrelated to the jellyfish as a species. Must be worth throwing a few (s)Quid at some research!
That was strange. Just posted the above and it came up as "guest". I then realized I wasn't logged in. That's never happened before. Normally when one wants to respond they have to log in. Must be a new feature.
Perhaps we're too unrelated to the jellyfish as a species. Must be worth throwing a few (s)Quid at some research!
That was strange. Just posted the above and it came up as "guest". I then realized I wasn't logged in. That's never happened before. Normally when one wants to respond they have to log in. Must be a new feature.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Feb 23 2009, 10:28 PM)
Apparently jellyfish are going to do rather well with global warming.
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
Immortality is not found in nature.
And I approve of finding more sources of immortality in nature.
Immortality is not found in nature.
QUOTE (rayolight+Feb 28 2009, 04:43 AM)
Immortality is not found in nature.
Yeast.
Yeast.
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Mar 3 2009, 02:42 AM)
Yeast.
Out of the horse's mouth!
Out of the horse's mouth!
I'm under the impression that yeasts age, and that they only have a certain number of buddings they can go through. Or is that merely some yeasts?
QUOTE (El_Machinae+Mar 3 2009, 03:42 PM)
I'm under the impression that yeasts age, and that they only have a certain number of buddings they can go through. Or is that merely some yeasts?
I was more thinking about how you can make the same tasting beer and wine over and over again because the genetic code stays the same. I could be wrong though. However, that is what "aging" in terms that I know it means. Your genes loose some of their code as time goes by.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200810/s2386596.htm
I'm must confess, you may have guessed at this point I'm not a geneticist
Jellyfish cannot be immortal if the genes powering the production of proteins are wrong. Micks article mentions "cells" not dna or proteins.
I was more thinking about how you can make the same tasting beer and wine over and over again because the genetic code stays the same. I could be wrong though. However, that is what "aging" in terms that I know it means. Your genes loose some of their code as time goes by.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200810/s2386596.htm
I'm must confess, you may have guessed at this point I'm not a geneticist
Jellyfish cannot be immortal if the genes powering the production of proteins are wrong. Micks article mentions "cells" not dna or proteins.
rotf!
I never thought I'd see the words "immortal" and "jelly-fish" in the same sentence. This is the greatest thing I've ever seen, lol!
I never thought I'd see the words "immortal" and "jelly-fish" in the same sentence. This is the greatest thing I've ever seen, lol!
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Mar 4 2009, 01:27 PM)
I was more thinking about how you can make the same tasting beer and wine over and over again because the genetic code stays the same. I could be wrong though. However, that is what "aging" in terms that I know it means. Your genes loose some of their code as time goes by.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200810/s2386596.htm
I'm must confess, you may have guessed at this point I'm not a geneticist
Jellyfish cannot be immortal if the genes powering the production of proteins are wrong. Micks article mentions "cells" not dna or proteins.
When we talk of immorality, we usually are talking around the level of 'the organism'. Since yeast are discrete organisms, and those specific organisms age, then I don't think you could call them immortal. Even though they can have an extensive lineage, through their offspring.
The hydra is often called immortal, even though specific cells aren't, because the whole organism doesn't seem to die of old age.
Aging is a rather complex topic, because everyone seems to know what it is, but we have trouble agreeing on what aging is. At least, in a way that's applicable across many types of life. Even people trying to cure aging in humans have a tough time figuring out what types of breakdown are 'aging' and what types are other diseases.
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/200810/s2386596.htm
I'm must confess, you may have guessed at this point I'm not a geneticist
Jellyfish cannot be immortal if the genes powering the production of proteins are wrong. Micks article mentions "cells" not dna or proteins.
When we talk of immorality, we usually are talking around the level of 'the organism'. Since yeast are discrete organisms, and those specific organisms age, then I don't think you could call them immortal. Even though they can have an extensive lineage, through their offspring.
The hydra is often called immortal, even though specific cells aren't, because the whole organism doesn't seem to die of old age.
Aging is a rather complex topic, because everyone seems to know what it is, but we have trouble agreeing on what aging is. At least, in a way that's applicable across many types of life. Even people trying to cure aging in humans have a tough time figuring out what types of breakdown are 'aging' and what types are other diseases.
I actually don't know what to make of you. I went to the site in your signature. Can I ask if you don't believe what I previously posted, what is you take on aging?
Aging is the main cause of death in modern society, and my greatest risk factor for dying. I believe that aging is a natural process, and thus can (and should) be intervened in. I think we should cure aging: it kills too many people for us to ignore.
Well...
You'd probably have to start a human from scratch and modify cells - or whatever - that they don't loose some of their genes each time they split. Like yeast.
I cannot believe I'm having this conversation really.
Immortality is a tall order.
You'd probably have to start a human from scratch and modify cells - or whatever - that they don't loose some of their genes each time they split. Like yeast.
I cannot believe I'm having this conversation really.
Immortality is a tall order.
Yeah, it IS a tall order. I think the trick is to engage in small but incremental benefits. We don't need to cure aging with a *snap*, we need to figure out a way to add healthy years to someone's life and then find out a new way to add more years in the interim.
Luckily, most of aging is an accumulation of damage. If you can prevent or repair some damage, it buys you time to figure out how to fix other things. You write of losing genes: yeah, that's a problem. But there are a series of putative technologies which could repair those genes if you live long enough to see them developed. So, how do you live long enough to see those technologies? Well, you can either speed up their arrival or delay your own aging using other opportunities.
There's plenty of room for solutions: and they're necessary, because people are dying.
Luckily, most of aging is an accumulation of damage. If you can prevent or repair some damage, it buys you time to figure out how to fix other things. You write of losing genes: yeah, that's a problem. But there are a series of putative technologies which could repair those genes if you live long enough to see them developed. So, how do you live long enough to see those technologies? Well, you can either speed up their arrival or delay your own aging using other opportunities.
There's plenty of room for solutions: and they're necessary, because people are dying.
I just talked with a biology major and he pretty much told, theoretically, I was right.
Yes, your biology undergrad gave you some pointers, but that's not the end of it. Some body parts wear out with use. Cells program their own death when they get damaged. Some tissues don't fix themselves. And repairs can be ugly (scar tissue) and life threatening in their own respect. And the cell is not an engineered system -- there are few this part does that and only that statements about the inner workings of life -- so tampering with telomere mechanisms may have side effects which are wholly undesirable.
To consider -- if it was both easy and beneficial, then why isn't it selected for naturally already?
Males stay fertile their whole adult lives. But recent studies indicate children of older fathers are duller. So perhaps old person gametes are in a way old and degraded already.
To consider -- if it was both easy and beneficial, then why isn't it selected for naturally already?
Males stay fertile their whole adult lives. But recent studies indicate children of older fathers are duller. So perhaps old person gametes are in a way old and degraded already.
I find your response rather odd. I was just outside my dorm having a smoke with the guy (we had not met previously) and it was not a political discussion. But it is early in the morning where I am and the forum did seem to me rather dead. If everyone were immortal as said it would destroy the human race, I agree. But should it not still be done, if it can be done? Not on humans of course.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/25/1/220
http://mousegeneticslab.org/english/profes.../MMGL_pub21.pdf
It's ongoing research. But it's not immortality of itself.
http://mousegeneticslab.org/english/profes.../MMGL_pub21.pdf
It's ongoing research. But it's not immortality of itself.
To clarify my previous post. Stem cell research was brought up in my conversation and well lets not think about George Bush
QUOTE (Beer w/Straw+Mar 12 2009, 07:26 AM)
I just talked with a biology major and he pretty much told, theoretically, I was right.
That we would need to reinvent humans, so that they don't lose genes? Maybe. But we have a plethora of ways of getting genes into cells (though we're still somewhat in the dark ages), so it looks like the idea of 'replacing' broken genes isn't totally out to lunch.
That we would need to reinvent humans, so that they don't lose genes? Maybe. But we have a plethora of ways of getting genes into cells (though we're still somewhat in the dark ages), so it looks like the idea of 'replacing' broken genes isn't totally out to lunch.
Nanotechnology, robotics, genetics, and computer technology will coalesce more and more as time goes on. I think there will be as many synthetic solutions for some aspects of aging as there will be genetic ones; the genetic ones at the very beginning, and the synthetic ones as we continue to age; we're going to need both; I've never read anywhere that immortality of a single entity is a biological possibility - and thats what we're looking for.
We are already living a little longer than our forebears, in general, and as long as the current economic climate doesn't worsen, and improves, and nothing terrible happens, young people today could already be living much longer lives than we (or they) think. The snowball of applied science is getting bigger, and faster all the time. Immortality is a tall order, at least to realistic consideration now, but living a long long time is not so far fetched anymore. imo, in general, it starts with smart nutrition* and detailed analysis/corrections of nutrient uptake, and technology aids us from there. In the future, it could start with correcting the unwanteds in the genetic structure of egg and sperm, but how that is finally well-accomplished only some may be dimly aware right now. But a really good way will be found, that is certain. Science fiction authors - they are poets of the future, they're good ones to ask
As long as the controversial notion of human immortality is being considered, here is a controversial book about how it may be achieved. I don't exactly subscribe, but I do have the book...
"The Physics of Immortality", Frank Tipler, ISBN 0-385-46798-2
(Lest you start bouncing in your chair), despite the other references on the book cover, Tipler is actually an atheist.
*There's been some recent research indicating that Vitamins C and E slow down telomere erosion (but only women were in the study).
Hope I didn't wander too far off topic!
We are already living a little longer than our forebears, in general, and as long as the current economic climate doesn't worsen, and improves, and nothing terrible happens, young people today could already be living much longer lives than we (or they) think. The snowball of applied science is getting bigger, and faster all the time. Immortality is a tall order, at least to realistic consideration now, but living a long long time is not so far fetched anymore. imo, in general, it starts with smart nutrition* and detailed analysis/corrections of nutrient uptake, and technology aids us from there. In the future, it could start with correcting the unwanteds in the genetic structure of egg and sperm, but how that is finally well-accomplished only some may be dimly aware right now. But a really good way will be found, that is certain. Science fiction authors - they are poets of the future, they're good ones to ask
As long as the controversial notion of human immortality is being considered, here is a controversial book about how it may be achieved. I don't exactly subscribe, but I do have the book...
"The Physics of Immortality", Frank Tipler, ISBN 0-385-46798-2
(Lest you start bouncing in your chair), despite the other references on the book cover, Tipler is actually an atheist.
*There's been some recent research indicating that Vitamins C and E slow down telomere erosion (but only women were in the study).
Hope I didn't wander too far off topic!
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.