[HN Gopher] Longer proteins for longer lifespan?
___________________________________________________________________
Longer proteins for longer lifespan?
Author : bilsbie
Score : 38 points
Date : 2022-12-13 16:36 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (joshmitteldorf.scienceblog.com)
| ray__ wrote:
| The idea that aging research is being stifled by patent law (or
| any other mechanism) is ridiculous. Aging and neurodegenerative
| disease already receive an exorbitant amount of funding from the
| government (see: the NIA). The aging billionaire class is also
| more than happy to fund aging research that works for them (see:
| Altos Labs as the most recent example, The SENS Research
| Foundation, and tech life sciences offshoots like Calico). The
| argument that you "can't patent naturally occurring proteins" may
| be technically true, but there are plenty of ways around this
| which often improve the performance of the native proteins as
| therapeutics (see: insulin, among many others).
|
| _" Leapfrogging ahead of these research institutes with a
| practical demonstration has been Harold Katcher. Katcher's method
| is proprietary."_
|
| Wow, a proprietary method that outdoes decades of scientific
| research? Haven't heard that one before. I understand that there
| has been little progress in this space, but that's because no one
| knows what causes aging (or if it can be halted at all). There's
| no single smoking gun, and there is likely no single easy
| solution. I also understand that our scientific institutions
| aren't perfect-and that the big ship of science can sometimes
| take a while to turn away from a tantalizing hypotheses, like the
| amyloid hypothesis-but that doesn't mean that you should trust
| Harold Katcher instead.
|
| _Presumably, longer proteins require more splicing, so impaired
| RNA splicing could account for a deficit of longer proteins as we
| age._
|
| Why is this "presumably true"? Intuitively, impaired splicing
| would produce longer proteins, because introns aren't excised as
| effectively. Even this take is far too simplistic-there are
| innumerate feedback and control mechanisms involved in mRNA
| splicing. I'm sure the author has a better grasp on molecular
| biology than this hot take suggests based on his credentials, but
| the treatment of this topic by the author is concerning.
|
| As an aside, wow, that preprint spent over three years in review,
| and the figures and text are way different. A lot of work and
| stress must have gone into it.
| aszantu wrote:
| NAD seems to have some rejuvenation effect. It's a refined
| vitamin b component.
| hanselot wrote:
| If only it was cheap enough to take regularly...
| macrolime wrote:
| The mentioned E5 plasma fraction has seemingly led to a new
| lifespan record for Sprague Dawley rats.
|
| "The female lifespan study, in which E5 is being tested on
| elderly female rats, is still ongoing because of an extraordinary
| fact: one of the treated rats, named "Sima", is still alive at 44
| months of age. Sprague Dawley rats have a lifespan of 24 to 36
| months, with specimens reaching 42 months according to some
| sources. So Sima, with the help of E5, is extending the limits of
| the maximum lifespan of Sprague Dawley rats.
|
| The study began in February 2021, when E5 started being injected
| in 8 female rats every 90 days, with another 8 female rats in the
| control group. Over time, all the rats in the untreated group
| died, and in the E5-treated group, all but Sima died.
| Additionally, Sima has not received any E5 for the last 6 months
| which may indicate that the benefits of the therapy can become
| long lasting. She hasn't lost eyesight, hasn't developed skin
| canker sores, hasn't lost motor function or developed bald
| patches.
|
| Overall, the treated rats lived longer than the control ones, but
| it won't be possible to know exactly how much longer on average
| until Sima dies."
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| Interesting article on new promise for "rejuvenation" therapies
| (once the realm of science fiction).
|
| Last paragraph puts its finger on one of the reasons progress is
| so slow:
|
| > The most promising avenue for rejuvenation (IMO) is not
| attracting research attention because it cannot attract venture
| capital; it can't attract venture capital because there is no
| attractive business model; and there is no business model because
| of the structure of our patent law.
| amelius wrote:
| Why can't it attract venture capital if the possible outcome is
| worth more than what money can buy, regardless of any argument
| about competition?
|
| Are VCs only interested in wealth that is in excess of other
| people's wealth?
| sinenomine wrote:
| It's not just (or even predominantly) patent law: if there is
| no explicit or implicit agreement for FDA to approve some
| treatments that modulate ageing (to even become a possibility,
| this category of indications should be created) and for the
| healthcare provider complex (insurers, governments, clinics) to
| provide said treatments to the public, there is no prospective
| market.
|
| Until there is a coordinated push to align our regulatory and
| medical systems with this challenge, the status quo will remain
| frozen.
|
| Will a few remaining decades be enough for the metaphorical ice
| to crack?
| ericmcer wrote:
| Would that really dissuade a Musk/Bezos/Gates from investing in
| it? Our society is flush with billionaires and a procedure that
| restored youth would be worth 1000X a money making investment
| to them.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| How do you know they're not investing in it? If they are
| would it be worth their trying to make money on it or would
| they consider it worth more if they kept it to themselves?
| sp332 wrote:
| You can't 1000x investment if there is no barrier to entry
| for competition.
| epicureanideal wrote:
| There are other barriers than patents. First mover
| advantage, brand name recognition, first to achieve low
| cost, strategic partnerships, etc.
| nonameiguess wrote:
| They're saying a treatment that can actually reverse aging
| and prolong lifespan is worth 1000x more than money,
| especially to someone who already has more money than they
| can possibly spend in a (currently expected) lifetime.
| gumby wrote:
| > Meanwhile, the four questions I listed above are not being
| addressed. Patent law is working against us, since Katcher's E5
| patent is for a process of extraction. If a subset of active
| ingredients is identified and the minimal set of rejuvenating
| proteins becomes known, his patent becomes worthless. Naturally
| occurring proteins cannot be patented.
|
| > This is the maddening influence of capitalism and
| intellectual property law on anti-aging science. The most
| promising avenue for rejuvenation (IMO) is not attracting
| research attention because it cannot attract venture capital;
| it can't attract venture capital because there is no attractive
| business model; and there is no business model because of the
| structure of our patent law.
|
| This is common in pharma patent law. At an earlier company we
| made some progress on a treatment for a fairly common disease,
| but it looked like any compounding pharmacy could make it. So
| we abandoned that path and went in a different direction that
| was protectable (and more effective, true). The inverse is the
| case as well: had the less effective treatment been available,
| it might not have been worth developing something that could
| help even more people, because those that needed the better
| treatment would not be enough to justify development.
|
| But the situation is not as clear as stated by the author.
| First of all, much of the work is basic research, and that is
| mostly funded by governments and charities. Second of all, even
| if you've identified a mechanism of action, developing a
| feasible _in vivo_ way to trigger that action, figuring out how
| to manufacture it at scale, and getting it approved can provide
| many patent opportunities. When people complain "why are drugs
| expensive when the government pays for it" they miss the point:
| "government" developed the transistor,* it was private
| companies that developed the IC and the microprocessor. The
| situation with drugs is analogous.
|
| * Yes the transistor was invented at Bell Labs, but Bell Labs
| only existed due to the structure of the government's consent
| decree for the Bell telephone company, and when that decree was
| lifted Bell Labs suffered a precipitous decline. Anyway, it's
| just an analogy.
| hcknwscommenter wrote:
| >Katcher's E5 patent is for a process of extraction. If a
| subset of active ingredients is identified and the minimal
| set of rejuvenating proteins becomes known, his patent
| becomes worthless. Naturally occurring proteins cannot be
| patented.
|
| This is not legal advice, but I firmly disagree with these
| statements. Individual naturally occurring proteins cannot be
| patented, but: A method of treating aging by administering
| the individual protein can be patented. A specific
| combination (subset) of naturally occurring proteins that is
| otherwise not really found together in nature in an isolated
| manner, is likely patentable A highly concentrated extract
| (or other means of making the particular combination) that is
| not found in nature is patentable A method of making the
| combination is likely patentable. A compound that begins as a
| naturally occuring protein, but is modified in some way for
| therapeutic efficacy (pegylation, truncation, fusion, etc.)
| is patentable A formulation suitable for administration (with
| buffers, stabilizers, etc.) is patentable.
|
| There are many inventions that go into making a therapeutic.
| Yes the compound itself provides the cleanest and most
| valuable patent protection, but natural products can be
| protected.
|
| Then there is regulatory exclusivity, which can be an
| entirely different ball of wax that does not necessarily have
| anything to do with patents at all.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:01 UTC)