[HN Gopher] Anti-aging breakthrough: Stem cells reverse signs of...
___________________________________________________________________
Anti-aging breakthrough: Stem cells reverse signs of aging in
monkeys
Archive link: https://archive.md/uwR3d, Research Paper:
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00571-9
Author : bilsbie
Score : 151 points
Date : 2025-10-02 19:39 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nad.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nad.com)
| choeger wrote:
| So a question to the experts here: What's the catch?
| piker wrote:
| gotta be cancer
| tomhowsalterego wrote:
| Personally I'm holding out for something a bit more
| interesting like some even more macabre Picture of Dorian
| Gray type thing.
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| When you extend human lifespan long enough, cancer becomes
| close to inevitable anyway.
| inglor_cz wrote:
| Or maybe not. Some species are very resistant to cancer.
| For example, bats basically never get it, even though they
| live up to 40 years.
|
| Would they get cancer if they lived for 400 years? Maybe
| not either. Their immune systems are very good, better than
| ours.
|
| (We humans don't really want to acknowledge that some other
| animals may have better immune systems, or any other
| systems, at their disposal.)
|
| On the other end of the scale, mice die of cancer while not
| even three years old, because their immune systems are
| really bad at fighting cancer cells.
|
| Cancer in mammals seems to be a function of failing immune
| systems rather than raw age in numbers. In some species,
| including us humans, weakening of the immune system goes
| hand in hand with aging. But in others it does not.
| echelon wrote:
| The correct way to phrase this is that humans have a
| level of cancer that does not greatly impede the fitness
| of the species in having offspring. We didn't hill climb
| into other evolutionary protective mechanisms because
| they either were not discovered or did not convey
| appropriate fitness benefits.
|
| Our evolutionary biology doesn't "care" if we get cancer.
| Just that we have healthy children and can rear them for
| one or two generations. That was a (locally) optimal
| algorithm.
|
| We have plenty of in-built checks and protections in our
| molecular biology, and they are sufficient to expand the
| species.
| andrewl wrote:
| See _Peto 's Paradox_ for discussion of different cancer
| rates among species:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peto's_paradox
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Peto's paradox - and the existence of whales in
| particular.
|
| If cancer really is an inevitability, then whales, who
| have both livespan limits longer than that of humans, and
| enormous bodies with a staggering amount of living cells,
| would be full of cancer. They aren't.
|
| Clearly, humans must have better innate cancer
| suppression than mice, and whales must have better innate
| cancer suppression than humans.
|
| There are some hints that this may come down to
| programmed cell death and DNA repair mechanisms (i.e. the
| p53 pathway) more than the immune system tweaks - with
| immune response being the "last resort" of cancer
| suppression. But we also don't know enough about the
| immune system to be able to examine it the same detail we
| can examine the DNA repair pathways.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _gotta be cancer_
|
| "Notably, none of the cell transplant recipients developed
| tumors (n = 16)."
|
| https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00571-9?_re.
| ..
| mullingitover wrote:
| If a subset of the population stops dying, and that group
| grows, you've just invented cancer again on a different
| scale.
| bitwize wrote:
| So the best way to get induced pluripotent stem cells is
| through the Yamanaka factors, which are proteins coded for by
| genes which are not expressed in mature cells. Using all four
| Yamanaka factors is a one-way ticket to tumor town. But, as
| it turns out, using three of the four still gets you IPSCs
| without the elevated cancer risk.
| paulpauper wrote:
| Monkeys are not humans, anti-aging is imprecise and does not
| necessarily translate into longer life expectancies for people,
| and promises of extending life have always fallen short of
| hype, and odds are this will too.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Monkeys are not humans_
|
| The implanted stem cells, however, were human. (The fact that
| that the treatments did not cause "fever or substantial
| changes in immune cell levels (lymphocytes, neutrophils, and
| monocytes), which are commonly monitored for xenograft-
| related immune responses," is itself surprising.)
|
| > _promises of extending life have always fallen short of
| hype, and odds are this will too_
|
| Correct, though I'd say because this is early-stage medical
| research. Not because it's targeting longevity. I'd be
| similarly sceptical of an N = 16 early-stage drug trial for
| the flu.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| 16 primates is not small when it comes to primate studies.
| In any case, knowing how expensive and rare primate
| research is to conduct, I doubt this is the first animal
| model used on this approach.
|
| In terms of replicatability, it is also not always the
| sample size, it is the effect size. Small samples do affect
| ability to generalize, but the point is that sample size
| isn't everything.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _its the effect size_
|
| Which effect size do you find lacking?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| I was responding to the idea that listing a small sample
| size automatically means its shit science.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Oh, absolutely correct. Small study doesn't mean shit
| science. It just means there is plenty of room for
| randomness and hidden variables to create havoc on the
| way to a treatment.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| But they sure ain't mice, either. This is a LOT closer than
| results in mice.
| jasondigitized wrote:
| Is there another, better animal that is used in late stage
| testing for other drugs you are aware of?
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| Examine your assumptions. There is no inherent reason that
| there has to be a catch. We are all from a long line of
| cellular reproduction that has lasted billions of years. There
| is no inherent reasons why cellular mechanisms can't keep
| maintaining/replacing a collection of those cell lineages...our
| relatively short lifespans are probably the products of
| evolutionary fitness functions acting on more fruitful
| strategies for reproductive success than staying off aging.
| lukan wrote:
| My assumption is, there are lots of rich people who want to
| live forever and lots of people who want their wealth and
| breakthroughs with anti ageing were quite rare or rather non
| existent as far as I know.
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| My assumption is that I'd feel more certain if this science
| had been conducted in the U.S. or Europe, but your
| assumptions is a little too conspiratorial for me.
| lukan wrote:
| How many breakthroughs have there been so far in anti-
| aging research that turned out to be real?
| jl6 wrote:
| When the upside is extraordinary, it's very reasonable to
| expect some downside, just based on experience of, like,
| everything ever.
|
| As well as the undeniable benefit to individuals, a cure for
| aging would unleash a whole new bunch of problems that have
| been kept in check through the mechanism of people dying off
| regularly. A society of immortals could be quite alien to us.
| somesortofthing wrote:
| Biology is one of very few areas of science where you do
| just find free lunches sometimes. Human bodies are adapted
| to environments with harsh constraints about injuries,
| pathogens, temperature, energy usage, etc. The only catch
| to counteracting those adaptations is that it makes you
| worse at being a hunter-gatherer.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Biology is one of very few areas of science where you
| do just find free lunches sometimes_
|
| Good example is vitamin supplementation. There isn't a
| downside. It's just a fuck-up we can't synthesise vitamin
| C. (There may be path-dependent benefits, _e.g._ our jaw
| muscles getting smaller thereby permitting a larger
| brain. But we don 't need to be vitamin C restricted
| anymore.)
| throwuxiytayq wrote:
| Same to be said about the solution for hunger, pain,
| sadness, madness. I guess we better stay where are just in
| case.
| sebastialonso wrote:
| Catch is perhaps a strong word. Trade-off would be more
| accurate.
|
| Every action in the known universe (and surely in some
| unknown ones too) results in a trade-off. This is maybe the
| only precept on software architecture that doesn't "depends"
| on anything and is closer to natural law.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| The only tradeoff that's truly enforced is "you need to
| spend energy to get anything done".
|
| Human body isn't exactly bottlenecked by energy
| availability. Calories are getting cheaper and cheaper,
| with obesity rates as a testament to that.
| jdiff wrote:
| Sure, but there's usually plenty of other tradeoffs in
| any system of notable complexity. This is certainly a
| system of notable complexity. We may find that there is
| mental degradation that's not covered by this. We may
| discover that cancer is practically unavoidable if you
| live long enough, and the problem compounds even further
| with age than we can anticipate now. There's never just
| one lever being pulled in isolation.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| I mean, if you gain +20 years of longevity to most of the
| body, but not to mind? That's still 20 extra years of
| lifespan if you're lucky. And if you aren't, it's still
| better health in general, until your mind goes.
|
| There are old people who remain lucid and active well
| into their nineties, not getting dementia or cancer -
| through some combination of good luck, good genes and
| good lifestyle choices. They live a good life - until a
| stroke cripples them, or the heart fails them, or a very
| mundane illness like flu puts them in bed and they never
| quite recover from it. If that couldn't happen to them,
| how many more good years would that buy them?
|
| Any treatment that addresses the aging-associated
| systematic decline in bodily functions should be
| extremely desirable. Even if it wouldn't help _everyone_
| live longer, it would help a lot of people live better
| lives nonetheless.
| neom wrote:
| My personal thought on the "catch" (of "curing death") is
| that we seriously don't understand how removing or slowing
| evolution in the equation at the population level plays out
| over time. Evolution seems to be a fairly robust and
| complex subsystem of reality.
| onionisafruit wrote:
| It delays that sweet eternal rest
| SirFatty wrote:
| It's really adrenochrome.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| The title is overblown. This just improves certain biomarkers
| that are associated with aging. This might improve healthspan
| but there is no indication that these monkeys will live any
| longer than the natural range.
| nikkwong wrote:
| That might not be true, if you look at the paper:
|
| "The super stem cells prevent age-related bone loss while
| rejuvenating over 50% of the 61 tissues analyzed." (including
| the brain).
|
| What do people die of when they die of 'old age'? There's the
| 3 pillars: cancer, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative. These
| are often (but not always) metabolic diseases; i.e.
| cardiovascular death often arises from kidney insufficiency.
| If you can regenerate the liver, kidney, etc. indefinitely, a
| large vector of metabolic disease is probably diminished or
| disappears.
|
| In the paper, monkeys restored brain volume. They reduced the
| levels of senescent cells to youthful levels. They increased
| bone mass. This reduces or eliminates many of the threats
| that inflict casualties among the centenarian population.
|
| Sure, something else could come up that the monkeys start
| dying from instead. But, given the way humans and monkeys die
| of old age--by reducing or eliminating all known threats--
| it's hard to see how this wouldn't extend lifespan.
| chrisco255 wrote:
| This paper doesn't prove that it extends lifespan. So to
| speculate on that extraordinary claim without extraordinary
| evidence to back it up is useless. It would be far easier
| to prove this out on a species with a much smaller lifespan
| like mice, not to mention cheaper, but so far we're unable
| to make a mouse live longer than 5 years.
| ikrenji wrote:
| I skimmed the article looking for a lifespan plot. Didn't see
| one. Instead it is replaced by a "proprietary multidimensional
| primate aging clock measurement". Take it as you will...
| disambiguation wrote:
| Aging is related to shortening of telomeres - the speculated
| evolutionary advantage is that it's a mechanism to protect
| against cancer.
|
| Unclear from the study what the stem cells are doing to address
| either problem.
| gennarro wrote:
| Link doesn't work?
| cheema33 wrote:
| At the time of this writing, the link does not work.
|
| 504 Gateway Time-out nginx/1.18.0 (Ubuntu)
| btbuildem wrote:
| This is one of these scientific endeavours I cannot get behind.
| Sure, in theory, it would be amazing to live a thousand years --
| but it reeks so strongly of the genie's bottle, I don't think we
| should pursue it.
|
| It would likely only be the uber-wealthy and powerful who would
| have access to this technology. Picture a world where a slew of
| today's despots (including the current American president) get to
| live for two, or three human lifespans.
|
| If that doesn't cool your jets, let's say the treatment is so
| cheap it can be widely available to everyone. Now you have
| prisoners, slaves, exploited labourers who live for centuries.
| It's madness. I don't think we've evolved enough, ethically
| speaking, as a species to wrestle with such long lifespans.
| vinni2 wrote:
| Anti aging is not just about living long. Having a good quality
| of life as long as you live is essential. The world population
| is ageing and costs of caring for them will be huge cost for
| humanity.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would likely only be the uber-wealthy and powerful who would
| have access to this technology_
|
| If by uber-wealthy you mean most people in rich countries,
| sure. Otherwise, I don't see why this would progress in a way
| all other medicine has not.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Where are the stem cells coming from?
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Where are the stem cells coming from?_
|
| This study appears to have used "human embryonic stem cells
| (hESCs)" [1]. We haven't tested this with iPSCs [2].
|
| Even if it only works with hESCs, if the part of the
| population that thinks blastocysts are people wants to live
| a third or a quarter as long as the part that doesn't, I
| don't see a problem with that. We're basically going in
| that direction with vaccination anyway.
|
| [1] https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00571-
| 9?_re...
|
| [2]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induced_pluripotent_stem_cell
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Thank you for the details about this article but that's
| not quite what I meant.
|
| I meant where do you get enough stem cells to make the
| procedure widely available to the developed world? Stem
| cells are kinda scarce, as far as I know, so it may gate
| such a thing.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Stem cells are kinda scarce, as far as I know_
|
| Embryonic stem cells are rare in America because of
| religious types. They're not particularly difficult to
| manufacture or extract--the limit is really human eggs,
| and we can make those in the lab [1]. (Human sperm are
| not, for many reasons, difficult to secure.)
|
| I'd actually guess hESCs would be the cheapest route. If
| we insist on iPSCs, then this turns into a personalised
| medicine treatment. But in that, it's no different from
| _e.g._ oncology.
|
| [1] https://www.npr.org/2025/09/30/nx-s1-5553322/ivg-
| human-eggs-...
| Bender wrote:
| _Do you still want this longevity to be real?_
|
| I want this longevity to be real. I have to stick around long
| enough to see if people respond differently to me when they are
| older.
|
| _' If You Are Not a Liberal When You Are Young, You Have No
| Heart, and If You Are Not a Conservative When Old, You Have No
| Brain'_ Nobody seems to agree on who actually said that.
| DrewADesign wrote:
| The author of that quote only proved that those two qualities
| aren't mutually exclusive.
| ge96 wrote:
| You just need a Prime Radiant
| gruez wrote:
| >Picture a world where a slew of today's despots (including the
| current American president) get to live for two, or three human
| lifespans.
|
| What makes the current lifespan any more correct than 2x or 3x,
| or 0.5x of a century or two ago? Given that life expectancy was
| much shorter a century ago, should we start randomly executing
| people to keep "the uber-wealthy and powerful" from living too
| long? That would probably have kept "the current American
| president" from being in power.
| diatone wrote:
| Iiuc it wasn't a comment about what the perfect lifespan is.
| It's expressing a concern about how people in power might
| apply life extending technologies, like they do many other
| technologies, to exercise and entrench that power.
|
| Or put differently: it's a request, given limited resources
| let's expend effort on a fairer society, not one with longer
| lived people.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _people in power might apply life extending technologies,
| like they do many other technologies, to exercise and
| entrench that power_
|
| Sure. One of which would be broadly granting access to it.
|
| Like, if a country tried to restrict such technology to its
| leaders, you could probably trigger regime change by simply
| promising to share the technology in the event of
| deposement. Every party member who barely missed the cut
| would become your revolutionary.
| diatone wrote:
| That's possible, I suppose. I think @btbuildem was
| expressing a personal distaste for other uses of power,
| and an avulsion to the technology because of that. For
| example: labor camps.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _@btbuildem was expressing a personal distaste for
| other uses of power, and an avulsion to the technology
| because of that_
|
| Nihilistic Luddism. It works against any argument for
| making the world a better place.
|
| > _For example: labor camps_
|
| ...what 's the connection between longevity and labor
| camps? Empirically, as life expectancies (at birth and in
| adulthood) have risen, the prevalence of labor camps has
| gone down. We can see this both longitudinally and
| between countries.
| kiba wrote:
| Uber rich have means of extending their power to the next
| generation anyway. Look at North Korea. It's stagnant and
| hardly changed despite changing hand 3 times.
|
| Whereas if you live a super long life, you can't afford to be
| risk averse and hope for a dictator to die of old age and
| hope that will somehow magically change thing.
| thaw13579 wrote:
| Life expectancy was shorter a century ago because infant
| mortality, disease and injury pull the average down. We've
| done an amazing job of a society pulling up that lower end,
| but lifespan associated with normal aging is actually fairly
| stable. For example, Plato lived to be roughly 80 years old.
| ericmay wrote:
| You're welcome to die if you'd like, but I'll take my chances
| on living longer with any unknown repercussions.
|
| The technology would have to be accessible to everyone,
| otherwise "the wealthy" would be murdered. And no, some
| futuristic sci-fi bullshit isn't going to save them.
|
| > Now you have prisoners, slaves, exploited labourers who live
| for centuries.
|
| I don't really understand this line of reasoning at all. Slaves
| exist, and slavery is miserable, therefore nobody on the planet
| should live beyond current human lifetimes? If a slave or
| exploited person is going to get healthcare for something that
| might otherwise cause them to die, are you arguing healthcare
| should be withheld?
| paulpauper wrote:
| _This is one of these scientific endeavours I cannot get
| behind. Sure, in theory, it would be amazing to live a thousand
| years -- but it reeks so strongly of the genie 's bottle, I
| don't think we should pursue it._
|
| The odds of this actually happening are about about zero
| anyway, so this is not something to be concerned about. I am
| more optimistic, if it were to happen ,in unlocking economic
| potential. Why would we not want some of society's most
| productive people to live longer. Think of all the careers
| derailed by illness, lives separated by death.
| bsenftner wrote:
| In today's regulatory environment, I don't even think the CEO
| of the immortality service provider would know if their service
| were safe. But you can guarantee it will have _personalized
| pricing_ calculated right at the edge of the immense wealth
| required to have that service. And it 's a high priced
| subscription too, you betcha.
| eerikkivistik wrote:
| So the argument is essentially "8 billion people dying is a
| problem, that is worse than whatever the result of longevity
| is". I'm not sure that it is.
| ripped_britches wrote:
| Picture the inverse of what you are saying.
|
| "Everyone can live 500 years but I think we should set up a
| program to randomly murder them at around 60-90 years old."
| bravoetch wrote:
| Your comment appears to be based in fear, without presenting
| any reasonable argument against extended lifespans. The idea
| that a naughty president, or a prisoner, would live hundreds of
| years is not a longevity problem, its a politics problem.
| cosmic_cheese wrote:
| I would expect it to shift power dynamics quite dramatically,
| and probably in ways that can't be accurately predicted. What
| happens when raising a family no longer occupies the bulk of
| adults' healthy lives and lived experience and wisdom is no
| longer dragged down by the gradual descent into senility? What
| if age didn't inversely correlate to neuroplasticity? What if
| as a young person, your runway to get where you want to go is
| 80+ years after graduating high school instead of 30-40? All
| sorts of assumptions and social structures would be upended.
| octoberfranklin wrote:
| > Picture a world where a slew of today's despots get to live
| for two, or three human lifespans
|
| Uprisings or outright assassinations would become much more
| common.
|
| Seriously. Every senior government official or sniper in Russia
| who isn't happy with Putin is placated by telling themselves
| "everybody dies sooner or later". Take that away and you'll
| force people to _do_ something instead of just waiting out the
| clock.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| I feel like the point mostly comes down to "our current society
| sucks so we shouldn't want to live longer in it," but that
| could be improved and you can always just, ya know, dip out.
| programjames wrote:
| I'll just grant you that most societies are wholly unequipped
| to deal with long lifespans, and there will be tons of murder,
| exploitation, and suffering if we fixed our biology. First, how
| is that any different than the current situation? Second, do
| you expect societies to quickly evolve to fix all of these
| problems (or at least tame them), much like societies had to do
| after the invention of fire, agriculture, steel, gunpowder, or
| steam?
| commandlinefan wrote:
| The next problem would be overpopulation - OTOH, if people
| could live naturally for 1000 years or so, manned space travel
| to habitable planets would be a lot more feasible.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| Hugged to death. But I think it refers to this study:
| https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(25)00571-9?_re...
| SubiculumCode wrote:
| and a write-up: https://www.eurekalert.org/news-
| releases/1088662
| PUSH_AX wrote:
| Maybe after this we can figure out how to reverse entropy.
|
| Edit: The Last Question reference seems to have not hit. My bad.
| tantalor wrote:
| We already figured that out a while ago:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_and_life#Negative_entr...
| codesnik wrote:
| I'd love the current generation of POSs in power to die off
| naturally before those advancements will be applied, thank you.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _love the current generation of POSs in power to die off
| naturally before those advancements will be applied_
|
| These treatments aren't panaceas. The benefit would almost
| certainly accrue inversely with age.
| mupuff1234 wrote:
| To make room for a new generation of POSs?
| carabiner wrote:
| In 200 years, we're going to look at our lack of checks and
| balances against gerontocracy as naive as trusting monarchy in
| the middle ages.
| luxuryballs wrote:
| we may alternatively end up with even older elders because of
| general lifespan increases, it just so happens people with
| more experience are older, if you think older people being in
| charge is bad just wait until you see how the younger ones do
| muhammedbash wrote:
| Too late... Putin is already all over this. No need for organ
| transplants :)
|
| 150 is the new 70
| layer8 wrote:
| This is in reference to recent events:
| https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/05/healthy-
| living...
| jayd16 wrote:
| I do wonder how the psychology of humanity will change once you
| can't wait for someone to die, and conversely, you can't expect
| to die before consequences catch up to you.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _once you can 't wait for someone to die, and consequently,
| you can't expect to die before consequences catch up to you_
|
| People will still die, even in a world without ageing, which
| this treatment doesn't promise.
| Retric wrote:
| The risk of death per year increasing with number of years
| lived is aging.
|
| Without that people have lived longer are more likely to
| have lower risks of death per year. And thus older people
| in such a society would on average live longer.
| dandellion wrote:
| Unless it also cures cancer a more likely outcome is that
| people who get the treatment will just stay young until
| they get cancer and die. Also, as I understand it cancer
| also slows down in old age, so staying younger could mean
| faster cancers possibly negating some of the gains from
| the decreased aging.
| Retric wrote:
| Aging is more than just looking old.
|
| If someone has an increased risk of death per year from
| cancer or whatever because something is failing over time
| they are still aging.
| bix6 wrote:
| Consequences seem to not matter so we'll just get a bunch of
| meths like from altered carbon.
| SequoiaHope wrote:
| Without going in to spoilers, the recent season of the
| Revolutions podcast about a future fictional revolution on
| Mars touches on this a fair bit. Someone about to die seizes
| power for himself, but no one cares much because he was
| already in charge and extending his reign a few more years
| till he dies was no big deal, until he extends his life and
| lives another 75 years.
| observationist wrote:
| "Putin Eternal", or something like that. Ironically, the
| technology will probably lead to faster, worse fates for
| many like that than might have been the case if they'd just
| left it alone.
| michaelsbradley wrote:
| cf. Palpatine
| heavyset_go wrote:
| The Altered Carbon universe is a manifestation of this.
| ugh123 wrote:
| I'm certain, at some point in the not so distant future,
| Neuralink will create an arm of the company to build
| "sleeves".
| aspenmayer wrote:
| Anyone have an ETA on Curious Yellow?
|
| https://blanu.net/curious_yellow.html
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasshouse_(novel)
|
| h/t HN user cstross
| asdfman123 wrote:
| Fundamental attribution error. It's the system which requires
| people be POSes to maintain their position.
|
| There are a million problems that will arise if people won't be
| able to die and that's just another one of them.
| rmah wrote:
| If you think the next generation will be any better, I have bad
| news for you...
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| This article, like most about medical breakthroughs, is
| probably nonsense.
|
| And that's good because, for my part, I plan to shuffle off
| this mortal coil in time not to see America elect Nick Fuentes
| as President.
| chasil wrote:
| I don't think that the assertions are nonsense, but I don't
| understand how this works.
|
| I have heard variants on this assertion:
|
| "Two of the most prominent purported underlying causes of
| aging are chronic inflammation and senescent cells."
|
| One thing that surprises me is that telomeres aren't
| mentioned.
|
| I also don't understand how this is happening (is apoptosis
| somehow triggered?):
|
| "Now, the Academy researchers demonstrate that SRCs reduce
| senescent cells, measured using a blue dye called SA-b-Gal,
| in multiple organs, including the brain, heart, and lungs."
|
| The main mechanism of action appears to be:
|
| "The therapeutic efficacy of MPCs is largely attributed to
| their paracrine actions, with exosomes playing a pivotal role
| in mediating these effects."
|
| The researchers do not appear to fully understand how this is
| happening:
|
| "Among the diverse geroprotective functions of SRCs in the
| brain and ovary, the restorative effect of SRC-derived
| exosomes on aged cells and their surroundings emerges as a
| key mechanism. Rejuvenation of aged cells by exosomes likely
| involves multiple pathways and targets."
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _telomeres aren 't mentioned_
|
| The paper specifically mentions the engineered cells have
| "extended telomeres".
| bitwize wrote:
| Contrariwise, neither Hitler nor Stalin died of old age.
| Societies have ways of dealing with tyrants.
| libraryofbabel wrote:
| Trite, and wrong. Stalin died of a stroke at 74. To take just
| two more examples, Mao and Franco both died at 82, also of
| natural causes.
| Razengan wrote:
| Enter a generation of spoiled nepo babies with AI Terminators
| to put them in power and medical immortality to keep them in
| power.
| mikestew wrote:
| Tell them it's an anti-aging _vaccine_.
| namuol wrote:
| "To those who can hear me, I say - do not despair. The misery
| that is now upon us is but the passing of greed - the
| bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress.
|
| The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power
| they took from the people will return to the people. And so
| long as men die, liberty will never perish..."
| torstenvl wrote:
| Wishing harm on someone is not acceptable behavior on HN.
| Ideological warfare is not acceptable behavior on HN. Please do
| not do this here.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Wake me when you have J. Fred Muggs[11] riding a horse on TV and
| asking his doctor if stem cell injections are right for him.
| Until then, I'll remain skeptical, thanks.
|
| [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Fred_Muggs
| ourmandave wrote:
| The break even point on this is when it costs less than just
| replacing one of the infinite monkeys working on the
| _Shakespeare_ project.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem
| dwa3592 wrote:
| So the only way to get rid of humans will be to kill them?
| optimalsolver wrote:
| You'll slip in the shower sooner or later.
| dwa3592 wrote:
| _
| daedrdev wrote:
| If we cure aging, life expectancy is 9000 years at current
| accident rates
| layer8 wrote:
| Anti-aging breakthrough: Shower mats increase life expectancy
| in monkeys
| asdfman123 wrote:
| No more new generations, no more change. Just immensely
| powerful old people who look young grabbing ever more tightly
| onto power.
|
| Right now generational wealth fizzles out due to idiot heirs
| eventually appearing. Imagine if someone could ride a thousand
| years of exponential gains.
| fnordpiglet wrote:
| Open exploration of space and let the cubic volume of
| effectively infinite space absorb them.
| khalic wrote:
| Oh there's a movie about that, I think they grow a beard and
| you need to cut their heads
| optimalsolver wrote:
| I'm annoyed to have been born early enough for biological life
| extension to not be available, but late enough to actually
| consider it a possibility.
| deepsun wrote:
| Eternal life would be disastrous for humanity. Imagine all the
| elderly autocrats got to rule forever, utterly bored, with no
| hope in sight.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| >Imagine all the elderly autocrats got to rule forever
|
| since the end of monarchies autocracy has been impersonal and
| institutionalized. You can think of the Pope or Dalai Lama as
| software, the latter literally being rebooted when the last one
| kicks the bucket, the substrate doesn't matter much.
|
| In the words of Jung: people don't have ideas, ideas have
| people. Big Brother is a program, not a person and so physical
| death doesn't help you much in that regard.
| raffraffraff wrote:
| If you had asked me how I reckoned they reversed aging in
| Monkeys, I honestly would have said "stem cells". But then again,
| my answer to a lot of questions these days is "stem cells".
| giarc wrote:
| It the same with CRISPR. If you see a headline about "curing"
| this or that, good chance you'll see the word CRISPR in the
| article.
| scoopdewoop wrote:
| If Larry Ellison outlives me so help me god
| maxk42 wrote:
| Did nobody notice that this is a spam blog designed to sell NAD+
| supplements?
| pedalpete wrote:
| I noticed the domain and assumed it was another of Dr David
| Sinclair's scams
|
| https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/resveratrol-resear...
| Tade0 wrote:
| Interesting. Appears that we'll sooner solve ageing than ageing
| of societies.
|
| If this ever goes mainstream, I'll head off to live on Mars -
| provided _that_ is solved beforehand.
| RivieraKid wrote:
| We're nowhere close to solving aging. We don't even understand
| aging and understanding the problem should be much easier than
| solving it.
| billfor wrote:
| I'm not clear why they didn't continue the treatment to see if it
| prevented the monkeys from dying at all?
| blobbers wrote:
| It's a real research paper, but a bit of a hokey one.
|
| The spam blog is just promoting it.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40516525/
| chris_va wrote:
| Maybe someone with more of a bio background can comment on the
| actual paper. When I look through the figures, I don't see a
| strong an evidence as they are claiming in the text.
|
| E.g. figure 1G... naive image analysis (to me) does not match the
| claimed statistics. And the statistics are all on n<10, which
| also adds a lot of uncertainty.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-10-02 23:00 UTC)