Old Blood Cells Have Been Transformed Into Brain Stem Cells That Get Younger (sciencealert.com) 22
"Scientists have transformed old blood cells into young brain stem cells, which continued to grow younger as they grew older," reports ScienceAlert:
Cellular transformations can be done in two main ways. The first, more circuitous route turns a specific cell back into a pluripotent stem cell, or an embryonic "blank slate," and then into a different cell type. The second method involves a "direct conversion," which skips the middle stage and directly transforms a cell into a different type.
"Using this method, we have directly converted red blood cell precursors into neural stem cells," summarizes Oliver Brüstle, the director of the Institute of Reconstructive Neurobiology at the University Hospital of Bonn...
The researchers used a virus to deliver two transcription factors, or proteins that attach to DNA to regulate gene activity, to get the cells to change their types. Then they used two genome-bloodhounding methods — DNA methylation measures and RNA sequencing — to track the resultant anti-aging effects and genetic behavior. By the 12th day after the viral "infection," the cells started showing their new identity, ditching their blood-like proteins and replacing them with the expression of neural-like proteins instead. Initially, the epigenetic age (the DNA changes accumulated over time) of the EPCs was highly correlated with the chronological age of their donors [but] the neuronal stem cells kept getting younger as they got older... Over the following 50 to 100 days, they kept de-aging, eventually reaching about 5 percent of the donor age, with the majority of epigenetic age-related traits resetting by around 50 days of the conversion process...
In effect, the converted cells became 60 years younger in 50 days, the researchers note in their official statement.
The researchers, from the University Hospital of Bonn and the University of Bonn, in Germany, described their methods in the journal Aging Cell.
The researchers used a virus to deliver two transcription factors, or proteins that attach to DNA to regulate gene activity, to get the cells to change their types. Then they used two genome-bloodhounding methods — DNA methylation measures and RNA sequencing — to track the resultant anti-aging effects and genetic behavior. By the 12th day after the viral "infection," the cells started showing their new identity, ditching their blood-like proteins and replacing them with the expression of neural-like proteins instead. Initially, the epigenetic age (the DNA changes accumulated over time) of the EPCs was highly correlated with the chronological age of their donors [but] the neuronal stem cells kept getting younger as they got older... Over the following 50 to 100 days, they kept de-aging, eventually reaching about 5 percent of the donor age, with the majority of epigenetic age-related traits resetting by around 50 days of the conversion process...
In effect, the converted cells became 60 years younger in 50 days, the researchers note in their official statement.
The researchers, from the University Hospital of Bonn and the University of Bonn, in Germany, described their methods in the journal Aging Cell.
Egg, meet chicken (Score:3, Funny)
Stupid Conundrum (Score:2)
It's long been established that the rooster came first.
Re: (Score:2)
It's long been established that the rooster came first.
False. The egg came first. It was laid by an "almost chicken." The chicken evolved into existence via said egg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meh, I had my suspicions, but a surprising number of people don't know....
Believe it if you will (Score:5, Interesting)
There is no good marker for the "age" of a cell. Mutations tend to accumulate over life, and there's a reason for the Hayflick limit (even if it isn't universal).
Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don't fool yourself about its danger. This sounds like a recipe for brain cancer.
Re: (Score:3)
there's a reason for the Hayflick limit
Is there? What is the reason? Let me know, maybe we can win a Nobel together.
Re:Believe it if you will (Score:4, Interesting)
I had just mentioned the reason:
Cells tend to accumulate mutations. This is especially true each time they divide. And this is well known. If your evolutionary line didn't include a such a limit, you would likely not be around due to any of a number of problems, cancer among them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
god watched Akira, decided no.
There is no good marker for the "age" of a cell. (Score:3)
Google result:
Key Methods Used to Estimate Cellular and Biological Age
https://www.google.com/search?... [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I said "good method". There are lots of ways to estimate things. And using the best methods for cells, some cells will be estimated older than other cells in the same body. Many estimates rely on epigenetic markers, but those can be removed either artificially or by normal processes...but that doesn't make the cell actually younger, and here by "younger" I mean "more error free" (i.e. more similar to the initial cell from which the body was generated [and "similar" is tricky to define in this context]),
Re: (Score:2)
Manipulating cells so that they will continue dividing is dangerous to whoever gets them. It may be necessary, but don't fool yourself about its danger.
Is that not what nature does with offspring?
Re: (Score:3)
A point, but that's a place the "selection" part of evolution comes in.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, but they have a card to play when it comes to scale and sequencing. They can take a huge batch of cells, revert them, and let them multiply. From there, they can just sequence the daughter cells and cherry-pick the lineage that has the fewest mutations in dangerous oncogenic areas.
It's not perfect and it's expensive, but it might be better than what some patient is dying from.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it *is* better, if you can afford it. Just don't forget that it's dangerous. Care is needed. Possibly even extreme care.
Re: (Score:2)
100% agree.
next priority for me (Score:2)
Transform the micro plastics in my brain into slow release caffeine.
Re: (Score:2)
Transform the micro plastics in my brain into slow release caffeine.
Change that to slow release methylphenidate and I'm in!
We can't stop it--you're dying of youth! (Score:4, Funny)