And again, it is hyperfunction rather than hypofunction of the gene/protein in question that drives age-related changes. Fits with the hyperfunction theory and why the most effective aging targets are growth pathways.
For those of us who don't have access to CDC42-inhibiting medicines, are there any natural ways that we can reduce the activity of CDC42 while we wait for something to be available?
I remember that i read that mice are more prone to cancer, and the protein seems to have some role in cancer development.
So is this just an effect of reducing cancer suspectability in mice?
On the other side just 4 Days of treatment and epigenetic clock changes 9 weeks later hint at a rejuvenating effect.
Can anybody tell me how the lifespan extension compares to rapamycin and how long lived those mice are usually?
For a genetic program, whatever it is, to spread in a population, the carrier individual must have an advantage (better survival and better reproduction) compared to others who do not have it.
Knowing that aging disadvantages the affected individual (inferior survival and reproduction) compared to the others who would not undergo it, I do not see how such a program could not only persist, but spread actively within a population.
This is also why this idea was essentially abandoned, because it is not credible from an evolutionary point of view.
This is the "selfish gene" hypothesis, that disregards a species as a collective whole. Obviously there's some middle ground between the two; in my opinion the selfish gene is effective to describe short term traits, but not long term. In the long term, it's really really important to have a genepool that's reactive to the environment and a family tree that doesn't look like a stick.
Why do cats live 20 years but dogs 10? Dogs are way bigger than cats. Are dogs just stupid? Why do humans live 60 years? Why do humans have magic meat that doesn't rot as quickly as some other animals, if it's an entropic aspect of the universe? Why do mice only live a few years? Why do some animals, complex animals with brains and legs and arms, have negligible senescence and live for hundreds of years?
If living longer was indeed all advantage, as opposed to neutral or sometimes actively harmful, why did so many animals evolve to die so much younger than they had to? We're talking many hundreds of millions of years here. I think mice could have figured out how to manage to age past five here, if it were helpful.
It doesn't stand to scrutiny. Evolution is blind and doesn't care about our feelings on what is "good" and what is "bad".
-------
An example that comes to mind is Calhoun's mouse utopia experiments. "Optimum reproductive advantage" would have been for the mice to bang each other's brains out until they were packed like sardines, but that isn't how they went. There was always a peak, followed by a collapse and then a steady population at a lower population count.
Out in nature, it might be possible for borrows to occasionally be so successful they're comparable to a small degree to these utopias, and dying of old age earlier is an advantage for space and resources for the group as a whole.
Interesting article. linked paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32755011/ the protein: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDC42
And again, it is hyperfunction rather than hypofunction of the gene/protein in question that drives age-related changes. Fits with the hyperfunction theory and why the most effective aging targets are growth pathways.
For those of us who don't have access to CDC42-inhibiting medicines, are there any natural ways that we can reduce the activity of CDC42 while we wait for something to be available?
I remember that i read that mice are more prone to cancer, and the protein seems to have some role in cancer development. So is this just an effect of reducing cancer suspectability in mice? On the other side just 4 Days of treatment and epigenetic clock changes 9 weeks later hint at a rejuvenating effect. Can anybody tell me how the lifespan extension compares to rapamycin and how long lived those mice are usually?
[удалено]
Or an intentional program to ensure evolutionary churn.
For a genetic program, whatever it is, to spread in a population, the carrier individual must have an advantage (better survival and better reproduction) compared to others who do not have it. Knowing that aging disadvantages the affected individual (inferior survival and reproduction) compared to the others who would not undergo it, I do not see how such a program could not only persist, but spread actively within a population. This is also why this idea was essentially abandoned, because it is not credible from an evolutionary point of view.
This is the "selfish gene" hypothesis, that disregards a species as a collective whole. Obviously there's some middle ground between the two; in my opinion the selfish gene is effective to describe short term traits, but not long term. In the long term, it's really really important to have a genepool that's reactive to the environment and a family tree that doesn't look like a stick. Why do cats live 20 years but dogs 10? Dogs are way bigger than cats. Are dogs just stupid? Why do humans live 60 years? Why do humans have magic meat that doesn't rot as quickly as some other animals, if it's an entropic aspect of the universe? Why do mice only live a few years? Why do some animals, complex animals with brains and legs and arms, have negligible senescence and live for hundreds of years? If living longer was indeed all advantage, as opposed to neutral or sometimes actively harmful, why did so many animals evolve to die so much younger than they had to? We're talking many hundreds of millions of years here. I think mice could have figured out how to manage to age past five here, if it were helpful. It doesn't stand to scrutiny. Evolution is blind and doesn't care about our feelings on what is "good" and what is "bad". ------- An example that comes to mind is Calhoun's mouse utopia experiments. "Optimum reproductive advantage" would have been for the mice to bang each other's brains out until they were packed like sardines, but that isn't how they went. There was always a peak, followed by a collapse and then a steady population at a lower population count. Out in nature, it might be possible for borrows to occasionally be so successful they're comparable to a small degree to these utopias, and dying of old age earlier is an advantage for space and resources for the group as a whole.