The
Mega Foundation
Prolongevity
Update
1/30/2003
| Home |
Shorter
telomeres mean shorter life
A University-of-Utah study (Shorter
telomeres mean shorter life -
New Scientist) of
143 seniors 60 or over indicated that those with the shortest telomeres were
eight times as likely to die of infectious diseases and three times as likely to
die of heart attacks as those with the longest telomeres. The article says,
"In healthy people, telomeres do not shrink
significantly until old age because the enzyme telomerase ensures regeneration.
But eventually telomeres get so short that the DNA strands either stop
replicating or, worse still, start fusing together, often encouraging tumours to
grow.
"White blood cells rely on their ability to replicate
quickly to mount attacks on infections. Retarded replication caused by shorter
telomeres might explain why those patients were much more likely to die of an
infectious disease, says Cawthon.
"He admits that it is not clear whether short telomeres
actually cause age-related diseases and death or whether they are just a symptom
of some other process responsible for aging. Either way, there are other forces
at work - earth worms and fruit flies get old long before their telomeres shrink
significantly.
"Inducing telomere growth by somehow injecting
telomerase might seem like a potential way to extend life. But this would risk
causing cells to replicate uncontrollably, leading to cancer."
Another, related article (Chromosome
shrinkage may promote age-related disease, study suggests
- Nando Times)
says,
"Scientists found that people older than 60 who showed
shorter-than-average chromosome tips were nearly twice as likely than others to
die over the next 15 years or so, especially from heart disease and pneumonia.
"Experts called the finding intriguing but cautioned
that the study was far too small to let anybody draw conclusions.
"In 1998, researchers made headlines by showing they
could block that process and keep cells young and dividing indefinitely by
giving them an enzyme called telomerase. While that led to public speculation
about making people live dramatically longer, scientists are focusing on
prospects for treating specific diseases by rejuvenating certain tissues.
"The new work impressively bolsters the case that
telomeres might play a role in human aging, said one expert, Dr. Woodring Wright
of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas. But like other
scientists, he said the study must be repeated with many more participants to
get a firmer result.
"In all, 101 donors died. People with shorter telomeres
showed an 86 percent higher death rate. They ran a threefold higher risk of
dying from heart disease and an eight-fold higher risk of death from infectious
disease, almost entirely pneumonia.
"Their rates of death from stroke and cancer were
higher, but by too little to be considered meaningful."
Conclusions
The conclusion I draw from this is that greater telomere
lengths don't raise one's likelihood of dying of cancer. It seems to me that
this is in opposition to the theory of antagonistic pleiotropy. The
antagonistic pleiotropy model implies that nature has optimized telomere lengths
in a way that maximizes life span. This would lead us to expect that people with
longer telomeres wouldn't live any longer, or as long as, people with shorter
telomere, because people with longer telomeres would be more apt to present with
cancer than would people with shorter telomeres. If nature has optimized
telomere length to give maximum life span, then when we moved away from that
optimum in either direction, average life span would be shortened.
One possible flaw in my argument could be that people with
longer telomeres had a greater likelihood of dying of cancer when they were
younger than did people with shorter telomeres. Since this study examines only
individuals who are already at least 60, we aren't told what earlier filtering
may have occurred with each of the two groups in their earlier years.
It's interesting that people with longer telomeres seemed to
live longer because they were much more resistant to pneumonia and heart
disease, with neither protective nor deleterious effects evinced with respect to
stroke and cancer.
Why don't we get cancer of the heart
or of the arteries?
I've mentioned this before, but how does the body protect so
well against cardiovascular cancers? Fatty plaques have been likened to tumors,
but unrestrained proliferation and metastasis doesn't occur. How do organisms
prevent it from ever happening? What are the protective mechanisms? (This
might be a lead to more effective cancer prevention.)
The paragraph,
"Inducing telomere growth by somehow injecting
telomerase might seem like a potential way to extend life. But this would risk
causing cells to replicate uncontrollably, leading to cancer."
seems to me to be the opposite conclusion