Upload
bruceklein
View
1.337
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Prospects for extending healthy life - a lot
Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey, Ph.D.Chairman and CSO, Methuselah Foundation
Lorton, VA, USA and Cambridge, UK
Email: [email protected]
MF site: http://www.methuselahfoundation.org/
Science site: http://www.sens.org/
Prize site: http://www.mprize.org/
Shameless plug
Out now: $17.79 at Amazon
Why I am doing this
Fun Not fun
Why I am doing this
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Aging in a nutshell
Product of evolutionary neglect, not intent
Metabolism ongoingly causes “damage”
Damage eventually causes pathology
Pathology causes more pathology
Strategies for intervention
Gerontology Geriatrics
Metabolism Damage Pathology
How to make a car last 50 years-- plan A
How to make a car last 50 years -- plan B
Strategies for intervention
Gerontology Engineering Geriatrics
Metabolism Damage Pathology
Claim: unlike the others, the engineering approach may achieve a large extension of
human healthy lifespan quite soon
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Reasons for the engineering approach
- it targets initially inert intermediates (“damage”)
Reasons for the engineering approach
- it targets initially inert intermediates (“damage”)
- damage is simpler than metabolism or pathology
Problem 1: this is metabolism
Problem 2:this is the pathology
• Alzheimer’s
• Stroke
• Sarcopenia
• Osteoarthritis
• Hormonal Imbalance
• Kidney Failure
• Cancer• Heart Disease
• Diabetes• Incontinence• Osteoporosis• Macular
Degeneration
• Parkinson’s• Pneumonia• Emphysema• Sex Drive
… and LOTS more
This is the damage
No new type of damage identified since 1982!
Seven Deadly Things
1. Junk - Inside Cells
2. Junk - Outside Cells
3. Cells - Too Few
4. Cells - Too Many
5. Mutations - Chromosomes
6. Mutations - Mitochondria
7. Protein Crosslinks
Giving the middle-aged 30 years of extra healthy life: Robust Human Rejuvenation
Damage rising with age It or its effects reversible by
Cell loss, cell atrophy Cell therapy, mainly
Extracellular junk Phagocytosis by immune stimulation
Extracellular crosslinks AGE-breaking molecules/enzymes
Death-resistant cells Suicide genes, immune stimulation
Mitochondrial mutations Allotopic expression of 13 proteins
Intracellular junk Transgenic microbial hydrolasesNuclear [epi]mutations (only cancer matters)
Telomerase/ALT gene deletion plus periodic stem cell reseeding
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Giving the middle-aged 30 years of extra healthy life: Robust Human Rejuvenation
Damage rising with age It or its effects reversible by
Cell loss, cell atrophy Cell therapy, mainly
Extracellular junk Phagocytosis by immune stimulation
Extracellular crosslinks AGE-breaking molecules/enzymes
Death-resistant cells Suicide genes, immune stimulation
Mitochondrial mutations Allotopic expression of 13 proteins
Intracellular junk Transgenic microbial hydrolasesNuclear [epi]mutations (only cancer matters)
Telomerase/ALT gene deletion plus periodic stem cell reseeding
Aggregates: major examples
- Proteins in neurodegeneration
- Oxysterols in atherosclerosis
Autophagy in Alzheimer’s Disease
Calnexin
Dystrophic Neurites IEM
Cat D
EndothelialCells
Lipid-engorgedLysosome
FoamCell
Bioremediation: the concept
- Microbes, like all life, need an ecological niche
- Some get it by brawn (growing very fast)
- Some by brain (living off material than others can't)
- Any abundant, energy-rich organic material that is hard to degrade thus provides selective pressure to evolve the machinery to degrade it
- That selective pressure works. Even TNT, PCBs…
Xenocatabolism: the concept
Graveyards: - are abundant in human remains…
- accumulate bones (which are not energy-rich)…
- do not accumulate oxysterols, tau etc...
- so, should harbour microbes that degrade them
- whose catabolic enzymes could be therapeutic
Environmental decontamination in vivo
7KC over time in enrichment cultures
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 2 4 6 8 10
day
HPLC area [arbitrary units]
7-ketocholesterol degradation - a good start
7-KC degradation - presented at meetings
First MF-funded paper submitted
Steps to biomedical application
1) Isolate competent strains; select by starvation
2) Identify the enzymes (mutagenesis, chemistry, genomics)
3) Make lysosome-targeted transgenes, assay cell toxicity
4) Assay competence in vitro (more mutagenesis/selection)
5) Construct transgenic mice, assay toxicity in vivo
6) Assay competence in disease mouse models
7) Test in humans as for lysosomal storage diseases
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Reasons for the engineering approach
- it targets initially inert intermediates (“damage”)
- damage is simpler than metabolism or pathology
- repairing damage buys time
Age
Reserve
00
max
frail
Retarding aging: benefits modest
Halving rate of damage starting in middle age - doubles remaining healthspan
- raises total healthspan by maybe 20%
Age
Reserve
00
max
frail
Comparable repair: far better
Fixing half the damage starting in middle age - doubles total healthspan
- raises remaining healthspan maybe 5-fold
hard
easy
Robust human rejuvenation (RHR)
Addition of 30 extra years of healthy life (and total life) to
people who are already in middle age when treatment is begun
Age
Reserve
00
max
frail
Ever-improving repair: better yet
Fixing half the damage, then 3/4 - not as good as doing 3/4 first time…
- but better than doing 1/2 first time…
hard
easy
very hard
Age
Reserve
00
max
frail
Infinitely better, in fact
Fixing half the damage, then 3/4, then 7/8…. - outpaces the so-far-unfixable damage…
- maintains healthspan indefinitely
Longevity escape velocity (LEV)
The rate at which rejuvenation therapies must improve (following the achievement of RHR) in order to outpace the accumulation of
so-far-irreparable damage
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- The Methuselah Foundation
Simulating aging(Phoenix & de Grey, AGE 2007; 29:133)
Metabolism ongoingly causes “damage”
and
Damage eventually causes pathologySo….
Simulations of aging (and intervention) should simulate damage accumulation
Simulating damage: basis
- damage of many types accumulates
- any can kill us (i.e. they are not additive)
- within each type, subtypes are additive
- damage feeds back to hasten more damage
- people differ in damage accumulation rates
- death is from damage X challenge (e.g. flu)
Simulating damage: modelStructural parameters
N_CAT: The number of damage categories each person has N_MECH: The number of mechanisms in each category
MECH_WEIGHTm: The contribution of a mechanism to a category
Fitting parameters
BASAL_M: The mean basal damage rate BASAL_SD: The standard deviation of the basal damage rate
BASAL_H: The homogeneity of basal damage rate in a single person EXP_M: The mean exponential damage rate
EXP_SD: The standard deviation of the exponential damage rate
EXP_H: The homogeneity of exponential damage rate in a single person
FATAL_M: The mean yearly challenge FATAL_SD: The standard deviation of the yearly challenge
Values set for each person at initialisation:
PB: Basal rate for the person: lognorm(BASAL_M, BASAL_SD)
PE: Exponential rate for the person: lognorm(EXP_M, EXP_SD)
MBc,m:Basal rate for each mechanism: lognorm(BASAL_M, BASAL_SD)*(1-BASAL_H) + PB*BASAL_H
MEc,m: Exponential rate for each mechanism: lognorm(EXP_M, EXP_SD)*(1-EXP_H) + PE*EXP_H
D_Mc,m : Cumulative damage for each mechanism: 0 D_Cc : Cumulative damage for each category: 0
Variables updated for each person at each time step (year):
Total damage: PD(t) = [SUM c=1..N_CAT] D_Cc(t) Damage increment: DI_Mc,m(t) = MBc,m + MEc,m*PD(t-1)
Cumulative damage: D_Mc,m(t) = DI_Mc,m(t) + D_Mc,m(t-1)
Cumulative category damage: D_Cc(t) = [SUM m=1..N_MECH] DI_Mc,m(t)
Fatality challenge: FATAL(t) = |norm(FATAL_M, FATAL_SD)|
If D_Cc(t) > FATAL(t) for any c, the person dies at age t
Validation: age at death
Results: how damage evolves
Results: defeat of damageTherapies doubling in efficacy every 42 y
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Results: LEV in practiceTherapies doubling in efficacy every 42 y
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Age
Reserve
00
max
frail
LEV decreases with time
Fixing half the damage, then 2/3, then 3/4…. - still good enough…
- just like gravitational escape velocity
Data
Structure of this talk- Repair versus retardation
- Longevity escape velocity: concept
- Some evidence that LEV is realistic
- Specifics: the seven types of damage
- Intracellular junk/medical bioremediation
- The Methuselah Foundation
Funds: current status- $4.5M in Mprize pot
- Research pot being spent as fast as we fill it
- “LysoSENS” being funded (~$100k/yr) by 2005-2006 donations to the MF
- “MitoSENS” being funded (~$150k/yr) by Peter Thiel’s donation of $500k
- Thiel’s challenge pledge ($3M) is 1:2; our next goal is to match it in full (i.e. raise $6M)
Eventual organisational structure
Medium-term goal: proof of concept in miceStrategy: solve/combine subgoals (SENS)Procedure:- implement subgoals: ~350 people
- scientifically interesting and respected- best done extramurally by academics
- combine in same mice: ~150 people- scientifically tedious and unrewarded- best done in-house by paid technicians
Ramping up….
Level 1: funding of up to $300k per year guaranteed for at least 3 years. (This is where we are now.) Selected SENS strands supported at entry level (1 project/strand, 1-2 FTEs/project)
Level 2: funding of $300k-$3m per year, three years. (This is where we will be when the Thiel pledge is fully matched.) Six SENS strands supported at minimal level (1-3 projects/strand, 1-3 FTE/project)
Ramping up….
Level 3: funding of $3M-$20M per year guaranteed for at least five years. Grant applications solicited; 30-100 FTEs funded, across up to 30 projects
Level 4: funding of $20M-$100M per year, ten years. Physical facility (“Institute for Biomedical Gerontology”) set up (50-150 FTEs); extramural research support as in Level 3 (100-350 FTEs)
Why I am doing this
Why I am doing this
Why I am doing this
I offer no apology for using media interest in life extension to make the biology of ageing an exception to Planck’s observation that science advances funeral by funeral: lives, lots of them, are at stake.
de Grey 2005, EMBO Reports 6(11):1000
Shameless plug
Out now: $17.79 at Amazon