217 replies to this topic

[pone11]

 

 

2) It's benefits wore off after about three weeks

 

 

Wait, do you mean the benefits wore off after 3 weeks when they kept giving the mice GDF, or if they stopped giving it to them?  If that former, that's a really bad sign.  Hope it's the latter.

 

No No No . . . I posted the article answering many of these questions already before, this is a repost from awhile back from our esteemed Amy Wagers speaking to Bioscience Technology last December 2014: Link http://www.bioscienc...4-breakthrough#

 

Excerpt emphasis mine:

Wagers is headed for clinical trial as well, but wants to answer many questions first. Her group has finished the first of three studies gauging how long effects of GDF11 last. The above 2005 paper showed effects of parabiosis lasted three weeks, the time span studied. “A really important question is `Do you need to continuously supply the factor, or does it re-set the system?’ So far there is some evidence it re-sets.” The Stanford transfusion work is encouraging as “it says whatever activity is causing the changes persists in plasma for a period of time.” Aging may be about “imbalance of signals.”

 

 

First, this quote says "for a period of time" without specifying what the period of time is.   That's not a basis for saying anything permanently reset!

 

Second, don't quote her in interviews.  Look at the primary research.  The primary Amy Wagers study is full text here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC3677132

 

and contains the quote:

"Only at the highest dose (0.1 mg/kg) did we observe a reproducible increase in the plasma level of GDF11 1h after injection (Figure S5). Furthermore, analysis of plasma samples collected serially over 48h after a single i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg rGDF11, indicated that GDF11 levels were persistently elevated for approximately 24h after this single injection (Figure S5)."

 

So the research itself is telling you they are dosing the rats every 24 hours because that is how long they can sustain the higher level of GDF11.

 

There is nothing in that original research that gives any person any right to believe that anything has permanently reset.

 

Her team is working now to understand if there is a permanent reset of anything.    But common sense tells you if the GDF11 rapidly diminishes after transfusion, probably there is no permanent reset.   To hypothesize a permanent reset you have to make some pretty wild assumptions about an underlying physiology that no one has good knowledge of.

Edited by pone11, 05 February 2015 - 02:16 AM.

[niner]

Follow the Somalogics link above, data may already be out there as many are asking these very same questions, if we knew what youthful levels were we'd have a better handle and know what to shoot for.

 

I looked at the Somalogics site, and didn't see anything about work with Wagers, but the assay (which is very cool, btw) works between the range of  1 uM to 25 fM.   So I guess that gives you a range (8 orders of magnitude...)  GDF11 is 25 kDa, so if you inject 500 ug into an approximate 5 liter blood volume, you get:

 

500e-6 g (mol/25,000g)  / 5 liter = 4 nM.   So this is at least in the range of the assay.

 

This is NOT an actual blood level.  It's a wild approximation based on HED sorcery and lots of assumptions.  It's probably off by at least a factor of ten, if not more.  I'm sure that someone knows the level in youthful human blood, we just need to find that, then figure out how to determine our own blood levels...  (technology needed... Maybe the Somalogics assay would work.  It would probably cost more than the GDF11, if the 400 USD/g price is for real (which seems unlikely).

[PWAIN]

pone11, would you really expect continued elevated levels after just one injection? I think it would take time for the body to reset itself, regrow to a younger state that THEN can produce higher GDF11 levels. It is not clear how long it took for the full effects of GDF11 to make the rodents appear younger.

 

I think she is just giving her professional best guess, which may well be valid.

 

If you reset the body to that of a younger person and younger people produce higher GDF11 levels, then it seems logical that this newly young body will produce GDF11 levels of a younger person. As you say, this research doesn't show that, but then again, it doesn't show the opposite either - hence need more research.

[PWAIN]

Niner, would this help work out the range?

 

Detection Range    28 pg/ml -1800 pg/ml.

 

http://www.mybiosour...ducts_id=939778

 

500ug into 5 litres would give 0.1ug per ml or 100ng per ml or 100 000pg/ml ?

Edited by PWAIN, 05 February 2015 - 03:12 AM.

[pone11]

pone11, would you really expect continued elevated levels after just one injection? I think it would take time for the body to reset itself, regrow to a younger state that THEN can produce higher GDF11 levels. It is not clear how long it took for the full effects of GDF11 to make the rodents appear younger.

 

I think she is just giving her professional best guess, which may well be valid.

 

If you reset the body to that of a younger person and younger people produce higher GDF11 levels, then it seems logical that this newly young body will produce GDF11 levels of a younger person. As you say, this research doesn't show that, but then again, it doesn't show the opposite either - hence need more research.

 

The study is telling you that the elevated levels continue about 24 hours after EACH injection.   There is no evidence of any elevated level of GDF11 beyond that.

 

Let's wait to see what the next studies report as far as whether anything resets and GDF11 starts to increase its endogenous production after some time.   I've expressed my opinion about it, and I don't think anyone can prove anything until there is research.

[PWAIN]

I can't see anything in there that says that testing was done after each injection or not so no way of knowing for sure. As you say, we'll have to wait and see, hope I'm right .

 

Intresting Supplemental Figure 5 seems to show mouse 1 maintaining levels right to 48h but mouse 2 and 3 seem to crash somewhere between 4h and 10h. The late surge at 24h could be natural (eg after meal or sleep). May be worth dosing 3 times a day to keep levels up?

 

 

pone11, would you really expect continued elevated levels after just one injection? I think it would take time for the body to reset itself, regrow to a younger state that THEN can produce higher GDF11 levels. It is not clear how long it took for the full effects of GDF11 to make the rodents appear younger.

 

I think she is just giving her professional best guess, which may well be valid.

 

If you reset the body to that of a younger person and younger people produce higher GDF11 levels, then it seems logical that this newly young body will produce GDF11 levels of a younger person. As you say, this research doesn't show that, but then again, it doesn't show the opposite either - hence need more research.

 

The study is telling you that the elevated levels continue about 24 hours after EACH injection.   There is no evidence of any elevated level of GDF11 beyond that.

 

Let's wait to see what the next studies report as far as whether anything resets and GDF11 starts to increase its endogenous production after some time.   I've expressed my opinion about it, and I don't think anyone can prove anything until there is research.

 

 

[pleb]

What's needed are the levels found in a twenty year old and the amount that needs to be injected to bring us back up to that level. I remember a mention of returning the mouse to a young age after 4 days.
That equates to about 30 weeks for a human body. Based on a rough volume and the speed of the different ageing us compared to mice.
Taking it every day by injection continuously is not a problem I inject 1iu of hgh every day and have no worries about taking any long term if it works.

[Logic]

Ok, to gauge intrest, I would like to start a new thread to see if others would like to participate if this becomes available. I would title it:
 
GDF-11 Group Buy @$200 for 500mg (~2 year supply) would you be interested in joining?
 
We can then see how many people put their hands up. I will make clear in the body of the message that this is just a guestimate at present.
 
Does that sound ok?

 
 
 
You are vey enthusiastic Pwain! 
 
Did you go for the GHK?GHK-Cu group buy?  It should synergise well with this as it also a factor that is higher in young blood and from what Dr. Pickart said.
http://www.longecity...neration/page-1

Let me write them 1st so they can do more than just a  thumb suck on pricing etc.
I'll post their response here again.
After that I will start a thread if its warranted.

[Logic]

TLR Group Buy:

It seems either I or TLR left out a very important c: as in $200/500mcg not mg.
Even that is a complete thumb suck.

Sorry about that!

Edited by Logic, 05 February 2015 - 07:14 PM.

[zorba990]

If it can be combined with something like this
http://aegisthera.com/technology/ so I don't have to inject then I might be interested

[free10]

In one interview, one of the GDF11 researchers said they did not bring the GDF11 levels up in the mice up to youthful GDF11 levels. They only were at 60% of young levels. Using young blood makes much more sense to me.

[serp777]

Now that I am young, it might be a good idea to start storing my young blood so that it can be preserved for when I am older. I think the main issue is that when using someone elses blood, you're going to have some possible unintended side effects because of genetic differences. Sure blood types need to be compatible, but other things like clotting ability and glucose/insulin tolerance need to be evaluated as well. And there are hundreds of other parameters. Im not surprised this could lead to cancer since you're combining two different genotypes in an unusual way. There are also telomere differences between young and older blood, and telomeres are implicated in cancer.

 

Basically it seems like a nightmare determining the long term side effects of such a treatment.

Edited by serp777, 06 February 2015 - 11:27 AM.

[niner]

You guys that are in favor of young blood instead of individual factors like GDF11, do you realize how much blood you'll need?  If you want to replicate the mouse parabiosis experiments, you will either need to be surgically attached to a young person (wow, that would be fun...) or potentially get a LOT of transfusions.

[tunt01]

Now that I am young, it might be a good idea to start storing my young blood so that it can be preserved for when I am older. 

 

 

Consider stem cell banking.

[Bryan_S]

 

 

First, this quote says "for a period of time" without specifying what the period of time is.   That's not a basis for saying anything permanently reset!

 

Second, don't quote her in interviews.  Look at the primary research.  The primary Amy Wagers study is full text here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC3677132

 

and contains the quote:

"Only at the highest dose (0.1 mg/kg) did we observe a reproducible increase in the plasma level of GDF11 1h after injection (Figure S5). Furthermore, analysis of plasma samples collected serially over 48h after a single i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg rGDF11, indicated that GDF11 levels were persistently elevated for approximately 24h after this single injection (Figure S5)."

 

So the research itself is telling you they are dosing the rats every 24 hours because that is how long they can sustain the higher level of GDF11.

 

There is nothing in that original research that gives any person any right to believe that anything has permanently reset.

 

Her team is working now to understand if there is a permanent reset of anything.    But common sense tells you if the GDF11 rapidly diminishes after transfusion, probably there is no permanent reset.   To hypothesize a permanent reset you have to make some pretty wild assumptions about an underlying physiology that no one has good knowledge of.

 

 

As far as the interview she is interpreting her own data and has insights we do not. She will be setting up 2 more experiments to prove or disprove her "as yet unproven conclusion."

 

If the tissues are made younger I would assume they would make more GDF11 on their own. This we will have to wait and see.

Edited by Bryan_S, 06 February 2015 - 05:26 PM.

[pone11]

If it can be combined with something like this
http://aegisthera.com/technology/ so I don't have to inject then I might be interested

 

Hypothetically, let's say that further research shows that daily injections of GDF11 would make a 50 year human metabolically like a 30 year old.  Are you trying to tell us you would reject that and hold out for an easy-to-use nasal dispenser?

 

I mean, come on, I am all for pampering, but if someone offered me that benefit I would be asking where is the needle?

[pone11]

 

 

 

First, this quote says "for a period of time" without specifying what the period of time is.   That's not a basis for saying anything permanently reset!

 

Second, don't quote her in interviews.  Look at the primary research.  The primary Amy Wagers study is full text here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC3677132

 

and contains the quote:

"Only at the highest dose (0.1 mg/kg) did we observe a reproducible increase in the plasma level of GDF11 1h after injection (Figure S5). Furthermore, analysis of plasma samples collected serially over 48h after a single i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg rGDF11, indicated that GDF11 levels were persistently elevated for approximately 24h after this single injection (Figure S5)."

 

So the research itself is telling you they are dosing the rats every 24 hours because that is how long they can sustain the higher level of GDF11.

 

There is nothing in that original research that gives any person any right to believe that anything has permanently reset.

 

Her team is working now to understand if there is a permanent reset of anything.    But common sense tells you if the GDF11 rapidly diminishes after transfusion, probably there is no permanent reset.   To hypothesize a permanent reset you have to make some pretty wild assumptions about an underlying physiology that no one has good knowledge of.

 

 

As far as the interview she is interpreting her own data and has insights we do not. She will be setting up 2 more experiments to prove or disprove her "as yet unproven conclusion."

 

If the tissues are made younger I would assume they would make more GDF11 on their own. This we will have to wait and see.

 

 

I don't read any conclusion at all into Amy Wagers statement that you quoted.   I read her asking a good question, and then she tells us she is going to try to answer that question.

 

GDF11 is a protein / peptide.   It is the metabolic output from some factory within the cell or mitochondria (I don't know which).   The analogy would be the difference between a fruit tree (the factory) and a fruit (the output of the factory).    If I dumped 100 apples on your kitchen table, and you ate 50 of them, would you become a fruit tree?    I understand that isn't an exact analogy, but there is a point to be considered there.   It's not clear at all that just because we take in higher GDF11 that our factories would become better able to create more GDF11.   I understand that it is your hypothesis that this will happen.   It is my hypothesis that this will probably not happen, because GDF11 is probably not correcting accumulated defects in the RNA of the cell and mitochondria.   Neither of us can prove our hypothesis.   The point of this post is simply to further clarify the two points of view.

 

By the way, does anyone know of a parabiosis study where - after getting the benefits of a youthful rat - the older rat was then disconnected and allowed to live on its own?   That study - if it exists - would give us powerful clues about what to probably expect with GDF11.   Does it take days, weeks, or months to have the beneficial effects go away?

Edited by pone11, 06 February 2015 - 08:06 PM.

[zorba990]

If it can be combined with something like this
http://aegisthera.com/technology/ so I don't have to inject then I might be interested

Hypothetically, let's say that further research shows that daily injections of GDF11 would make a 50 year human metabolically like a 30 year old. Are you trying to tell us you would reject that and hold out for an easy-to-use nasal dispenser?

I mean, come on, I am all for pampering, but if someone offered me that benefit I would be asking where is the needle?

Yup, me too. Not quite at that point yet...

[niner]

 

Hypothetically, let's say that further research shows that daily injections of GDF11 would make a 50 year human metabolically like a 30 year old. Are you trying to tell us you would reject that and hold out for an easy-to-use nasal dispenser?

I mean, come on, I am all for pampering, but if someone offered me that benefit I would be asking where is the needle?

Yup, me too. Not quite at that point yet...

 

Suppose it did give a 50 year old the metabolism of a 30 year old.  If you were that 50 year old, what would that be like?  Your sagging skin wouldn't tighten up, and wrinkles wouldn't go away, because that's a form of damage that GDF11 won't change.  Your thinning grey hair will still make you look elderly.  That's also a form of damage that I don't think GDF11 will touch.  Your clogged arteries?  Still clogged.  You might feel a little better, or maybe you wouldn't notice much difference, because a healthy 50 y.o. still has a pretty good metabolism.    I think the biggest reality check on things like this is that they aren't likely to change the things that people are most desperate to change.  That's the stuff we need SENS for.

[pone11]

 

 

Hypothetically, let's say that further research shows that daily injections of GDF11 would make a 50 year human metabolically like a 30 year old. Are you trying to tell us you would reject that and hold out for an easy-to-use nasal dispenser?

I mean, come on, I am all for pampering, but if someone offered me that benefit I would be asking where is the needle?

Yup, me too. Not quite at that point yet...

 

Suppose it did give a 50 year old the metabolism of a 30 year old.  If you were that 50 year old, what would that be like?  Your sagging skin wouldn't tighten up, and wrinkles wouldn't go away, because that's a form of damage that GDF11 won't change.  Your thinning grey hair will still make you look elderly.  That's also a form of damage that I don't think GDF11 will touch.  Your clogged arteries?  Still clogged.  You might feel a little better, or maybe you wouldn't notice much difference, because a healthy 50 y.o. still has a pretty good metabolism.    I think the biggest reality check on things like this is that they aren't likely to change the things that people are most desperate to change.  That's the stuff we need SENS for.

 

 

Good questions, although I don't think we know enough about GDF11 - or young plasma - to agree with every statement you make.

 

For example, grey hair is caused by hydrogen peroxide.   And that in turn points to a failure of catalase production as we age.   I don't have the original study citation here, but this is a magazine article summarizing some recent research where hair color was partly reversed with a catalase cocktail:

http://www.telegraph...iscoloured.html

 

Do we know enough about GDF11 to know whether or not it helps to restore key antioxidants (e.g., SOD and catalase) in cytoplasm and mitochondria?   I really don't know what to expect there.

[pone11]

Is it correct that there are no GDF 11 studies ever performed on humans, and there are no studies currently recruiting for humans?   I couldn't find one - past or present - on Clinicaltrials.gov but I may have been looking incorrectly.

[pleb]

From my own reading on this it's to new to have had any other trails published yet. after giving the young blood to the old mouse it took four years to identify that it was GDF11 as the cause. There has been a mention of trails on humans in Australia but that's still on going and may not have even started yet.

At first the thought that GDF11 was just effecting the brain and could be a possible treatment for Alzheimer's. It was only on other mice they realised it effected 90 per cent of the soft tissue of the body taking it back to a more youthful age.reversing the ageing of the heart and other tissues back to what they were when the mouse was the equivalent to a 20 year old from the equivalent of a 70 year old human. Down regulating hormones that we produce more of when we age and upregulating hormones that we produce less of. Including sirt 1 through to 7.
This were Sinclair's words in an article I read.
But I agree with miner it won't get rid of saggy jowls or wrinkly skin. But GHK May help there on the skin and collagen and a face lift for the jowls.

[pleb]

Sorry last line should have read niner not miner. ( kindle changes words even after I've checked them )!!!

[Bryan_S]

 

 

 

 

First, this quote says "for a period of time" without specifying what the period of time is.   That's not a basis for saying anything permanently reset!

 

Second, don't quote her in interviews.  Look at the primary research.  The primary Amy Wagers study is full text here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC3677132

 

and contains the quote:

"Only at the highest dose (0.1 mg/kg) did we observe a reproducible increase in the plasma level of GDF11 1h after injection (Figure S5). Furthermore, analysis of plasma samples collected serially over 48h after a single i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg rGDF11, indicated that GDF11 levels were persistently elevated for approximately 24h after this single injection (Figure S5)."

 

So the research itself is telling you they are dosing the rats every 24 hours because that is how long they can sustain the higher level of GDF11.

 

There is nothing in that original research that gives any person any right to believe that anything has permanently reset.

 

Her team is working now to understand if there is a permanent reset of anything.    But common sense tells you if the GDF11 rapidly diminishes after transfusion, probably there is no permanent reset.   To hypothesize a permanent reset you have to make some pretty wild assumptions about an underlying physiology that no one has good knowledge of.

 

 

As far as the interview she is interpreting her own data and has insights we do not. She will be setting up 2 more experiments to prove or disprove her "as yet unproven conclusion."

 

If the tissues are made younger I would assume they would make more GDF11 on their own. This we will have to wait and see.

 

 

I don't read any conclusion at all into Amy Wagers statement that you quoted.   I read her asking a good question, and then she tells us she is going to try to answer that question.

 

GDF11 is a protein / peptide.   It is the metabolic output from some factory within the cell or mitochondria (I don't know which).   The analogy would be the difference between a fruit tree (the factory) and a fruit (the output of the factory).    If I dumped 100 apples on your kitchen table, and you ate 50 of them, would you become a fruit tree?    I understand that isn't an exact analogy, but there is a point to be considered there.   It's not clear at all that just because we take in higher GDF11 that our factories would become better able to create more GDF11.   I understand that it is your hypothesis that this will happen.   It is my hypothesis that this will probably not happen, because GDF11 is probably not correcting accumulated defects in the RNA of the cell and mitochondria.   Neither of us can prove our hypothesis.   The point of this post is simply to further clarify the two points of view.

 

By the way, does anyone know of a parabiosis study where - after getting the benefits of a youthful rat - the older rat was then disconnected and allowed to live on its own?   That study - if it exists - would give us powerful clues about what to probably expect with GDF11.   Does it take days, weeks, or months to have the beneficial effects go away?

 

 

"So far there is some evidence it re-sets.” Amy Wagers

 

I wasn't involved in the study but she is suggesting they've uncovered some evidence it re-sets and she is designing studies around this question. We do not share her insights and therefore can not dispute them.

 

Also we are talking about a cell signaling protein which seems to directly or indirectly initiate DNA repair. Can you fathom those benefits, it has nothing to do with eating apples and becoming one of them. Fixing problems at the root before stem cell divisions result in cancers or before DNA to RNA transcriptions are performed to produce other cellular products. The nuclear repair aspects of this could be Earth shaking. With planned missions to deep space this research could have profound implications for keeping our astronauts heathy and alive in high radiation zones. If we could only impart some of the repair abilities of Deinococcus radiodurans to our own cells we could all live much heather lives. This protein seems to manifest these abilities, to some degree, to our cells.

 

So as this field of research opens up we may find other benefits not as of yet discussed.

[pone11]

From my own reading on this it's to new to have had any other trails published yet. after giving the young blood to the old mouse it took four years to identify that it was GDF11 as the cause. There has been a mention of trails on humans in Australia but that's still on going and may not have even started yet.

At first the thought that GDF11 was just effecting the brain and could be a possible treatment for Alzheimer's. It was only on other mice they realised it effected 90 per cent of the soft tissue of the body taking it back to a more youthful age.reversing the ageing of the heart and other tissues back to what they were when the mouse was the equivalent to a 20 year old from the equivalent of a 70 year old human. Down regulating hormones that we produce more of when we age and upregulating hormones that we produce less of. Including sirt 1 through to 7.
This were Sinclair's words in an article I read.
But I agree with miner it won't get rid of saggy jowls or wrinkly skin. But GHK May help there on the skin and collagen and a face lift for the jowls.

 

Sagging skin is caused by loss of collagen and elastin.   But do we really understand the underlying biology of that well enough to know what GDF11 can and cannot do?   One of the interesting outcomes of these plasma and GDF11 experiments is the revelation that older animals apparently have a lot of stem cells intact.  Those cells simply do not get the right signals to develop.   GDF11 appears to partly reverse the inhibition of those stem cells, which is why the animal studies show impressive regeneration of neurons and cardiac muscle.   

 

Elastin is broken down as we age by enzyme family matrix metalloproteinases (MMP):

http://barefacedtrut...loaded-elastin/

 

For whatever reason, these MMP are inhibited when we are young and become more active as we age.    Can we really say with certainty what effect GDF11 will have on MMP?   If GDF11 helps to restore an environment where MMP are still inhibited, and simultaneously causes stem cells to become more active in generating new tissue, might this not have some affect on aging skin over time?

 

This is all hypothesis, but I would like to understand why other people feel sagging skin is a different class of tissue that GDF11 could never help.

[pone11]

 

 

 

 

 

First, this quote says "for a period of time" without specifying what the period of time is.   That's not a basis for saying anything permanently reset!

 

Second, don't quote her in interviews.  Look at the primary research.  The primary Amy Wagers study is full text here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....cles/PMC3677132

 

and contains the quote:

"Only at the highest dose (0.1 mg/kg) did we observe a reproducible increase in the plasma level of GDF11 1h after injection (Figure S5). Furthermore, analysis of plasma samples collected serially over 48h after a single i.p. administration of 0.1 mg/kg rGDF11, indicated that GDF11 levels were persistently elevated for approximately 24h after this single injection (Figure S5)."

 

So the research itself is telling you they are dosing the rats every 24 hours because that is how long they can sustain the higher level of GDF11.

 

There is nothing in that original research that gives any person any right to believe that anything has permanently reset.

 

Her team is working now to understand if there is a permanent reset of anything.    But common sense tells you if the GDF11 rapidly diminishes after transfusion, probably there is no permanent reset.   To hypothesize a permanent reset you have to make some pretty wild assumptions about an underlying physiology that no one has good knowledge of.

 

 

As far as the interview she is interpreting her own data and has insights we do not. She will be setting up 2 more experiments to prove or disprove her "as yet unproven conclusion."

 

If the tissues are made younger I would assume they would make more GDF11 on their own. This we will have to wait and see.

 

 

I don't read any conclusion at all into Amy Wagers statement that you quoted.   I read her asking a good question, and then she tells us she is going to try to answer that question.

 

GDF11 is a protein / peptide.   It is the metabolic output from some factory within the cell or mitochondria (I don't know which).   The analogy would be the difference between a fruit tree (the factory) and a fruit (the output of the factory).    If I dumped 100 apples on your kitchen table, and you ate 50 of them, would you become a fruit tree?    I understand that isn't an exact analogy, but there is a point to be considered there.   It's not clear at all that just because we take in higher GDF11 that our factories would become better able to create more GDF11.   I understand that it is your hypothesis that this will happen.   It is my hypothesis that this will probably not happen, because GDF11 is probably not correcting accumulated defects in the RNA of the cell and mitochondria.   Neither of us can prove our hypothesis.   The point of this post is simply to further clarify the two points of view.

 

By the way, does anyone know of a parabiosis study where - after getting the benefits of a youthful rat - the older rat was then disconnected and allowed to live on its own?   That study - if it exists - would give us powerful clues about what to probably expect with GDF11.   Does it take days, weeks, or months to have the beneficial effects go away?

 

 

"So far there is some evidence it re-sets.” Amy Wagers

 

I wasn't involved in the study but she is suggesting they've uncovered some evidence it re-sets and she is designing studies around this question. We do not share her insights and therefore can not dispute them.

 

Also we are talking about a cell signaling protein which seems to directly or indirectly initiate DNA repair. Can you fathom those benefits, it has nothing to do with eating apples and becoming one of them. Fixing problems at the root before stem cell divisions result in cancers or before DNA to RNA transcriptions are performed to produce other cellular products. The nuclear repair aspects of this could be Earth shaking. With planned missions to deep space this research could have profound implications for keeping our astronauts heathy and alive in high radiation zones. If we could only impart some of the repair abilities of Deinococcus radiodurans to our own cells we could all live much heather lives. This protein seems to manifest these abilities, to some degree, to our cells.

 

So as this field of research opens up we may find other benefits not as of yet discussed.

 

 

And the very next sentence from the one you quote from Amy Wagers in that article is that the *Stanford* research - NOT her own - is encouraging as “it says whatever activity is causing the changes persists in plasma for a period of time.”   So she qualifies her statement that something "resets" by explicitly clarifying that it might be "for a period of time."    When you read the entire quoted section in context, she is not making a claim for a permanent reset.

 

Further, let's go to the full text of the Tony Wyss-Coray Stanford study she is referring to:

http://www.nature.co...TWT_NatRevNeuro

 

I don't find any part of that research that tests for a reset effect.   

 

I'm not saying you are wrong that there might be a reset.  I am saying you are reading more into her comment than was there and you are selectively quoting her.   Let them do the research on that issue.

 

We should define what do we mean by a "reset".   The mice in the GDF11 experiments got new neurons and new cardiac tissue.   Presumably that doesn't immediately degenerate when you stop GDF11.   So in that sense something "reset" by some known increment, and those animals enjoy the benefits of that new tissue for at least months.    But that's not an interesting meaning for "reset".   The kind of reset that is much more interesting is if there is DNA repair - particularly to mitochondria which accumulate a lot of genetic damage.   

 

You claim that the existing research shows DNA repair.  My reading of science is not deep enough to catch that if it is there.  Can you quote the relevant studies that reach that conclusion and link to full text of the studies?  If you can find that, it is an incredibly important finding.

[niner]

Sagging skin is caused by loss of collagen and elastin.   But do we really understand the underlying biology of that well enough to know what GDF11 can and cannot do?   One of the interesting outcomes of these plasma and GDF11 experiments is the revelation that older animals apparently have a lot of stem cells intact.  Those cells simply do not get the right signals to develop.   GDF11 appears to partly reverse the inhibition of those stem cells, which is why the animal studies show impressive regeneration of neurons and cardiac muscle.   

 

Elastin is broken down as we age by enzyme family matrix metalloproteinases (MMP):

http://barefacedtrut...loaded-elastin/

 

For whatever reason, these MMP are inhibited when we are young and become more active as we age.    Can we really say with certainty what effect GDF11 will have on MMP?   If GDF11 helps to restore an environment where MMP are still inhibited, and simultaneously causes stem cells to become more active in generating new tissue, might this not have some affect on aging skin over time?

 

This is all hypothesis, but I would like to understand why other people feel sagging skin is a different class of tissue that GDF11 could never help.

 

A lot of the problem is that collagen and elastin have become glycated and crosslinked, and they lose their elasticity.  This occurs in the extracellular matrix that is turned over very slowly.  If the tissue is not turning over, I don't see how GDF11 fixes it.  On the other hand, there are other processes that can counteract this to some extent, and maybe they would get ramped up, which would be a plus. 
 

Edited by niner, 08 February 2015 - 10:00 PM.

[pleb]

One of the problems with saggy jowls is that the underlying muscle has lost attachment to the cheek structure and gravity does the rest.
That's why the mini S face lift cuts the skin and pulls up the muscle restitching it where it was before it sagged. Over time GDF11 May reverse the problem with muscles but it can't undo what gravity has caused. It may rejuvenate the muscle but if it's already detached it won't lift it back where it came from So it might take years to repair that.

[Bryan_S]

 

You claim that the existing research shows DNA repair.  My reading of science is not deep enough to catch that if it is there.  Can you quote the relevant studies that reach that conclusion and link to full text of the studies?  If you can find that, it is an incredibly important finding.

 

 

I don't claim anything I find the study abstracts are lacking in detail and are worthless. However I found one free version that discusses the DNA findings they are discussing in the interviews. http://europepmc.org...cles/pmc4104429 

 

Have you read the full studies or are you just skimming the abstracts?

 

http://ac.els-cdn.com/S009286741300456X/1-s2.0-S009286741300456X-main.pdf?_tid=42065f1a-b039-11e4-921f-00000aab0f27&acdnat=1423472249_44d9036808b5084be4a81e387efe671d

[pone11]

 

 

You claim that the existing research shows DNA repair.  My reading of science is not deep enough to catch that if it is there.  Can you quote the relevant studies that reach that conclusion and link to full text of the studies?  If you can find that, it is an incredibly important finding.

 

 

I don't claim anything I find the study abstracts are lacking in detail and are worthless. However I found one free version that discusses the DNA findings they are discussing in the interviews. http://europepmc.org...cles/pmc4104429 

 

 

That's a great study.   There are strong statements about DNA repair there and that is pretty exciting.   But they are talking about repair to stem cells that differentiate and form new cells.  They are not saying old tissues repair their DNA.   It suggests that if you keep taking GDF11 all of your new tissue will be nearly identical to young tissue in terms of DNA (because it is repaired), whereas the old tissue will stay old.   It is intriguing but let's keep in mind that the old wisdom was that some tissues like heart tissue turn over about 1% a year:

http://askanaturalis...-7-or-10-years/

 

At 1% a year, you effectively can never become "young" again, just injecting GDF11.  But after 10 years you might be noticeably younger, particularly for other tissue types that regenerate faster.   

 

One of the most perplexing and amazing things about the GDF11 studies are the claims about neurons growing.   Neurons are not supposed to regenerate in humans.  Is it different in rats?   If rats are the same as humans, it does open up the possibility that GDF11 not only repairs DNA in new "young" tissue, but also increases the rate of regeneration and makes possible regeneration of tissue types that do not normally regenerate at all.

 

Definitely something remarkable is happening there.