Reading the article on Dr Church in the last LEF magazine I wonder if what I emphasize in bold in the following excerpt (p. 52) is basically what Bryan brought in this thread when discussing EV (extracellular vesicles) as a promising technology which can be used in reprogramming, right?
"...Dr. Church: If our idea is correct, we should be able to impact all of them at the same time when we target the core causes of aging. When you’re rejuvenatin cells, you’re also boosting all their repair mechanisms. It’s possible that certain negative biological changes are rather permanent and hard to restore, but they would be incredibly drastic. The challenge for the near future is using artificial intelligence to design “delivery shuttles” that carry gene therapy where you want it to go. But if we can convince the cells that they’re young by giving them a dose of youth-promoting genes, their own repair factory should kick in and restore lots of damage from aging. Trying to convince every cell in the body is very difficult. Some life-extending, non-gene therapies are trying. We believe that youth-promoting hormones and other biological factors shared from cell to cell hold the key. Using gene therapy, even if we hit just a few cells, they’ll amp up hormone production, diffuse them throughout the body, and immediately amplify the gene therapy’s initial effect..."
https://www.lifeexte...55df6391fda0ec2
Thanks Albedo,
In Vivo Amelioration of Age-Associated Hallmarks by Partial Reprogramming is where we started this thread. So we will attempt to stay on this path for this thread, but as new epigenetic targets are identified, maybe we don't need to reboot our epigenetics as deeply as in this experiment. At all times, we need to maintain cell identity and this is the worry. Then we need viable delivery methods for these therapies because we can not directly replicate this proof of concept experiment on humans.
As I've posted before, this approach is a very low-level epigenetic reboot akin to using a jackhammer as apposed to a chisel. At this point in time, IMHO we do not have all the proper epigenetic targets selected, and on that topic, research is pressing on to identify them.
Here is some of that ongoing research, one of which is uncovering many important factors in the cell cycle. Let's look at a recent development: NSD2 enzyme appears to prevent cellular senescence
https://medicalxpres...senescence.html
Recently an article appeared about belly fat as a source of chronic inflammation. Researchers discovered that eosinophil cell therapy promotes rejuvenation. Now they harvested young Eosinophil cells from genetically identical mice and gave them to the old mice, but old cells can be regressed in age with Partial Reprogramming and reintroduced into the body since we don't all have younger genetic twins. Think of it, partial reprogramming of just Eosinophil cells (a variety of white blood cells) could be one avenue. Keep in mind this is a cell-based therapeutic approach. Furthermore, if this type of approach is affective, do we need to roll the clock back for every cell type, or can we pick those cell types that are the most influential over the rest?
Age-related impairments reversed in animal model
https://www.scienced...00706140905.htm
On the delivery side, EV (extracellular vesicles) are an up-and-coming delivery method, one which mimics our body's own epigenetic reprograming. Messenger RNA can very discreetly target the proper gene and then be degraded and eliminated. Targeting specific tissues, if that's desired, is still in the works but progress is being made.
Currently, I'm collecting articles where avenues of success are being forged. Using extracellular vesicles appears to be less invasive than say using retroviruses/lentiviruses, or reprogramming cells outside the body and then reintroducing them, but the group I'm featuring made some success on two separate fronts, both needed for different approaches. At Ohio State University, they have had success using a lipid-based delivery system for messenger RNA, mimicking natural EV's and in another experiment using the same lipid-based delivery system to insert a DNA base editor to edit the DNA base pairs where needed. So different tools will likely be needed for different tasks depending on the end goal and work along these lines is progressing.
Tiny engineered therapeutic delivery system safely solves genetic problems in mice
https://phys.org/new...ly-genetic.html
And another noteworthy read:
RNA as a future cure for hereditary diseases
https://medicalxpres...y-diseases.html
Guys, a ton of publications are coming out each week. I still have my eye on Irina & Michael Conboy because blood carries EV's and other cell signaling proteins. From a treatment standpoint, since blood transfusions from our children are kind of a non-starter, let us see what the complete blood profiles reveal from childhood to old age and then determine which cell signaling products have gone into decline and need therapeutic enhancement.
We can't even begin to approach whole body reprogramming until we know which genes to turn on and which to turn off. As a scientific community, we are just beginning to look at treating some genetic diseases by re-training other cells to produce needed protein products. I don't think aging will be much different because we can turn some cells into factories for declining blood factors and other RNA products needed for rejuvenation. We then become our own pharmacy. So rejuvenation approaches leveraging the body's own resources will be the most cost-effective and longest-lasting IMHO.
Bryan
Edited by Bryan_S, 23 August 2020 - 07:32 AM.