Re: genome research project on oldest people for cancer clues

Bryan Heit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> 
> >I understand that human bodies have cancers all the time and
> >constantly throughout life but these cancers never develop because the
> >body immune system
> >destroys the cancer before it becomes out of control. I do not know
> >how true that picture is. But let us say there is some truth to the
> >idea.
> >
> This theory, called the "Immune Surveillance Theory" was a popular idea 
> until recently.  Unfortunately studies using mice lacking all T-cells 
> and B-cells (T-cells appear to be the main anti-cancer cell in our 
> bodies) found that these mice didn't have higher incidences of cancer 
> then did "normal mice".  Since that experiment several other experiments 
> have confirmed these results.  As such most immunologists no longer 
> believe this theory.  This came as a big disappointment to many of us, 
> as there is no question in the scientific literature that you can 
> generate successful immune responses against tumours, but these seem to 
> be rare outside of the laboratory.

Thanks for the update on recent research. Honestly, I was shaky with
the idea that cancer occurrs continuously throughout life and that the
body continuously
fights off newly arising cancer. It did not seem to match observable
reality.


> 
> >Since we have genome project with the ability to map the entire genome
> >of an individual. Then it would make much sense to map the genome of
> >the oldest humans alive because their genetic coding is more resistant
> >to disease especially cancer than the majority of other genomes.
> >
> Not necessarily.  Most age-related disease (cancer, heart disease, 
> diabetes, etc., etc., etc.) have both genetic and environmental factors 
> associated with them.  To make things worse most of these diseases 
> involve many genes, none of which guarantee disease, but each of which 

I suspect that a study of identical twins raised apart can give some
clues as to the relationship of genetics to that of environment. And
twin studies seem to indicate that genetics is more predominant than
environment.

I suspect also that women live longest statistically because they are
faced with far less environmental exposure to hazards and stress then
do men in a lifetime.

> increase your risk of getting the disease.  So if you find a very old 
> healthy person there is no guaranteed a genetic sequence will tell you 
> anything - they may have "risk" genes but have never been exposed to 
> environmental factors, and thus didn't develop the disease.  Likewise, a 
> person with a disease (i.e. lung cancer) may have none of the genetic 
> factors associated with that disease, but were heavily exposed to an 
> environmental factor (i.e. smoking) which caused the disease.
> 
> There are a variety of techniques which allow us to find disease genes.  
> Basically, they involve looking at a group of people with the same 
> disease, and you look for a genetic marker which is found in most of the 
> people.  Usually you will find several markers, with more investigation 
> you can usually find specific genes.  The hard part is showing those 
> genes are involved in the disease process.  Sometimes we do the reverse 
> - start with a gene and look to see if people with a disease have a 
> mutation in the gene.  Either way you start with a diseased population, 
> as it is easier to identify things they have in common then things that 
> are different to "normal" people.
> 
> >So, it would make sense to contact the oldest humans around for DNA
> >and to map their entire genome and then compare those genomes for
> >answers as to why they can live so long without contracting cancer or
> >many other diseases.
> >
> But how do you identify what is different from the rest of us?  Today we 

Well I am expecting that if we can fully map the genomes of say 10
people
who go beyond age 105 and then compare those genomes of 100 people who
lived the average length of a lifetime (forgotten the average and
guessing
it is 70 years). So comparing the full genomes of the 10 oldest to the
100 average lifes that there is a pattern in the A,C,T,G that the 10
oldest
have in which is different for the A,C,T,G of the 100 average.

I would be surprized if this research were conducted and the 10 oldest
had no pattern different from the 100 average. It maybe not a stark
and bold difference and perhaps a small but still significant
difference.

> only have 1 "complete" human genome, so we don't exactly have a lot to 
> compare to.  Even with modern genome sequencing equipment it still will 

I did not know we were so far behind. My opinion is that world
charities ought to donate more money to genome mapping than to the
other programs now engaged. BTW, I am guessing the "1" is Craig
Ventner's genome, an average sort of guy. If I were to decide whose
genome should have been the first to map, I would have selected
Newton's DNA as I am told that England has preserved some of Newton's
DNA, or chosen Galileo since his finger is preserved and thus his DNA
is still
available. I do not know if Faraday DNA or Maxwell DNA still exists.
Whether Bohr or in our recent time of Feynman DNA existing. All of
these persons have a more urgent need for a complete genome mapping
than does those already selected.

> take at least one year to sequence a human genome (likely longer), so 
> this would be a very inefficient approach.  And if you had a large 
> enough data base you would still be looking for the same things we look 
> for today - common markers within the genome which are associated with a 
> disease.  The traditional techniques of looking for disease-linked 
> markers has been very successful to date, and will remain far more 
> effective then your idea for many years to come.  Until we can sequence 
> the entire genome of a person in a resonable amount of time your 
> technique will be much slower then what we currently use.
> 
> Bryan Heit

The last time I wrote on Cancer, if memory serves me, I was into a
theory that Cancer is the body's own mechanism of folding up and
dying. Much like trees and
plants fold up for the season where perennials die and although trees
just hibernate. But I took a view that Cancer is really not a
"disease" if we define disease as an attack by other organisms. I
believe a strict and logical definition of disease should be one in
which a "other organism" is the cause. So that in cancer when the
cells malfunction and multiply out of control is not a disease.

Do we say aging is a disease? I think not. And I am not quibbling over
definitions, ie disease.

I believe there is a theory for Aging. Bryan, correct me if wrong or
if new research has arisen to counter this theory of aging. I believe
the theory of Aging that is the best is that of one in which the body
accumulates mistakes and errors to the point in which the mistakes are
so vast that the nonmistakes is unable to keep the body going. The
accumulation of lead, mercury and other materials in the body that
cannot get out. The wrinkles in skin. The cells that exhaust and not
replaced. So aging is error buildup and death is too much error for
the nonerror to cope.

So in light of a Theory of Aging, cancer logically fits within that
theory of Aging. In that cancer is an error in a cell, only an error
that accelerates faster than other errors.

Now the reason I want to bring those two ideas together:
(1) Theory of Aging -- error accumulation
(2) Theory of Cancer -- a form of error and which the body is self
programmed to die

The reason is that they are logically connected because both have
error as their main engine. But also I saw on TV tonight a repeat
program on NOVA about Bristlecone Pine being the oldest living things
on Earth where some live to 5,000 years. That is a long time. But
viruses and one celled creatures live even longer.

So I wonder if a full Genome mapping of Bristlecone Pine can be done
soon. And if we get a full genome of the 10 oldest people over the age
of 105 and compared the genomes of Bristlecone Pine to 10 oldest and
100 average, then it may surprize us immensely to find that a
particular pattern of A,C,G,T exists in the 10 oldest humans and also
Bristlecone Pine.

Because if Aging is error accumulation, then some pattern of the
A,C,G,T is less susceptible to error accumulation than all other
patterns of ACTG. In other words, a Maximum pattern of the A,C,T,G
will exist since those genomes are all Finite in length. A good
mathematicians knows that the finiteness implies a maximum. And if
Aging is error accumulation then a maximum pattern exists to have the
longest lifespan for a given species.

The age of Bristlecone Pine cannot be infinite because the A,C,T,G
coding is finite coupled with error accumulation. And in some future
century of scientists should be able to pinpoint the maximum age of
the longest possible living human or the longest living Bristlecone
Pine.

Not even a bacterial cell or viral-cell lives infinitely because
errors do occur
within their interiors and interior functions.

MY GUESS: my guess is that the more active a life is, the shorter
lived and that Metabolism rates are key to long lived or short lived.
Bristlecone Pine have perhaps the slowest metabolism of any
multicellular creature. The oldest humans are usually women and I am
guessing that women with a slow metabolism. So Metabolism is connected
to Aging and Metabolism would have a identifiable pattern of the
A,C,G,T coding.

Given the above, I speculate that in the future when the 10 oldest
humans (probably all 10 would be females) and the 100 average aged
humans (who died at that average age) were fully genome mapped along
with the genome of Bristlecone Pine that there will exist a pattern of
A,C,G,T within the 10 and somewhat in agreement with a pattern in the
Bristlecone Pine and all having to do with rate of Metabolism.

Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom where dots
of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies