Introduction
In the past century, a combination of successful public health campaigns, changes in living environments, and advances in medicine have led to a dramatic increase in human life expectancy. Long lives experienced by unprecedented numbers of people in developed countries are a triumph of human ingenuity. This remarkable achievement has produced economic, political, and societal changes that are both positive and negative. While there is every reason to be optimistic that continuing progress in public health and the biomedical sciences will contribute to even longer and healthier lives in the future, a disturbing and potentially dangerous trend has also emerged in recent years. There has been a resurgence and proliferation of health care providers and entrepreneurs who are promoting anti-aging products and lifestyle changes that they claim will slow, stop, or reverse the processes of aging. Even though in most cases there is little or no scientific basis for these claims (1), the public is spending vast sums of money on these products and lifestyle changes, some of which may be harmful (2). Scientists are unwittingly contributing to the proliferation of these pseudo-scientific anti-aging products by failing to participate in the public dialogue about the genuine science of aging research. The purpose of this document is to warn the public against the use of ineffective and potentially harmful anti-aging interventions, and provide a brief but authoritative consensus statement from 51 internationally recognized scientists in the field [see (104)] of what we know and do not know about intervening in human aging. What follows is a list of issues related to aging that are prominent in both the lay and scientific literature, and the consensus statements about these issues that grew out of debates and discussions among the 51 scientists associated with this paper.
Life-span
Life-span is defined as the observed age at death of an individual whereas maximum life-span is the highest documented age at death for a species. From time to time, we are told of a new highest documented age at death, as in the celebrated case of Madame Jeanne Calment of France who died at the age of 122 (3). Although such an extreme age at death is exceedingly rare, the maximum life-span of humans has continued to increase because world records for longevity can move in only one direction, higher. However, despite this trend it is almost certainly true that, at least since recorded history, people could have lived as long as those alive today if similar technologies, lifestyles, and population sizes had been present. It is not people that have changed, it is the protected environments in which we live and the advances made in biomedical sciences and other human institutions that have permitted more people to attain, or more closely approach, their life-span potential (4). While longevity records are entertaining, they have little relevance to our own lives because genetic, environmental, and lifestyle diversity (5) guarantees that an overwhelming majority of the population will die long before attaining the age of the longest-lived individual.
Life Expectancy
Life expectancy in humans is the average number of years of life remaining for people of a given age assuming everyone will experience, for the remainder of their lives, the risk of death based on a current life table. For newborns in the United States today, life expectancy is about 77 years (6). Rapid declines in infant, child, maternal, and late-life mortality during the 20th century led to an unprecedented 30-year increase in human life expectancy at birth from the 47 years that it was in developed countries in 1900. Repeating this feat during the lifetimes of people alive today is unlikely. Most of the prior advances in life expectancy at birth reflect dramatic declines in mortality risks in childhood and early adult life. Because the young can only be saved once and because these risks are now so close to zero, further improvements, even if they occurred, would have little effect on life expectancy (7-9). Future gains in life expectancy will, therefore, require adding decades of life to people who have already survived seven decades or more. Even with precipitous declines in mortality at middle and older ages from those present today, life expectancy at birth is unlikely to exceed 90 years (males and females combined) in the 21st century without scientific advances that permit the modification of the fundamental processes of aging (10). In fact, even eliminating all aging-related causes of death currently written on the death certificates of the elderly will not increase human life expectancy by more than 15 years. In order to exceed this limit, the underlying processes of aging that increase vulnerability to all the common causes of death currently appearing on death certificates will have to be modified.
Immortality
Eliminating all of the aging-related (11) causes of death presently written on death certificates would still not make humans immortal (12). Accidents, homicides, suicide, and the biological processes of aging would continue to take their toll. The prospect of humans living forever is as unlikely today as it has always been, and discussions of such an impossible scenario have no place in a scientific discourse.
Geriatric Medicine Versus Aging
Geriatric medicine is a critically important specialty in a world where population aging is already a demographic reality in many countries and a future certainty in others. Past and anticipated advances in geriatric medicine will continue to save lives and help to manage the degenerative diseases associated with growing older (13, 14), but these interventions only influence the manifestations of aging–not aging itself. The biomedical knowledge required to modify the processes of aging which lead to age-associated pathologies confronted by geriatricians, does not currently exist. Until we better understand the aging processes and discover how to manipulate them, these intrinsic and currently immutable forces will continue to lead to increasing losses in physiological capacity and death even if age-associated diseases could be totally eliminated (15-20).
Anti-Aging Medicine
Advocates of what has become known as anti-aging medicine claim that it is now possible to slow, stop, or reverse aging through existing medical and scientific interventions (21-26). Claims of this kind have been made for thousands of years (27), and they are as false today as they were in the past (28-31). Preventive measures make up an important part of public health and geriatric medicine, and careful adherence to advice on nutrition, exercise, and smoking can increase one’s chances of living a long and healthy life, even though lifestyle changes based on these precautions do not affect the processes of aging (32-33). The more dramatic claims made by those who advocate anti-aging medicine in the form of specific drugs, vitamin cocktails, or esoteric hormone mixtures are, however, not supported by scientific evidence, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these claims are intentionally false, misleading, or exaggerated for commercial reasons (34). The misleading marketing and the public acceptance of anti-aging medicine is not only a waste of health dollars; it has also made it far more difficult to inform the public about legitimate scientific research on aging and disease (35). Medical interventions for age-related diseases do result in an increase in life expectancy, but none have been proven to modify the underlying processes of aging. The use of cosmetics, cosmetic surgery, hair dyes, and similar means for covering up manifestations of aging may be effective in masking age changes, but they do not slow, stop, or reverse aging. At present, there is no such thing as an anti-aging intervention.
Antioxidants
The scientifically respected free-radical theory of aging (36) serves as a basis for the prominent role that antioxidants have in the anti-aging movement. The claim that ingesting supplements containing antioxidants can influence aging is often used to sell anti-aging formulations. The logic used by their proponents reflects a misunderstanding of how cells detect and repair the damage caused by free radicals and the important role that free radicals play in normal physiological processes (e.g., the immune response and cell communication) (37-39). Nevertheless, there is little doubt that ingesting fruits and vegetables (which contain antioxidants) can reduce the risk of having a number of age-associated diseases such as cancer (40), heart disease (41, 42), macular degeneration, and cataracts (43, 44). At present there is relatively little evidence from human studies that supplements containing antioxidants lead to a reduction in either the risk of these conditions or the rate of aging, but there are a number of ongoing randomized trials that address the possible role of supplements in a range of age-related conditions (45-49), the results of which will be reported in the coming years. In the meantime, possible adverse effects of single dose supplements, such as beta-carotene (50), caution against their indiscriminate use. As such, antioxidant supplements may have some health benefits for some people, but so far there is no scientific evidence to justify the claim that they have any effect on human aging (51, 52).
Telomeres
Telomeres, the repeated sequence found at the ends of chromosomes, shorten in many normal human cells with increased cell divisions. Statistically, older people have shorter telomeres in their skin and blood cells than do younger people (53, 54). However, in the animal kingdom, long-lived species often have shorter telomeres than do short-lived species, indicating that telomere length probably does not determine life-span (55-57). Solid scientific evidence has shown that telomere length plays a role in determining cellular life-span in normal human fibroblasts and some other normal cell types (58). However, increasing the number of times a cell can divide may predispose cells to tumor formation (59, 60). Thus, although telomere shortening may play a role in limiting cellular life-span, there is no evidence that telomere shortening plays a role in the determination of human longevity.
Hormones
A number of hormones, including growth hormone, testosterone, estrogen, progesterone, etc., have been shown in clinical trials to improve some of the physiological changes associated with human aging (61, 62). Under the careful supervision of physicians, some hormone supplements can be beneficial to the health of some people. However, no hormone has been proven to slow, stop, or reverse aging. Instances of negative side effects associated with some of these products have already been observed, and recent animal studies suggest that the use of growth hormone could have a life-shortening effect (63-65). Hormone supplements now being sold under the guise of anti-aging medicine should not be used by anyone unless they are prescribed for approved medical uses.
Caloric Restriction
The widespread observation that caloric restriction will increase longevity must be tempered with the recognition that it has progressively less effect the later in life it is begun (66), as well as with the possibility that the control animals used in these studies feed more than wild animals, predisposing them to an earlier death. Although caloric restriction might extend the longevity of humans because it does so in many other animal species (67-69), there is no study in humans that has proven that it will work. A few people have subjected themselves to a calorically restricted diet, which, in order to be effective, must approach levels that most people would find intolerable. The fact that so few people have attempted caloric restriction since the phenomenon was discovered more than sixty years ago suggests that for most people, quality of life seems to be preferred to the quantity of life. The unknown mechanisms involved in the reduced risk of disease associated with caloric restriction are of great interest (70), and deserve further study because they could lead to treatments with pharmacological mimetics of caloric restriction that might postpone all age-related diseases simultaneously (71).
Determining Biological Age
Scientists believe that random damage that occurs within cells and among extracellular molecules are responsible for many of the age-related changes that are observed in organisms (72-74). In addition, for organisms that reproduce sexually like humans, each individual is genetically unique. As such, the rate of aging also varies from individual to individual (75). Despite intensive study, scientists have not been able to discover reliable measures of the processes that contribute to aging (76). For these reasons, any claim that a person’s biological or “real age” (77) can currently be measured, let alone modified, by any means must be regarded as entertainment (78), not science.
Are There Genes That Govern Aging Processes?
No genetic instructions are required to age animals just as no instructions on how to age inanimate machines are included in their blueprints (79, 80). Molecular disorder occurs and accumulates within cells and their products because the energy required for maintenance and repair processes to maintain functional integrity for an indefinite time is unnecessary after reproductive success. Survival beyond the reproductive years and, in some cases raising progeny to independence, is not favored by evolution because limited resources are better spent on strategies that enhance reproductive success to sexual maturity rather than longevity (81). Although genes certainly influence longevity determination, the processes of aging are not genetically programmed. Over-engineered systems and redundant physiological capacities are essential for surviving long enough to reproduce in environments that are invariably hostile to life. Because humans have learned how to reduce environmental threats to life, the presence of redundant physiological capacity permits them and the domesticated animals we protect to survive beyond the reproductive ages. Studies in lower animals that have led to the view that genes are involved in aging have demonstrated that significant declines in mortality rates and large increases in average and maximum life-span can be achieved experimentally (82-85). However, without exception, these genes have never produced a reversal or arrest of the inexorable increase in mortality rate that is one important hallmark of aging. The apparent effects of such genes on aging therefore appear to be inadvertent consequences of changes in other stages of life, such as growth and development, rather than a modification of underlying aging processes. Indeed, the evolutionary arguments presented above suggest that a unitary programmed aging process is unlikely to even exist, and that such studies are more accurately interpreted to impact on longevity determination, not the various biological processes that contribute to aging. From this perspective, longevity determination is under genetic control only indirectly (86, 87). Thus, aging is a product of evolutionary neglect, not evolutionary intent (88-91).
Can We Grow Younger?
Although it is possible to reduce the risk of aging-related diseases and to mask the signs of aging, it is not possible for individuals to grow younger. This would require reversing the degradation of molecular integrity that is one of the hallmarks of aging in both animate and inanimate objects. Other than performing the impossible feat of replacing all of the cells, tissues, or organs in biological material as a means of circumventing aging processes, growing younger is a phenomenon that is currently not possible.
Genetic Engineering
Following the publication of the human genome sequences there have been assertions that this new knowledge will reveal genes whose manipulation may permit us to intervene directly in the processes of aging. Although it is likely that advances in molecular genetics will soon lead to effective treatments for inherited and age-related diseases, it is unlikely that scientists will be able to influence aging directly through genetic engineering (92-93) because, as stated above, there are no genes directly responsible for the processes of aging. Centuries of selective breeding experience (e.g., agricultural, domesticated and experimental plants and animals) has revealed that genetic manipulations designed to enhance one or only a few biological characteristics of an organism frequently have adverse consequences for health and vigor. As such, there is a very real danger that enhancing biological attributes associated with extended survival late in life might compromise biological properties important to growth and development early in life.
Replacing Body Parts
Suggestions have been made that the complete replacement of all body parts with more youthful components could increase longevity. Although possible in theory, it is highly improbable that this would ever become a practical strategy to extend length of life. Advances in cloning and embryonic stem cell technology may make the replacement of tissues and organs possible (94-99) and will likely have an important positive impact on public health in the future through the treatment of age-related diseases and disorders. However, replacing and reprogramming the brain that defines who we are as individuals is, in our view, more the subject of science fiction than likely science fact.
Lifestyle Modification and Aging
Optimum lifestyles, exercise, and diets along with other proven methods for maintaining good health contribute to increases in life expectancy by delaying or preventing the occurrence of age-related diseases. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that these practices increase longevity by modifying the processes of aging.
Since recorded history individuals have been, and are continuing to be victimized by promises of extended youth or increased longevity by using unproven methods that allegedly slow, stop, or reverse aging. Our language on this matter must be unambiguous: there are no lifestyle changes, surgical procedures, vitamins, antioxidants, hormones, or techniques of genetic engineering available today that have been demonstrated to influence the processes of aging (100, 101). We strongly urge the general public to avoid buying or using products or other interventions from anyone claiming that they will slow, stop, or reverse aging. If people, on average, are going to live much longer than is currently possible, then it can only happen by adding decades of life to people who are already likely to live for 70 years or more. This “manufactured survival time” (102) will require modifications to all of the processes that contribute to aging — a technological feat that, although theoretically possible, has not yet been achieved. What medical science can tell us is that because aging and death are not programmed into our genes, health and fitness can be enhanced at any age, primarily through the avoidance of behaviors (e.g., smoking, excessive alcohol consumption, excessive exposure to sun, and obesity) that accelerate the expression of age-related diseases, and by the adoption of lifestyles (e.g., exercise and diet) that take advantage of a physiology that is inherently modifiable (103).
We enthusiastically support research in genetic engineering, stem cells, geriatric medicine, and therapeutic pharmaceuticals, technologies that promise to revolutionize medicine as we know it. Most biogerontologists believe that our rapidly expanding scientific knowledge holds the promise that means may eventually be discovered to slow the rate of aging. If successful, these interventions are likely to postpone age-related diseases and disorders and extend the period of healthy life. Although the degree to which such interventions might extend length of life is uncertain, we believe this is the only way another quantum leap in life expectancy is even possible. Our concern is that when proponents of anti-aging medicine claim that the fountain of youth has already been discovered, it negatively impacts the credibility of serious scientific research efforts on aging. Because aging is the greatest risk factor for the leading causes of death and other age-related pathologies, more attention must be paid to the study of these universal-underlying processes. Successful efforts to slow the rate of aging would certainly have dramatic health benefits for the population, by far exceeding the anticipated changes in health and length of life that would result from the complete elimination of heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other age-associated diseases and disorders.
June 19, 2002
SCI AGING KNOWL ENVIRON 2002: pe9-9
Document URL: http://sageke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sageke;2002/24/pe9
References
1. Workshop Report, Is There an Anti-Aging Medicine? (International Longevity Center — Canyon Ranch Series, New York, 2001).
2. General Accounting Office, Anti-Aging Products Pose Potential for Physical and Economic Harm (Special Committee on Aging, GAO-01-1129, September 2001).
3. M. Allard, V. Lebre, J. M. Robine, J. Calment, From Van Gogh’s Time to Ours: 122 Extraordinary Years (Freeman, New York, 1998).
4. B. A. Carnes, S. J. Olshansky, D. Grahn, Continuing the search for a law of mortality. Popul. Dev. Rev. 22, 231-264 (1996).
5. C. Finch, T. B. L. Kirkwood, Chance, Development, and Aging (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).
6. R. N. Anderson, United States Life Tables, 1998. Natl. Vital Stat. Rep. 48, 1-40 (2001).[Medline]
7. S. J. Olshansky, B. A. Carnes, C. Cassel, In search of Methuselah: Estimating the upper limits to human longevity. Science 250, 634-640 (1990).[Medline]
8. L. Demetrius, M. Ziehe, The measurement of Darwinian fitness in human populations. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B B222, 33-50 (1984).
9. J. Demongeot, L. Demetrius, La derivé demographique et la selection naturalle: Étude empirique de la France (1850-1965). Population 2, 231-248 (1989).[Full Text]
10. S. J. Olshansky, B. A. Carnes, A. Désesquelles, Prospects for human longevity. Science 291, 1491-1492 (2001).[Full Text]
11. B. A. Carnes, S. J. Olshansky, A biologically motivated partitioning of mortality. Exp. Gerontol. 32, 615-631 (1997).[Medline]
12. L. Hayflick, How and why we age. Exp. Gerontol. 33, 639-653 (1998). [Medline]
13. C. K. Cassel, H. J. Cohen, E. B. Larson, D. E. Meier, N. M. Resnick, L. Z. Rubenstein, L. B. Sorensen, Eds., Geriatric Medicine (Springer, New York, 2001).
14. J. G. Evans, F. T. Williams, Eds., Oxford Textbook of Geriatric Medicine (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, UK, 2001).
15. L. Hayflick, How and Why We Age (Ballantine Books, New York, 1994).
16. J. Medina, The Clock of Ages. Why We Age–How We Age–Winding Back the Clock (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1996).
17. R. Gosden, Cheating Time: Science, Sex, and Aging (Freeman, New York, 1996).
18. A. J. Bailey, Molecular mechanisms of ageing in connective tissues. Mech. Ageing Dev. 122, 735-755 (2001).[Medline]
19. A. J. Bailey, T. J. Sims, E. N Ebbesen, J. P. Mansell, J. S. Thomsen, L. Moskilde, Age-related changes in the biochemical and biomechanical properties of human cancellous bone collagen: Relationship to bone strength. Calcif. Tissue Res. 65, 203-210 (1999).
20. G. Wick, P. Jansen-Durr, P. Berger, I. Blasko, B. Grubeck-Loebenstein, Diseases of aging. Vaccine 18, 1567-1583 (2000).[Medline]
21. D. Chopra, Grow Younger, Live Longer: 10 Steps to Reverse Aging (Harmony Books, New York, 2001).
22. R. Klatz, Grow Young with HGH: The Amazing Medically Proven Plan to Reverse Aging (Harper Perennial Library, New York, 1998).
23. M. P. Brickey, Defy Aging: Develop the Mental and Emotional Vitality to Live Longer, Healthier, and Happier than You Ever Imagined (New Resources, Columbus, 2000).
24. J. Carper, Stop Aging Now!: The Ultimate Plan for Staying Young and Reversing the Aging Process (Harper Perennial Library, New York 1996).
25. G. Null, A. Campbell, Gary Null’s Ultimate Anti-Aging Program (Broadway Books, New York, 1999).
26. W. Pierpaoli, W. Regelson, C. Colman, The Melatonin Miracle (Simon and Schuster, New York, 1995).
27. G. J. Gruman, A history of ideas about the prolongation of life. Trans. Am. Philos. Soc. 56, 1-102 (1966).[Abstract]
28. S. Austad, Why We Age: What Science Is Discovering About the Body’s Journey Through Life (Wiley, New York, 1999).
29. R. Holliday, Understanding Ageing (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, UK, 1995).
30. R. Arking, Biology of Aging: Observations and Principles (Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, ed. 2, 1998).
31. R. Arking, The Biology of aging: What is it and when will it become useful? Infertil. Reprod. Med. Clin. North Am. 12, 469-487 (2001).
32. J. F. Fries, Aging, natural death, and the compression of morbidity. N. Engl. J. Med. 303, 130-135 (1980).[Abstract]
33. R. G. Rogers, R. A. Hummer, C. B. Nam, Living and Dying in the USA: Behavioral, Health, and Social Differentials of Adult Mortality (Academic Press, New York, 2000).
34. S. J. Olshansky, B. A. Carnes, The Quest for Immortality: Science at the Frontiers of Aging (Norton, New York, 2001).
35. R. Miller, Extending life: Scientific prospects and political obstacles. Milbank Q., in press.
36. D. Harman, Aging: A theory based on free radical and radiation chemistry. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 11, 298-300 (1956).[Medline]
37. R. Robert, J. Labat-Robert, Aging of connective tissues: From genetic to epigenetic mechanisms. Biogerontology 1, 123-131 (2000).[Medline]
38. T. Fülöp Jr., N. Douziech, M. P. Jacob, M. Hauck, J. Wallach, L. Robert, Age-related alterations in the signal transduction pathways of the elastin-laminin receptor. Pathol. Biol. 49, 339-348 (2001).[Medline]
39. J. Labat-Robert, Cell-matrix interactions, alterations with aging and age associated diseases. A review. Pathol Biol. 49, 349-352 (2001).[Medline]
40. World Cancer Research Fund, Food, Nutrition and the Prevention of Cancer: A Global Perspective (American Institute for Cancer Research, Washington, DC, 1997).
41. A. Tavani, C. La Vecchia, Beta-carotene and risk of coronary heart disease. A review of observational and intervention studies. Biomed Pharmacother. 53, 409-416 (1999).[Medline]
42. F. B. Hu, W. C. J. Willett, Diet and coronary heart disease: Findings from the nurses’ health study and health professionals’ follow-up Study. Nutr. Health Aging 5, 132-138 (2001).[Medline]
43. M. A. Van Duyn, E. J. Pivonka, Overview of the health benefits of fruit and vegetable consumption for the dietetics professional: Selected literature. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 100, 1511-1521 (2000).[Medline]
44. W. G. Christen, Antioxidant vitamins and age-related eye disease. Proc. Assoc. Am. Physicians 111, 16-21 (1999).[Medline]
45. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group, MRC/BHF heart protection Study of cholesterol-lowering therapy and of antioxidant vitamin supplementation in a wide range of patients at increased risk of coronary heart disease death: Early safety and efficacy experience. Eur. Heart J. 20, 725-741 (1999).[Medline]
46. J. E. Manson, J. M. Gaziano , A. Spelsberg, P. M. Ridker, N. R. Cook, J. E. Buring, W. C. Willett, C. H. Hennekens, A secondary prevention trial of antioxidant vitamins and cardiovascular disease in women. Rationale, design, and methods. The WACS Research Group. Ann. Epidemiol. 5, 261-269 (1995).[Medline]
47. D. A. Egan, R. Garg, T. J. Wilt, M. B. Pettinger, K. B. Davis, J. Crouse, J. A. Herd, D. B. Hunninghake, D. S. Sheps, J. B. Kostis, J. Probstfield, M. A. Waclawiw, W. Applegate, M. B. Elam, Rationale and design of the arterial disease multiple intervention trial (ADMIT) Pilot Study. Am. J. Cardiol. 83, 569-575 (1999).[Medline]
48. The Age-Related Eye Disease Research Group, The age-related eye disease study (AREDS): Design implications. AREDS Report No. 1. Controlled Clin. Trials 20, 573-600 (1999).[Medline]
49. G. Tikellis, L. D. Robman, C. A. Harper, S. K. Garrett, J. J. McNeil, H. R. Taylor, C. A. McCarty, The VECAT study: Methodology and statistical power for measurement of age-related macular features. Vitamin E, Cataract, and Age-related Maculopathy Study. Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 6, 181-194 (1999).[Medline]
50. M. Paolini, S. Z. Abdel-Rahman, G. Cantelli-Forti, L. S. Legator, Chemoprevention or antichemoprevention? A salutary warning from the beta-carotene experience. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 93, 1110-1111 (2001).[Full Text]
51. A. A. Morley, K. J. Trainor, Lack of an effect of vitamin E on lifespan of mice. Biogerontology 2, 109-112 (2001).[Medline]
52. A. D. N. de Grey, Noncorrelation between maximum life span and antioxidant enzyme levels among homeotherms: Implications for retarding human aging. J. Anti-Aging Med. 3, 25-36 (2000).[Abstract/Full Text]
53. C. B. Harley, A. B. Futcher, C. W. Greider, Telomeres shorten during ageing of human fibroblasts. Nature 345, 458-460 (1990).[Medline]
54. H. Vaziri, W. Dragowska, R. C. Allsopp, T. E. Thomas, C. B. Harley, P. M. Lansdorp, Evidence for a mitotic clock in human hematopoietic stem cells: Loss of telomeric DNA with age. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 91, 9857-9860 (1994).[Abstract]
55. M. T. Hemann, C. W. Greider, Wild-derived inbred mouse strains have short telomeres. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 4474-4478 (2000).[Abstract/Full Text]
56. S. Kakuo, K. Asaoka K, T. Ide, Human is a unique species among primates in terms of telomere length. Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 263, 308-314 (1999).[Medline]
57. R. Holliday, Endless quest. Bioessays 18, 3-5 (1996).[Medline]
58. A. G. Bodnar, M. Ouellette, M. Frolkis, S. E. Holt, C. P. Chiu, G. B. Morin, C. B. Harley, J. W. Shay, S. Lichtsteiner, W. E. Wright, Extension of life span by introduction of telomerase into normal human cells. Science 279, 349-352 (1998).[Abstract/Full Text]
59. J. Wang, G. J. Hannon, D. H. Beach, Risky immortalization by telomerase. Nature 405, 755-756 (2000).[Medline]
60. T. de Lange, T. Jacks, For better or worse? Telomerase inhibition and cancer. Cell 98, 273-275 (1999).[Medline]
61. D. Rudman, A. G. Feller, H. S. Nagraj, G. A. Gergans, P. Y. Lalitha, A. F. Goldberg, R. A. Schlenker, L. Cohn, I. W. Rudman, D. E. Mattson, Effects of growth hormone in men over 60 years old. N. Eng. J. Med. 323, 1-6 (1990).[Abstract]
62. J. C. Gallagher, Role of estrogens in the management of postmenopausal bone loss. Rheum. Dis. Clin. North Am. 1, 143-162 (2001).[Abstract/Full Text]
63. E. Wolf, E. Kahnt, J. Ehrlein, W. Hermanns, G. Brem, R. Wanke, Effects of long-term elevated serum levels of growth hormone on life expectancy of mice: Lessons from transgenic animals. Mech. Ageing Dev. 68, 71-87 (1993).[Medline]
64. A. Bartke, H. Brown-Borg, J. Mattison, B. Kinney, S. Hauck, C. Wright, Prolonged longevity of hypopituitary dwarf mice. Exp. Gerontol. 36, 21-28 (2001).[Medline]
65. K. T. Coschigano, D. Clemmons, L. L. Bellush, J. J. Kopchick, Assessment of growth parameters and life span of GHR/BP gene disrupted mice. Endocrinology 141, 2608-2613 (2000).[Abstract/Full Text]
66. R. Weindruch, R. L. Walford, Dietary restriction in mice beginning at 1 year of age: Effect on life-span and spontaneous cancer incidence. Science 215, 1415-1418 (1982).[Medline]
67. R. Weindruch, R. L. Walford, The Retardation of Aging and Disease by Dietary Restriction (Charles C. Thomas, Springfield, IL, 1988).
68. D. E. Harrison, J. R. Archer, Natural selection for extended longevity from food restriction. Growth Dev. Aging 53, 3-6 (1989).[Medline]
69. P. H. Duffy, J. E. Seng, S. M. Lewis, M. A. Mayhugh, A. Aidoo, D. G. Hattan, D. A. Casciano, R. J. Feuers, The effects of different levels of dietary restriction on aging and survival in the Sprague-Dawley rat: Implications for chronic studies. Aging (Milano) 13, 263-72 (2001).[Medline]
70. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56 (2001): Entire issue.
71. E. J. Masoro, Dietary restriction: Current status. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 13, 261 (2001).[Medline]
72. L. Hayflick, The future of ageing. Nature 408, 267-269 (2000).[Medline]
73. A. A. Morley, The somatic mutation theory of ageing. Mutat. Res. 338, 19-23 (1995).[Medline]
74. Y. Odagiri, H. Uchida, M. Hosokawa, K. Takemoto, A. Morley, T. Takeda, Accelerated accumulation of somatic mutations in the senescence-accelerated mouse. Nature Genet. 19, 117-118 (1998).[Medline]
75. B. A. Carnes, S. J. Olshansky, Heterogeneity and its biodemographic implications for longevity and mortality. Exp. Gerontol. 36, 419-430 (2001).[Medline]
76. Workshop Report, Biomarkers of Aging: From Primitive Organisms to Man (International Longevity Center — Canyon Ranch Series, New York, 2001).
77. M. Roizen, RealAge: Are You as Young as You Can Be? (Cliff Street Books, New York, 1999).
78. M. Roizen, J. La Puma, The RealAge Diet: Make Yourself Younger with What You Eat (Cliff Street Books, New York, 2001).
79. L. Hayflick, The future of ageing. Nature 408, 267-269 (2000).[Medline]
80. R. A. Miller, Kleemeier award lecture: Are there genes for aging? J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 54, B297-307 (1999).[Medline]
81. T. B. L. Kirkwood, Evolution of aging. Nature 270, 301-304 (1977).[Medline]
82. T. E. Johnson, Aging can be genetically dissected into component processes using long-lived lines of Caenorhabditis elegans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 84, 3777-3781 (1987).[Medline]
83. T. E. Johnson, Increased life span of age-1 mutants in Caenorhabditis elegans and lower Gompertz rate of aging. Science 249, 908-912 (1990).[Medline]
84. J. W. Vaupel, J. R. Carey, K. Christensen, T. E. Johnson, A. I. Yashin, N. V. Holm, I. A. Iachine, V. Kannisto, A. A. Khazaeli, P. Liedo, V. D. Longo, Y. Zeng, K. G. Manton, J. W. Curtsinger, Biodemographic trajectories of longevity. Science 280, 855-859 (1998). [Abstract/Full Text]
85. T. E. Johnson, D. Wu, P. Tedesco, S. Dames, J. W. Vaupel, Age-specific demographic profiles of longevity mutants in Caenorhabditis elegans show segmental effects. J. Gerontol. A Biol. Sci. Med. Sci. 56, B331-339 (2001). [Abstract/Full Text]
86. L. Hayflick, How and Why We Age (Ballantine Books, New York, 1994).
87. L. Demetrius, Mortality plateaus and directionality theory. Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. B 268, 1-9 (2001).[Medline]
88. S. J. Olshansky, B. A. Carnes, R. A. Butler, If humans were built to last. Sci. Am. 284, 50-55 (2001).[Medline]
89. B. A. Carnes, S. J. Olshansky, L. Gavrilov, N. Gavrilova, D. Grahn, Human longevity: Nature vs. nurture–fact or fiction. Perspect. Biol. Med. 42, 422-441 (1999).[Medline]
90. L. Robert, Cellular and molecular mechanisms of aging and age related diseases. Pathol. Oncol. Res. 6, 3-9 (2000).[Medline]
91. L. Robert, Aging of the vascular wall and atherosclerosis. Exp. Gerontol. 34, 491-501 (1999).[Medline]
92. S. I. S. Rattan, Gene therapy for ageing: Mission impossible? Hum. Reprod. Genet. Ethics 3, 27-29 (1997).[Abstract/Full Text]
93. S. I. S. Rattan, Is gene therapy for aging possible? Ind. J. Exp. Biol. 36, 233-236 (1998).[Abstract/Full Text]
94. L. Skirboll, Ed., Stem Cells: Scientific Progress and Future Research Directions Opportunities and Challenges: A Focus on Future Stem Cell Applications (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 19 June 2001).
95. B. Vogelstein et al., Stem Cells and the Future of Regenerative Medicine (Committee on the Biological and Biomedical Applications of Stem Cell Research, National Academy of Sciences Press, Washington, DC, 11 September 2001).
96. G. Condorelli, U. Borello, L. De Angelis, M. Latronico, D. Sirabella, M. Coletta, R. Galli, G. Balconi, A. Follenzi, G. Frati, M. G. Cusella De Angelis, L. Gioglio, S. Amuchastegui, L. Adorini, L. Naldini, A. Vescovi, E. Dejana, G. Cossu, Cardiomyocytes induce endothelial cells to trans-differentiate into cardiac muscle implications for myocardium regeneration. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 10733-10738 (2001).[Abstract/Full Text]
97. J. M. Leferovich, K. Bedelbaeva, S. Samulewicz, X. M. Zhang, D. Zwas, E. B. Lankford, E. Heber-Katz, Heart regeneration in adult MRL mice. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 9830-9835 (2001).[Abstract/Full Text]
98. V. Ourednik, J. Ourednik, J. D. Flax, W. M. Zawada, C. Hutt, C. Yang, K. I. Park, S. U. Kim, R. L. Sidman, C. R. Freed, E. Y. Snyder, Segregation of human neural stem cells in the developing primate forebrain. Science 293, 1820-1824 (2001).[Abstract/Full Text]
99. A. A. Puca, M. J. Daly, S. J. Brewster, T. C. Matise, J. Barrett, M. Shea-Drinkwater, S. Kang, E. Joyce, J. Nicoli, E. Benson, L. M. Kunkel, T. Perls, A genome-wide scan for linkage to human exceptional longevity identifies a locus on chromosome 4. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98, 10505-10508 (2001). [Abstract/Full Text]
100. T. Perls, Living to 100: Lessons in Living to Your Maximum Potential at Any Age (Basic Books, New York, 2000).
101. T. Kirkwood, Time of Our Lives: The Science of Human Aging (Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford, 2000).
102. S. J. Olshansky, B. A. Carnes, D. Grahn, Confronting the boundaries of human longevity. Am. Sci. 86, 52-61 (1998).
103. A. J. Vita, R. B. Terry, H. B. Hubert, J. F. Fries, Aging, health risks, and cumulative disability. N. Engl. J. Med. 338, 1035-1041 (1998).[Abstract/Full Text]
104. The following people were listed as endorsers of the original publication (listed in alphabetical order): Robert Arking, Allen Bailey, Andrzej Bartke, Vladislav V. Bezrukov, Jacob Brody, Robert N. Butler, Bruce A. Carnes, Alvaro Macieira-Coelho, L. Stephen Coles, David Danon, Aubrey D.N.J. de Grey, Lloyd Demetrius, Astrid Fletcher, James F. Fries, David Gershon, Roger Gosden, Carol W. Greider, S. Mitchell Harman, David Harrison, Leonard Hayflick, Christopher Heward, Henry R. Hirsch, Robin Holliday, Thomas E. Johnson, Tom Kirkwood, Leo S. Luckinbill, George M. Martin, Alec A. Morley, Charles Nam, S. Jay Olshansky, Sang Chul Park, Linda Partridge, Graham Pawelec, Thomas T. Perls, Suresh Rattan, Robert Ricklefs, Leslie (Ladislas) Robert, Richard G. Rogers, Henry Rothschild, Douglas L. Schmucker, Jerry W. Shay, Monika Skalicky, Len Smith, Raj Sohal, Richard L. Sprott, Andrus Viidik, Jan Vijg, Eugenia Wang, Andrew Weil, Georg Wick, Woodring Wright
105. Acknowledgments: Funding for this work was provided by the National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging for Dr. Olshansky (AG13698-01) and Dr. Carnes (AG00894-01).
SCI AGING KNOWL ENVIRON 2002: pe9-9
Document URL: http://sageke.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/sageke;2002/24/pe9
