Dean Pomerleau Posted September 16, 2015 Report Share Posted September 16, 2015 From this new article from the BBC: "Across mammals alone, expected lifespan can vary 100-fold, from shrews that live for no longer than 1.5 years to the bowhead whales that can live for more than 200. It is as if, for various reasons, natural selection has somehow pushed certain creatures to evolve their own elixir of life." The writer goes on to talk to scientists studying genes and gene expression in whales, bats and naked mole rats, in hopes of discovering how they live so long, and in particular avoid cancer. The article talks about the possibility of using gene therapy to replicate some of the longevity-promoting genetic changes observed in these long-lived animals in people someday. One of the researchers talks about a study I'd sign up for - comparing bowhead whale gene expression to the gene expression of people practicing CR! It reminds me of the study [1] Luigi Fontana did on our muscle tissue - namely comparing our gene expression to that of CRed rats. Note: This is yet another example of a post that would be fit better on a "Science of Health & Longevity" forum, rather than here on the "CR Science & Theory" forum. How about it Brian/Tim? --Dean ---------------------------- [1] Mercken, E. M., Crosby, S. D., Lamming, D. W., JeBailey, L., Krzysik-Walker, S., Villareal, D. T., Capri, M., Franceschi, C., Zhang, Y., Becker, K., Sabatini, D. M., de Cabo, R. and Fontana, L. (2013), Calorie restriction in humans inhibits the PI3K/AKT pathway and induces a younger transcription profile. Aging Cell, 12: 645–651. doi: 10.1111/acel.12088. Full Text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/acel.12088/full Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicholson Posted September 18, 2015 Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 A possible explanation might be that animals which live less long evolve/adapt more quickly - more generations per century - whereas those that live for a very long time are likely to be overtaken (outwitted and eaten) by the more rapidly reproducing/evolving predators. So all the longer living species eventually became extinct as they were outwitted/outgunned by the shorter lifespan, but faster-evolving, competition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted September 18, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 18, 2015 Rodney, A possible explanation might be that animals which live less long evolve/adapt more quickly - more generations per century - whereas those that live for a very long time are likely to be overtaken (outwitted and eaten) by the more rapidly reproducing/evolving predators. So all the longer living species eventually became extinct as they were outwitted/outgunned by the shorter lifespan, but faster-evolving, competition? I think you've identified half the equation - there are niches where short lifespan and rapid evolution are advantageous. It seems some micro-organisms and cancer cell lines follow this strategy. But there are other niches where competition isn't so fierce, so individuals can take their time and have multiple generations of offspring - e.g. whales, bats or naked-mole rats (vs. common rats). In these species, it is evolutionarily advantageous to develop better metabolic maintenance and repair machinery, to facilitate longer lives. --Dean Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted October 10, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 10, 2015 There were two new articles out addressing the topic of what we can learn from animals about longevity, and particularly cancer. The first focuses on sea anemones, which don't appear to age or get cancer. But it doesn't say much more then "Huh - it would be nice to know how they do it, since they share many genetic pathways with people. Scientists are trying to figure it out." The second article is much more interesting, both because it focuses on elephants, which are terrestrial mammals and therefore much more similar to humans than are anemones, and because it has actually experimental results about how elephants are able to avoid cancer, the second-leading cause of human mortality in developed countries. The article is in reference to a new study [1] from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The researchers looked at cancer rates in a bunch of different animals, and found the mortality rate from cancer in elephants was much lower than in humans (5% for elephants vs. 11-25% for humans) despite the fact that elephants live lives not much shorter than people (50-70 years) and have 100 times more cells than the human body. With all those extra cells, you'd expect elephants to have many more rogue cells that turn cancerous, but exactly the opposite happens - elephants get less cancer than people rather than more. So researchers looked at cells cultured in the lab from elephants, normal humans, and unfortunate people suffering from Li-Fraumeni Syndrome (LFS) who have a 90 per cent chance of developing cancer over their lifetime. They exposed them to ionizing radiation to induce genetic mutations and then observed how many of the damaged cells underwent apoptosis (programmed cell death) to clear out the potentially cancer causing cells. Sure enough, damaged elephant cells self-destructed much more readily (~15% of damaged cells) than damaged human cells (~7% of damaged cells), and the LFS patients were worst of all, disposing only 2.7% of the potentially cancerous cells. And the mechanism they identified was even more interesting. The rate of apoptosis in the three groups of cells was directly proportional to how much of the p53 gene they expressed: In search of an explanation, the scientists combed through the African elephant genome and found at least 40 copies of genes that code for p53, a protein well known for its cancer-inhibiting properties. DNA analysis provides clues as to why elephants have so many copies, a substantial increase over the two found in humans [and only one found in the LFS patients - DP]. The vast majority, 38 of them, are so-called retrogenes, modified duplicates that have been churned out over evolutionary time. So basically, natural selection appears to have resulted in elephants possessing many more copies of the apoptosis-inducing p53 gene, which enables them to kill off damaged cells before they can become malignant cancer. One can easily imagine someday using the new CRISPR technology (or its descendents) to edit human DNA to insert extra copies of the p53 gene, and thereby hopefully increase apoptosis of damaged cells in people and reduce the incidence of all types of human cancer. But that is still a long way off. In the meantime, we may be able to ramp up our apoptosis to more "elephant-like" proportions, through, you guessed it, CR. It doesn't appear that CR increases apoptosis via the same p53 pathway as elephants, but instead via its effects of IGF-1 and SIRT-1. Here is a simplified schematic from [2] (note: Autophagy is another form of programmed cell death, closely related to apoptosis): In fact, several studies of cancer-prone p53-deficient mice, which are used as an animal model of LFS as well as the study of cancer in general, have shown that both CR [3,4] and intermittent fasting [3] reduce IGF-1 and delay onset of cancer, even when started relatively late in life (with CR > IF in terms of effectiveness). Study [4] in particular was interesting. They exposed cancer-prone p53-deficient mice to a bladder cancer carcinogen and then divided them into three groups - ad lib fed (AL), 20% dietary restriction (DR) and 20% dietary restriction + exogenous IGF-1 to restore IGF-1 level to "normal" in calorie-restricted mice. Here is what they found: Although tumor progression was decreased by DR, restoration of IGF-I serum levels in DR-treated mice increased the stage of the cancers. Furthermore, IGF-I modulated tumor progression independent of changes in body weight. Rates of apoptosis in the preneoplastic lesions were 10 times higher in DR-treated mice compared to those in IGF/DR- and ad libitum-treated mice. Administration of IGF-I to DR-treated mice also stimulated cell proliferation 6-fold in hyperplastic foci. In conclusion, DR lowered IGF-I levels, thereby favoring apoptosis over cell proliferation and ultimately slowing tumor progression. This is the first mechanistic study demonstrating that IGF-I supplementation abrogates the protective effect of DR on neoplastic progression. So if you want to live long like an elephant, and avoid cancer by killing off rogue cells, CR seems like a pretty good way to go, at least until more effective gene therapy comes along! Furthermore, to gauge the effectiveness of your CR practice on your risk of getting cancer, it's a good idea to get your IGF-1 level tested. --Dean ---------------- [1] JAMA. Published online October 08, 2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.13134 Potential Mechanisms for Cancer Resistance in Elephants and Comparative Cellular Response to DNA Damage in Humans Lisa M. Abegglen, PhD1; Aleah F. Caulin, PhD2; Ashley Chan, BS1; Kristy Lee, PhD1; Rosann Robinson, BS1; Michael S. Campbell, PhD3; Wendy K. Kiso, PhD4; Dennis L. Schmitt, DVM, PhD4; Peter J. Waddell, PhD5; Srividya Bhaskara, PhD6,7; Shane T. Jensen, PhD2,8; Carlo C. Maley, PhD9,10; Joshua D. Schiffman, MD1,7 Importance: Evolutionary medicine may provide insights into human physiology and pathophysiology, including tumor biology. Objective: To identify mechanisms for cancer resistance in elephants and compare cellular response to DNA damage among elephants, healthy human controls, and cancer-prone patients with Li-Fraumeni syndrome (LFS). Design, Setting, and Participants: A comprehensive survey of necropsy data was performed across 36 mammalian species to validate cancer resistance in large and long-lived organisms, including elephants (n = 644). The African and Asian elephant genomes were analyzed for potential mechanisms of cancer resistance. Peripheral blood lymphocytes from elephants, healthy human controls, and patients with LFS were tested in vitro in the laboratory for DNA damage response. The study included African and Asian elephants (n = 8), patients with LFS (n = 10), and age-matched human controls (n = 11). Human samples were collected at the University of Utah between June 2014 and July 2015. Exposures: Ionizing radiation and doxorubicin. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cancer mortality across species was calculated and compared by body size and life span. The elephant genome was investigated for alterations in cancer-related genes. DNA repair and apoptosis were compared in elephant vs human peripheral blood lymphocytes. Results: Across mammals, cancer mortality did not increase with body size and/or maximum life span (eg, for rock hyrax, 1% [95% CI, 0%-5%]; African wild dog, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; lion, 2% [95% CI, 0%-7%]). Despite their large body size and long life span, elephants remain cancer resistant, with an estimated cancer mortality of 4.81% (95% CI, 3.14%-6.49%), compared with humans, who have 11% to 25% cancer mortality. While humans have 1 copy (2 alleles) of TP53, African elephants have at least 20 copies (40 alleles), including 19 retrogenes (38 alleles) with evidence of transcriptional activity measured by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction. In response to DNA damage, elephant lymphocytes underwent p53-mediated apoptosis at higher rates than human lymphocytes proportional to TP53 status (ionizing radiation exposure: patients with LFS, 2.71% [95% CI, 1.93%-3.48%] vs human controls, 7.17% [95% CI, 5.91%-8.44%] vs elephants, 14.64% [95% CI, 10.91%-18.37%]; P < .001; doxorubicin exposure: human controls, 8.10% [95% CI, 6.55%-9.66%] vs elephants, 24.77% [95% CI, 23.0%-26.53%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: Compared with other mammalian species, elephants appeared to have a lower-than-expected rate of cancer, potentially related to multiple copies of TP53. Compared with human cells, elephant cells demonstrated increased apoptotic response following DNA damage. These findings, if replicated, could represent an evolutionary-based approach for understanding mechanisms related to cancer suppression. ------- [2] Aging (Albany NY). 2012 Aug;4(8):525-34. Caloric restriction: is mammalian life extension linked to p53?Tucci P(1).Author information:(1)Medical Research Council, Toxicology Unit, Leicester University, Leicester LE19HN, UK. paola.tucci@unical.itCaloric restriction, that is limiting food intake, is recognized in mammals asthe best characterized and most reproducible strategy for extending lifespan,retarding physiological aging and delaying the onset of age-associated diseases.The aim of this mini review is to argue that p53 is the connection in theabilities of both the Sirt-1 pathway and the TOR pathway to impact on longevityof cells and organisms. This novel, lifespan regulating function of p53 may beevolutionarily more ancient than its relatively recent role in apoptosis andtumour suppression, and is likely to provide many new insights into lifespanmodulation.PMCID: PMC3461340PMID: 22983298 -------------- [3] Carcinogenesis. 2002 May;23(5):817-22. Adult-onset calorie restriction and fasting delay spontaneous tumorigenesis inp53-deficient mice.Berrigan D(1), Perkins SN, Haines DC, Hursting SD.Author information:(1)Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, MD20892-7105, USA.Heterozygous p53-deficient (p53(+/-)) mice, a potential model for humanLi-Fraumeni Syndrome, have one functional allele of the p53 tumor suppressorgene. These mice are prone to spontaneous neoplasms, most commonly sarcoma andlymphoma; the median time to death of p53+/- mice is 18 months. We have shownpreviously that juvenile-onset calorie restriction (CR) to 60% of ad libitum (AL)intake delays tumor development in young p53-null (-/-) mice by a p53-independentand insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1)-related mechanism. To determine whetherCR is effective when started in adult p53-deficient mice, and to compare chronicCR with an intermittent fasting regimen, male p53+/- mice (7-10 months old, 31-32mice/group) were randomly assigned to the following regimens: (i) AL (AIN-76Adiet), (ii) CR to 60% of AL intake or (iii) 1 day/week fast. Food availability onnon-fasting days was controlled to prevent compensatory over feeding. Relative tothe AL group, CR significantly delayed (P = 0.001) the onset of tumors in adultmice, whereas the 1 day/week fast caused a moderate delay (P = 0.039).Substantial variation in longevity and maximum body weight within treatments wasnot correlated with variation in growth characteristics of individual mice. In aseparate group of p53+/- mice treated for 4 weeks (n = five mice per treatment),plasma IGF-1 levels in CR versus AL mice were reduced by 20% (P < 0.01) andleptin levels were reduced by 71% (P < 0.01); fasted mice had intermediate levelsof leptin and IGF-1. Our findings that CR or a 1 day/week fast suppressedcarcinogenesis-even when started late in life in mice predestined to developtumors due to decreased p53 gene dosage-support efforts to identify suitableinterventions influencing energy balance in humans as a tool for cancerprevention.PMID: 12016155 -------------- [4] Cancer Res. 1997 Nov 1;57(21):4667-72. Dietary restriction reduces insulin-like growth factor I levels, which modulatesapoptosis, cell proliferation, and tumor progression in p53-deficient mice.Dunn SE(1), Kari FW, French J, Leininger JR, Travlos G, Wilson R, Barrett JC.Author information:(1)Laboratory of Molecular Carcinogenesis, National Institute of EnvironmentalHealth Sciences, NIH, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709, USA.Diet contributes to over one-third of cancer deaths in the Western world, yet thefactors in the diet that influence cancer are not elucidated. A reduction incaloric intake dramatically slows cancer progression in rodents, and this may bea major contribution to dietary effects on cancer. Insulin-like growth factor I(IGF-I) is lowered during dietary restriction (DR) in both humans and rats.Because IGF-I modulates cell proliferation, apoptosis, and tumorigenesis, themechanisms behind the protective effects of DR may depend on the reduction ofthis multifaceted growth factor. To test this hypothesis, IGF-I was restoredduring DR to ascertain if lowering of IGF-I was central to slowing bladder cancerprogression during DR. Heterozygous p53-deficient mice received a bladdercarcinogen, p-cresidine, to induce preneoplasia. After confirmation of bladderurothelial preneoplasia, the mice were divided into three groups: (a) ad libitum;(b) 20% DR; and © 20% DR plus IGF-I (IGF-I/DR). Serum IGF-I was lowered 24% byDR but was completely restored in the IGF-I/DR-treated mice using recombinantIGF-I administered via osmotic minipumps. Although tumor progression wasdecreased by DR, restoration of IGF-I serum levels in DR-treated mice increasedthe stage of the cancers. Furthermore, IGF-I modulated tumor progressionindependent of changes in body weight. Rates of apoptosis in the preneoplasticlesions were 10 times higher in DR-treated mice compared to those in IGF/DR- andad libitum-treated mice. Administration of IGF-I to DR-treated mice alsostimulated cell proliferation 6-fold in hyperplastic foci. In conclusion, DRlowered IGF-I levels, thereby favoring apoptosis over cell proliferation andultimately slowing tumor progression. This is the first mechanistic studydemonstrating that IGF-I supplementation abrogates the protective effect of DR onneoplastic progression.PMID: 9354418 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dean Pomerleau Posted October 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted October 25, 2015 All, Al Pater posted this review [1] (thanks Al!) of what animals can teach us about longevity. The two most interesting points I took away from the full text are about naked mole rats (NMRs), which live 8x longer than similar-sized mice: * NMRs have elevated expression of the P53 stress-response gene, just like we saw above in elephants. * To quote the full text: "Finally, although NMR are glucose intolerant, their glycated hemoglobin levels are low and they are naturally insulin deficient and insulin sensitive (57)." That second, glucose-related characterization of naked mole rats sounds exactly like several of us serious, long-term CR practitioners. You know you're out on a limb when you take comfort in your similarities with one of the ugliest creatures on the planet. :-) --Dean -------- [1] Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2015 Oct 20. [Epub ahead of print] Nutrients and ageing: what can we learn about ageing interactions from animal biology? Stenvinkel P, Kooman JP, Shiels PG. PMID: 26485336 Abstract PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Many prevalent clinical conditions, such as chronic kidney disease, diabetes mellitus, chronic obstructive pulmonary, and cardiovascular disease associate with features of premature ageing, such as muscle wasting, hypogonadism, osteoporosis, and arteriosclerosis. Studies on various animal models have shown that caloric restriction prolongs lifespan. Studies of animals with unusual long or short life for their body size may also contribute to better understanding of ageing processes. The aim of the present article is to review what we can learn about nutritional modulations and ageing interactions from animal biology. RECENT FINDINGS: Caloric restriction is a powerful intervention that increases longevity in animals ranging from short-lived species, such as worms and flies, to primates. As long-term studies on caloric restriction are not feasible to conduct in humans, much interest has focused on the impact of caloric restriction mimetics, such as resveratrol, on ageing processes. Recent data from studies on the long-lived naked mole rat have provided important novel information on metabolic alterations and antioxidative defense mechanisms that characterize longevity. SUMMARY: Better understanding of the biology of exceptionally long-lived animals will contribute to better understanding of ageing processes and novel interventions to extend lifespan also in humans. Keywords biomimicry, caloric restriction, naked mole rat, oxidative stress, premature ageing, resveretarol KEY POINTS -- > Energy excess is a main cause of accelerated ageing of mammals and caloric restriction prolongs lifespan in mammals ranging from flies to primates. -- > As long-term caloric restriction is not feasible in the majority of humans, the potential antiageing effects of caloric restriction mimetics deserves further studies. -- > Better understanding of the biology of exceptionally long-lived animals, such as naked mole rats, will contribute to better understanding of ageing processes and novel interventions to extend life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlPater Posted May 1, 2016 Report Share Posted May 1, 2016 The below papers are pdf-availed. Nuances to the story may be considered. COMMENT & RESPONSE TP53 Gene and Cancer Resistance in Elephants.Casola C.JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1788-9. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0440. No abstract available.PMID: 27115383 To the Editor Dr Abegglen and colleagues proposed thatthe occurrence of multiple copies of the TP53 gene inelephants may be an evolutionary innovation associatedwith cancer resistance in pachyderms.1 These extra TP53copies have been described as alleles of the “ancestral”TP53 gene. However, according to the Genetics Home Referencecurated by the US National Library of Medicine, theword allele refers to “one of the alternative versions of agene at a given location (locus) along a chromosome.”2 Copiesof a given gene, such as the multiple TP53 copies foundin elephants, should be referred to as paralogous genes, orparalogs.3 Alleles represent the range of biological variationof a gene in a species, including deleterious alleles responsiblefor mendelian disorders, whereas most paralogs performseparate biological functions, are expressed in differenttissues or at different developmental stages (forexample, the genes encoding globin proteins4), or both.Therefore, suggesting that African elephants possess “40TP53 alleles”1 is not only semantically incorrect but also biologicallyinaccurate.To add confusion, these extra TP53 copies are often referredto as “retrogenes” in the article. Retrogenes are proteincodingcopies of other genes that originate through a processknown as gene retroposition.5However, new copies of the Africanelephant TP53 appear to have lost the ability to encode acomplete p53 protein and thus represent pseudogenes or,moreappropriately, retropseudogenes.5In the article, Dr Abegglen and colleagues proposed 2mechanisms for a potential role of TP53 copies in the p53-dependent apoptosis response to DNA damage despite theirlimited coding capacity. First, retropseudogenes couldencode p53 fragments that act as decoys for protein repressorsof the full-length p53 protein. The finding that one ofthese fragments binds to mouse double minute 2 homolog(Mdm2) seems to support this mechanism. However, thishas been shown only for the retropseudogene 9 constructexpressed in transfected human HEK293 cells. The bindingof peptides encoded by TP53 retropseudogenes to Mdm2has yet to be demonstrated in vivo in elephant cells, and theexpression of any TP53 retropseudogene peptide in vivoremains unproven. The second mechanism points to thepossible action of TP53 retropseudogene mRNAs as decoysfor micro-RNAs targeting transcripts of the ancestral TP53gene and is entirely speculative. Although the discovery ofmultiple TP53 retropseudogenes in animals with apparentcancer resistance is intriguing, evidence of a causal linkbetween extra TP53 copies and cancer suppression is yet tobe offered. TP53 Gene and Cancer Resistance in Elephants.Pessier AP, Stern JK, Witte CL.JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1789. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0449. No abstract available.PMID: 27115385 To the Editor The study by Dr Abegglen and colleaguesaffirmed the Peto paradox and suggested that elephants arecancer resistant by virtue of multiple TP53 gene copies andenhanced responses to DNA damage.1 This study epitomizesa “One Health” approach to solving important disease problemsshared by humans and animals.2 However, from ourexperience working in a large zoo-based veterinary pathologyprogram, we were surprised by the results because,unlike in the notoriously cancer-resistant naked mole rats,3we have diagnosed cancers in several elephants.The authors used historical necropsy data from our zoo(1964-1978)4 to compare cancer prevalence in 36 zoo mammalspecies to a lay database of elephant mortality. However,estimates derived from this database are likely biasedby using voluntary nonmedical reports of mortality. Furthermore,the prevalence estimates in other species wereunderestimated or overestimated by including perinatalmortalities within the at-risk population and by combiningincidental benign neoplasms with malignancies. Althoughthe authors corrected for missed diagnoses in the lay database,we wondered if elephants would still appear to be cancerresistant using only recent necropsy data from San DiegoZoo Global. During this time (1987-2015), comprehensivenecropsies were performed on all animals that died.Using these data, we repeated the study by Abegglenet al but excluded animals younger than 1 year and separatedbenign and malignant neoplasms (complete dataavailable from the authors on request). Cancer was diagnosedin 4 of 12 elephant necropsies (estimated lifetimeprevalence, 33.3% [95% CI, 9.9%-65.1%]). If benign neoplasms(eg, uterine leiomyoma) were included, the prevalencewas 66.7% (95% CI, 34.5%-90.1%). Two geriatricelephants (16.7%) died of cancer. Instead of cancer resistance,these findings suggest that elephants acquire cancerin proportions similar to the 11% to 25% human cancer mortalitycited by Abegglen et al. Of course, cancer is not asingle disease, and notably, several elephant neoplasmsoccurred in the uteri of aged nulliparous animals, in whichuninterrupted hormonal cycles are known contributors toendometrial proliferative disease.5 Although the smallsample size limits the generalizability of our results, wehope these results illustrate potential pitfalls in the designof comparative studies. Research of this kind captures theimagination and helps professions come together toimprove the health of all living things. To ensure the validityand repeatability of future studies, we encourage usingonly reliable databases, well-defined at-risk populations,and strict case inclusion criteria. TP53 Gene and Cancer Resistance in Elephants.Perez RP, Komiya T.JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1789-90. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0446. No abstract available.PMID: 27115384 To the Editor Dr Abegglen and colleagues1 confirmed a lowcancer incidence in elephants and hypothesized that thisrelates to increased genomic protection by p53, possibly dueto high copy numbers (20-40) of transcribed p53 pseudogenes.Also, peripheral lymphocytes and fibroblasts inelephants showed greater apoptotic sensitivity to ionizingradiation or doxorubicin than similar cells from humans.Apoptotic sensitivity was attributed to increased p53protein levels. In Figure 6 in the article, levels were modestlyelevated in elephant lymphocytes at 0 hours. However,p53 levels of both species varied over time in theabsence of treatment, with human p53 levels comparable orhigher at 5 and 24 hours. These variations complicate quantificationand interpretation of interspecies differences.Humans and elephants showed equally robust p21responses to ionizing radiation, suggesting similar p53 function.Meanwhile, apoptosis increased over time in both species,with or without treatment (Figure 3 in the article):elephant cells always showed greater apoptosis, even attimes (eg, 24 hours) when p53 levels were higher inhumans.Still unanswered is how elephants tolerate elevated p53levels. Overexpressed p53 was generally lethal in mouse embryosand Xenopus models.2,3 Although the authors offered apossible partial explanation (eFigure 12 in the Supplement),the ability of elephants to survive and grow despite sustainedhigh p53 protein levels suggests that compensatory mechanismsmust be present in this species.What these are and howthey might affect apoptosis or other p53 functions remains tobe determined. Taken together, these observations suggest that therelationship between p53 and apoptosis is complex and theextent to which p53 might contribute to observed differencesin cancer risk is unclear. Changes in other apoptotic(BCL2/BH3 or IAP) or DNA damage response (BRCA1/2,ATM/ATR/Chk1/Chk2) proteins could possibly explain someobservations. TP53 Gene and Cancer Resistance in Elephants--Reply.Schiffman JD, Schmitt DL, Maley CC.JAMA. 2016 Apr 26;315(16):1790-1. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.0457. No abstract available.PMID: 27115386 In Reply We agree with Dr Casola that we may have misusedthe term allele in reference to the additional elephant TP53(ep53) genes. We also agree, as highlighted in our article,that the exact role of ep53 remains to be determined. Ep53appears to originate from ancient reverse transcription ofTP53 mRNA, followed by a large number of gene duplications.A retrotransposed gene can still encode a proteineven if not identical to the ancestral protein, as indicated byour experiments with ep53 retrogene 9. It is unclear if theadditional ep53 genes should be called retrogenes or retropseudogenes.Laboratory experiments to answer these questionsare ongoing.One of the limiting factors in comparative oncologyis the lack of good data on cancer in both wild and captiveanimals. As Dr Pessier and colleagues describe, the lay databaseof elephant deaths that we used may contain biases,and we welcome the extensive expertise and careful datacuration by the San Diego Zoo for elephants and otheranimals. Pessier and colleagues report that 2 (16.67%) oftheir 12 San Diego Zoo elephants died of cancer (95% CI,0%-37.75%), consistent with our estimate of 4.81% (95% CI,3.14%-6.49%) based on 644 elephant deaths. They highlightthe large number of benign uterine leiomyomas andmalignant uterine tumors in their elephants; this highprevalence of uterine tumors has been correlated with nulliparousstatus in captive elephants,1,2 rhinoceroses,2 andeven ovariectomized guinea pigs.3 Disrupted life historystrategies in humans also have been associated withincreased reproductive cancer risk (eg, reduced parity andlimited breastfeeding with estrogen-positive breast cancer4and nulliparity, regardless of fertility, with endometrialcancer5). Genomic analysis for TP53 mutations or deletionsin the San Diego Zoo elephant cancers would be informative.The true elephant cancer mortality rate may be higherthan our estimates from 644 elephant death reports, partiallydue to nulliparity, but it remains clear that elephantsdo not develop 100 times more cancer than humans andthat the Peto paradox remains a real and important problemto answer.We concur with Drs Perez and Komiya that analysis ofp53 protein levels in elephant cells is important. Unfortunately,available elephant reagents remain limited, so weused a human p53 antibody that cross-reacts with ep53 todemonstrate global p53 protein expression. This antibodydoes not recognize activated p53; therefore, comparisons offunctional p53 protein levels cannot be made using Figure 6in the article. Furthermore, elephant and human proteinswere not run on the same gel and membrane. To addressthese issues, we repeated experiments on the same Westernblot comparing p21 protein expression (a direct target ofp53) with an antibody that detects both human andelephant p21 (eFigure 10 in the Supplement). We foundgreater p21 protein expression in elephant cells comparedwith human cells, suggesting more robust p53-mediatedapoptosis in response to DNA damage. These assays shouldbe repeated when antibodies to activated ep53 becomeavailable. Perez and Komiya also discuss apoptosis inelephant cells with or without treatment, which weaddressed through varying lymphocyte wash conditionsreported in the supplementary content. The apoptosis wedescribed accounted for baseline differences betweenelephant and human cells, including increased cell necrosisdue to cell wash conditions. The finding of increased apoptosisin elephant cells regardless of treatment exposure mayreflect a heightened sensitivity and response to the DNAdamage inherent to cell culture growth, potentially mediatedby ep53 amplification. Potential Mechanisms for Cancer Resistance in Elephants and Comparative Cellular Response to DNA Damage in Humans.Abegglen LM, Caulin AF, Chan A, Lee K, Robinson R, Campbell MS, Kiso WK, Schmitt DL, Waddell PJ, Bhaskara S, Jensen ST, Maley CC, Schiffman JD.JAMA. 2015 Nov 3;314(17):1850-60. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13134.PMID: 26447779http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleID=2456041 -- Al Pater, alpater@SHAW.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140603/ncomms4966/pdf/ncomms4966.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthira Posted May 2, 2016 Report Share Posted May 2, 2016 https://www.change.org/p/apsara-authority-end-elephant-riding-at-angkor-siem-reap?recruiter=6609751&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sthira Posted May 9, 2016 Report Share Posted May 9, 2016 https://www.change.org/p/apsara-authority-end-elephant-riding-at-angkor-siem-reap?recruiter=6609751&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink Thank you to anyone positing at this site (all four of you) who signed! It received more than 150,000 petitioners signing to help end this disgusting practice that kills elephants. And if you haven't yet signed, do cuz it still ain't too late! https://www.change.org/p/apsara-authority-end-elephant-riding-at-angkor-siem-reap/u/16515410?tk=n0neSf_JDQ6OedUhEQS0A3CQf8Pfbd-oAU0V6tw6nzY&utm_source=petition_update&utm_medium=email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saul Posted February 7, 2018 Report Share Posted February 7, 2018 More about the unusual longevity of naked mole rats; apparently, their senescent cells metabolize less than those of other rodents and mammals: http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/naked-mole-rats-cancer-aging-longevity-295472/ -- Saul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sibiriak Posted February 8, 2018 Report Share Posted February 8, 2018 Neoteny, Prolongation of Youth: From Naked Mole Rats to "Naked Apes" Physiol Rev. 2017 Apr;97(2):699-720. doi: 10.1152/physrev.00040.2015. Skulachev VP et al. PMID:28202600 http://agingfree.org/Portals/0/xBlog/uploads/2017/3/6/Neoteny,%20Prolongation%20of%20Youth-%20From%20Naked%20Mole%20Rats%20to%20Naked%20Apes%20(Humans).pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.