Need a paper please

[Alex]

I was looking through pubmed and saw this and I'm really curious about it. Does anyone have access and can grab it for me, please?

I already tried googling for it with no luck.

http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/24222110/Chemoprevention-of-oral-cancer-by-lyophilized-strawberries

Thanks!

Alex

[Avery louie]

That sounds delicious.

--A

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2PZaUy_yy0Bo6kDCqA72-dV7Lw9vH4UJRHiRRJFMcHa8A%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Alex]

Right? And possibly fights cancer? I'm in!

Alex

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAL4KOmivgv%2BpzB8x9MOU0UEYGkVb56x7gD2HempgC04nbwQgyg%40mail.gmail.com.

[Nathan McCorkle]

This one is similar, but not the same... it also features DMBA results:
http://t-emporium.com/lit/Carcinogenesis-2008-Stoner-1665-74.pdf

> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2MnxrU2abqHCD5iiGQQffw79buA1yv0ZiDKKWqjUw71iw%40mail.gmail.com.

>
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--

-Nathan

[Detlef Bohm]

Sorry,
no chance.

Why not ask the author ?

Best regards
Detlef

[Alex]

Thanks Nathan, I've started reading over this paper and it seems pretty interesting!

Alex

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CA%2B82U9%2BLL1puQVbYi8PnnWMzAX5rbiKs4V9m8vMkwb6C6acXpQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[Alex]

I didn't even think about that! I'll give that a shot, thanks Detlef!

Alex

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/6333045b-0592-42ab-bb13-37199ce8841f%40googlegroups.com.

[Mac Davis]

Where's Aaron Schwartz when you need him?

Asking the author works a lot of the time.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2O_2grdRqOWpaOeZ0t_nM2i9%3DLSE1CiEZZYLfLGm31y0w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Cathal Garvey]

In heaven for trying to help with this very problem. /shedstear

>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/6333045b-0592-42ab-bb13-37199ce8841f%40googlegroups.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/6333045b-0592-42ab-bb13-37199ce8841f%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .

>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>>
>> --
>> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to
>> diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group
>> at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
>> Learn more at www.diybio.org
>> ---
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "DIYbio" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit

>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2O_2grdRqOWpaOeZ0t_nM2i9%3DLSE1CiEZZYLfLGm31y0w%40mail.gmail.com<https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2O_2grdRqOWpaOeZ0t_nM2i9%3DLSE1CiEZZYLfLGm31y0w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .

>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

--

T: @onetruecathal, @IndieBBDNA
P: +353876363185
W: http://indiebiotech.com

[Matt Harbowy]

I've been a coauthor on papers produced by Gary Stoner's lab, back when all the money was in tea, rather than berries. While everything said in these papers has some minuscule amount of merit, you have to take it all with a bit of skepticism.

First off, berry polyphenols (and tea, etc) are astringent because they bind proteins very strongly. Many will precipitate them. So if such compounds even make it out of your mouth, where saliva-PRPs (proline rich proteins) will bind and make unavailable, they are subject to the multitude of proteins that can intervene along the way and make them unavailable to plasma. Ellagic acid is notorious for this- it's been "proven" to practically "cure death" (cancer, heart disease, what have you), and yet most research has been abandoned on it because it has also been "proven" to not make it out of your gut.

The antioxidant hypothesis is all the rage behind fad nutraceuticals, and is a big component of diets such as the one promoted by Kurzweil (like his book, Fantastic Voyage, with Terry Grossman). They repeatedly ignore the findings of researchers (like myself) who find strong negative indications, such as the finding that in actual intervention trials, antioxidants like carotenoids kill more patients than they help, because oxidative damage is just a chain and most "antioxidants" are both reduction and oxidation capable, and we really don't understand if there is a net positive effect except under tightly controlled circumstances.

Second, there's a lot of money riding on these things. Grant money, both in the form of corporate sponsorship of this research as well as large ticket grants from the NCI, NIH, etc. to say that his research is "no conflict of interest" is laughable. Everybody in the field has a big ticket vested interest in continued funding, and this funding means keep proving that things cure cancer or lose your big ticket NCI funding. Even if there isn't a sinister motive at work, there's enough to be skeptical about.

Third, as for the paper demonstrating cancer in the oral pouch, it's bullshit, too. You swab some cancer causing agent on their cheek pouch, and they get tumors. You choose your dosing routine carefully, feeding berries or swabbing berry paste or ellagic acid, and that number gets reduced. Voila, proof. It has ZERO relevance in the clinic with people, because the agent and the cancer site are typically long separated by time and physical distance. Everyone who reads this message likely has a handful of cells gone awry, and eating a couple strawberries tomorrow or next week has absolutely no influence on its outcome- it will either die off, fester, or grow up and give you cancer.

There's big problems with both the antioxidant hypothesis and the alkaline water hypothesis: all the proof is in vitro or under very carefully timed or controlled circumstances. Vary the conditions even slightly, or try to take those results to the clinic, and those results disappear. There's a vast number of different pH or redox active events that happen between your food entering your mouth, and the tumors that kill you. It's even been shown that pH goes UP inside of some tumor cells, so how making things alkaline makes things unfavorable for them is even more suspect. That, and oxidative events often prove more deadly for cancer cells, since they grow so fast and any one moment of highly oxidative stress would weigh more heavily.

The best thing that the DIYBio community could do is expose these borderline fraudsters for what they are, and disavow participation in the hype cycles currently at work in the transhumanist/singularity/SENS communities. I know such a potent accusation puts me at risk for backlash from these well monied interests. There's no money in disproving bullshit, because bullshit and the promise you can live forever is just too damn seductive. But that's what our community should be about: using the power of citizen scientists to fight the hype cycle of "natural", "GMO free", "vaccines/xyz is a plot to harm kids", etc, by operating without the stain of corporate shilling.

A good simple diet, mostly vegetables and legumes, and QUITTING smoking, is the key to whatever small degree of longevity we can get. I'm mystified by DIYBio people who smoke, in particular, but even more so among researchers who know the effect of nitrosamines and PAHs in animal studies, and worst of all transhumanists or people rooting for SENS or the singularity. Eating foods high in "antioxidants" is a rounding error blip on the face of that scourge.

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com

650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/CAKgQa2MUTx_i4zf9bTE9yS0kQsgY90hhqTMiWiz_A%2BwH5nshBw%40mail.gmail.com.

[Reason]

On 04/23/2014 03:55 PM, Matt Harbowy wrote:
> The best thing that the DIYBio community could do is expose these borderline fraudsters for what they are, and disavow participation in the hype cycles currently at work in the transhumanist/singularity/SENS communities. I know such a potent accusation puts me at risk for backlash from these well monied interests. There's no money in disproving bullshit, because bullshit and the promise you can live forever is just too damn seductive. But that's what our community should be about: using the power of citizen scientists to fight the hype cycle of "natural", "GMO free", "vaccines/xyz is a plot to harm kids", etc, by operating without the stain of corporate shilling.

I would say that the SENS crowd has no opinion on any of what you've
been talking about other than to note that it's all a pointless waste of
time. It is burning money arguing over penny-ante biochemistry that has
no relevance whatsoever to whether or not we'll produce meaningful ways
to reverse aging.

Seriously: tea or berries? What is this, the 1600s of the alchemist
academics of the Royal Society? It boggles the mind that serious
scientists waste their time on this sort of thing when we can accurately
describe the root biological differences between old tissue and young
tissue and the means by which those differences might be reversed.

Among the broader transhumanist community - which really is very broad
these days, not much commonality between any two opposite edges - there
are the same proportion of people who listen to the output of the monied
interests in the "anti-aging" market (antioxidants are great!) rather
than the scientific community (antioxidants shorten life!) as there are
in any other group. I've no idea why you feel the need to single them out.

To complicate matters it is quite clearly the case that antioxidants
targeted to mitochondria do in fact slow aging. One research group even
has a class of such compounds that is orally ingested. That will no
doubt muddy up the messaging further once it becomes widely available,
while still being pretty much irrelevant to any serious effort to
greatly extend human life spans.

Reason

[Matt Harbowy]

Antioxidants. Targeted at mitochondria. Slowing aging.

Really? I hope you've got a paper to back that claim up.

And I have yet to see a serious paper out of anyone showing that they understand aging any better than the "nuts and berries as medicine" crowd. The most recent I've seen suggested they slowed aging because they had reduced biomarkers of aging, not that they had a meaningful impact of actual lifespans.

I'm not opposed to serious work on the causes of aging. In that sense, I'm practically a transhumanist myself, except that I'm more interested in hacking the body than preserving it forever. I expect real science, though, not made up nonsense. I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey how much smarter or more logical they are.

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com
650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

[Reason]

On 04/23/2014 04:44 PM, Matt Harbowy wrote:

Antioxidants. Targeted at mitochondria. Slowing aging.

Really? I hope you've got a paper to back that claim up.

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/10/more-robust-data-on-the-effect-of-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidants-on-fly-life-span.php

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/12/the-latest-mitochondrially-targeted-antioxidant-research.php

If you want to debate whether life span extension equates to slowing aging, sure. That debate is being had over rapamycin, so equally valid to have it for plastiquinone derivatives.

But again this is all irrelevant to meaningful life extension in humans. Though plastinquinones or SS-31 or some other mitochondrially targeted antioxidant could wind up to be a better therapy for some specific conditions than presently exist, such as some forms of deterioration in the eye.

And I have yet to see a serious paper out of anyone showing that they understand aging any better than the "nuts and berries as medicine" crowd. The most recent I've seen suggested they slowed aging because they had reduced biomarkers of aging, not that they had a meaningful impact of actual lifespans.

That is quite a claim. So no-one in the aging research community can do any better than the nuts and berries folk? I think that really just shows that you're not reading widely enough in the field. What exactly is wrong with the compound SENS explanation for aging, for example? Please do critique in detail, but note that the roots of this do not originate with the SENS crowd, as it is a synthesis of the consensus mechanistic explanations for degeneration culled from across the breadth of the medical research community. By which I mean people who are earnestly trying to find the causes of - and cure - diseases such as macular degeneration, heart failure, and atherosclerosis with modern medicine, not by feeding patients different types of food.

Or for that matter, what exactly is wrong with this detailed set of SENS-like proposals for the causes of aging and how to address them published by a completely different group of noted researchers?

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2013/06/a-good-scientific-polemic-on-aging.php

Or for that matter once again, perhaps you could critique the new and detailed theories proposing aging as a genetic program that are emerging from the Russian research community and related scientific groups. I don't agree with them myself, but at least I've looked it over:

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2012/07/biochemistry-moscows-issue-on-programmed-aging.php

I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey how much smarter or more logical they are.

https://www.fightaging.org/archives/2011/05/on-the-topic-of-my-name.php

Reason

[Bryan Bishop]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 4:44 PM, Matt Harbowy <hberg...@gmail.com> wrote:

I'm not opposed to serious work on the causes of aging. In that sense, I'm practically a transhumanist myself, except that I'm more interested in hacking the body than preserving it forever. I expect real science, though, not made up nonsense. I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey how much smarter or more logical they are.

Well, there are other reading materials available here that aren't just about berries:

http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/longevity/

btw there's also an irc channel here: irc.freenode.net ##hplusroadmap

logs: http://gnusha.org/logs

have some ex-SENS people, etc.

- Bryan

http://heybryan.org/

1 512-203-0507

[Nathan McCorkle]

On Wed, Apr 23, 2014 at 1:55 PM, Matt Harbowy <hberg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've been a coauthor on papers produced by Gary Stoner's lab, back when all
> the money was in tea, rather than berries. While everything said in these
> papers has some minuscule amount of merit, you have to take it all with a
> bit of skepticism.
>
> First off, berry polyphenols (and tea, etc) are astringent because they bind
> proteins very strongly. Many will precipitate them. So if such compounds
> even make it out of your mouth, where saliva-PRPs (proline rich proteins)
> will bind and make unavailable, they are subject to the multitude of
> proteins that can intervene along the way and make them unavailable to
> plasma.

Just ate some raspberries, didn't chew completely, chewing increases
the risks of seeds getting stuck in my teeth anyway!

[Matt Harbowy]

I generally don't appreciate being sent into a rats nest of cross-linked pages. Fightaging.org is like an echo chamber of link bait. This is what you see again and again in communities like that of Autism/Vaccines, Lorenzo's Oil, SENS, and the like. All evidence is positive and no statement is falsifiable or at risk.

But I think I've found the paper that you're talking about:

http://impactaging.com/papers/v3/n11/pdf/100404.pdf

Seralini's paper on GMOs is more convincing than this not-statistically-significant pos...paper. It provides no insights on how one could target delivery of the active compound into mitochondria. It offers no good evidence. It is also not clear that MitoSENS has any proof of its claims, either. Moving mito genes into germ line DNA has fizzled. Mito as a source of damage has no evidence. I'm not going to go into depth debunking MitoSENS here because I have done so elsewhere, and because I publish under a real name, I can be fact checked on that.

Show me papers, not links I have to filter through. Show me where [10-(6’-plastoquinonyl) decyltriphenylphosphonium] is proven to get into mitochondria in real cells, because I see claims, not evidence. It better not be http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/663.full.pdf, because that paper used isolated "mitochondria" (how they can do this and have them anywhere functioning like real cells is beyond me). Show me a single piece of in vitro literature that mentions an ion without its counterion, because counterions matter.

The supplementary materials are even more telling: http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2009/12/18/0910216107.DCSupplemental/pnas.0910216107_SI.pdf here, they claim success with a molecular simulation that has very little correspondence to real world chemistry.  And perhaps you can explain why 

Carbonyl cyanide-p-trifluoromethoxyphenylhydrazone Is at all relevant to the paper?

The PNAS paper has a great quote:

We confirmed the data of Murphy and coworkers on the anti- oxidant activity of MitoQ but found that it turns to prooxidant one when the concentration was slightly increased (14) (see also refs. 15–17), 

Herein lies the problem with all antioxidant studies. The belief that there exists a window, some critical exact value that lies on a tightrope of health surrounded by a sea of death, is not only scientifically suspicious and inconsistent with years of evidence that "the dose makes the poison" (to quote our nuts and berries ancestor, Paracelsus), but also clinically unachievable.

Show me a single scientific paper you have contributed to. Show me that you are actually doing DIYBio experiments. Because whether you are deluded enough or not to believe Reason is your real name, or went to the insane length of changing it legally, your so called "privacy" is a smokescreen, no one with common sense believes someone who says "I have all the facts, but they are private and I won't share, trust me". That's not in keeping with the ethos of DIYBio.

SENS has been debunked, in my opinion. Those who cling to it like a religion are spending more of their energy fooling themselves rather than making any attempt whatsoever to present these things in testable or falsifiable form.

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com

650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/53583D53.3050206%40fightaging.org.

[Reason]

On 04/23/2014 06:26 PM, Matt Harbowy wrote:
> I generally don't appreciate being sent into a rats nest of cross-linked pages. Fightaging.org is like an echo chamber of link bait. This is what you see again and again in communities like that of Autism/Vaccines, Lorenzo's Oil, SENS, and the like. All evidence is positive and no statement is falsifiable or at risk.

Which demonstrates in microcosm why scientific mainstream movements last
long past the point at which they should dissolve in the face of new
consensus paradigms. Few people are willing to put in the effort to
actually read or critique much of anything outside their present circle:
human nature at work. So much of everything is not worth the time that
even when new scientific paradigms do in fact arise, supported by the
data and a significant number of researchers, some people continue to
cheerfully call it all bunk. It's easier to do that than put in the work
needed to change your own mind.

For my money, I'd say that anyone in the field should think twice about
lumping SENS in with snake oil. By doing so you are saying that George
Church, Anthony Atala, Judith Campisi, Maria Blasco, and a score of
other highly respected and influential people in the life sciences - all
of whom publicly support SENS, which you can see if you take the
necessary fifteen seconds to look at the SENS Research Foundation
research advisory board membership and statement - are, what, snake oil
salespeople? That's clearly just one step away from tin foil headwear.
These are some of the leading figures in biomedical research. At some
point it has to be easier just to admit that you might be wrong and look
at the actual research with an honest eye.

In any case I'm done with this; those are the last points I wish to make
in this somewhat futile exchange.

Reason

[Matt Harbowy]

There's a "reason" why that is called "argumentation from authority", and why that is a logical fallacy. You have zero reason to think I haven't spent considerable time researching this, both in the literature, on websites, and yes, doing real experiments myself. I've been active in the field since 1994.

Again, you just have to ask for my literature record or other citations of evidence. Yet, you persist in providing no evidence or any sign that you have any experience to make a judgement whether SENS is bullshit or not. Citing Pete Estep or Craig Venter, on my behalf, would be arguing authority with authority. And if God himself told me mitochondria caused aging, I still would ask for evidence and mechanism. They have neither.

It is hard to test the beliefs of others, much harder than just believing. I am not "calling" it bunk- I am saying that the evidence does not support the supposition. But, in my experience, it is bunk (though if anyone accepted that as true and cited this as proof, they would be committing the same logical fallacy of AbyA)- and I am trying to open a reasoned debate on its merits and start projects in the DIYBio community that begin to test these wonky theories.

How do I have any assurance, for example, that you are not a sock puppet of Aubrey deGrey, other than (again, IMO from personal correspondence) he would never argue things as poorly as you have?

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com
650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

> --
> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
> Learn more at www.diybio.org
> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/53585959.5080904%40fightaging.org.

[Cathal Garvey]

I don't like this:

> Because whether you are deluded enough or not to believe Reason is
> your real name, or went to the insane length of changing it legally,
> your so called "privacy" is a smokescreen

..If people on the list disagree, let them disagree. But attacking
people because of their pseudonym or name is inane bullshit.

> I'm also averse to people hiding behind a pseudonym meant to convey
> how much smarter or more logical they are.

You'll notice that a staple of this list goes by the 'nym "Mega": is he
to be denounced, then?

Frankly I don't give a crap what name people go by, and I've never
understood the venom directed at Reason for his name, irrespective of
whether or not it's real. I simply don't give a toss, and I'm boggled
that anyone does.

Please keep discussions on the topics and the science; if one or the
other presents no compelling evidence, then they'll be ignored. Simples.
But do remember that's a luxury;

> no one with common sense believes someone who says "I have all the
> facts, but they are private and I won't share, trust me".

..actually, the level of sense that prevents people believing secret,
unsourced BS is fairly rare.

On 24/04/14 00:26, Some People wrote:
> Bickering

[Matt Harbowy]

As soon as "mega" argues that he is better qualified than me to judge the merits of SENS quackery, and that I have to take his word for it that he knows better than me, then yes, I'll denounce him too. I am not denouncing Reason for his pseudonym, but for his argumentation from authority with no pedigree or experience or evidence to back it up. If he said " I did experiment x that disproves this", or "this paper proves this claim", then fine. But he argues that SENS is scientific consensus, when it is clearly not. And he sent me into a maze of web commentary penned by "him" (regretting now the lack of ability to have gender or plural neutral pronouns) as proof. His half baked commentary on science is not proof, and we should brook no quarter in calling it out.

You cannot verify the authenticity of a claim if anyone can stand up and yell "I am Spartacus". This is why papers are published with names and institutions: the veracity of said institution depends on keeping its name "clean". You may not like the enforcement of real names, but you have yet to provide alternative methods of trust authentication that are agreeable to a large percentage of our community.

I stand behind what I say, and if it dis honors me, so be it. Were I to adopt a sockpuppet, that would go against what is for me, an essential part of what DIYBio is: openness.

I denounce quackery in all its forms, and I expect to be denounced when and if I resort to quackery. Why do you take issue with me, when his statements are much more clearly false and unverifiable? Do you agree with him? Do you think we should allow anyone to post any bullshit theory without challenge? Particularly under cover of anonymity, where there is no accountability to the reputation of a name? That's my point.

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com
650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

> <0x988B9099.asc>

[Cathal Garvey]

Snip:

> I am not denouncing Reason for his pseudonym

..yes you were. And that's all I objected to. Pick at someone for their
lack of citation data, credentials, or history of authority on the
subject all you like, that's normal debating practice, online or off.

[Koeng]

It looks like a flame war has started xD and gone off topic

A lotta people on here use fake names, I am using one because its my internet name and I am too lazy to change it. You shouldn't base arguments against that.

My 2 cents on the topic is I agree mostly with Matt, but even if people don't work in your field specifically, their voice should be heard (like playing devil's advocate when planning experiments). On the topic of SENS, yea I'd think that with genetic engineering it would be possible to reduce aging. Since with genetic engineering pretty much anything is possible, it would be helpful to continue experimentation on it. Even just for public appeal, lets take a look at golden rice. The vitamin A degrades in a couple days (excuse me for not citing link, if you'd like it I would be more then happy to provide it, but it took me a while to find the original paper in the first place). However, even though the technology doesn't work to its full potential, it actually shows that SOME good can come out of that research allowing for the public's opinion to be more open to the subject of GMOs, which is a good thing.

First of all, its very possible aging can be reduced through genetic engineering. Lets first look at if a single protein is needed to be mutated (which yes, I KNOW there is probably hundreds). They've done this with HIV

http://nar.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/06/26/nar.gkt571.long

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3080757/

To the point where they can (pretty much) make a point mutation in a single protein using an adenovirus (I believe the second paper uses adenovirus, perhaps adeno-associated virus, didn't look this up that closly) packaged with a zinc finger endonuclease. Now days with CRISPR we can probably make these mutation with the repeats, giving up to 20 or so mutations at a single time. (It is well known that CRISPR can do that, just look it up on like addgene they give very good overviews).

If we assume that 10 proteins are required to be mutated to slow aging in a certain cell line (such as bone marrow, but note I am a bacterial synthetic biologist, I know mostly about how to manipulate DNA so potentially a different cell line could be used, this is just for the sake of argument) Lets say when injected it infects 5% of cells. Within 10 injects, a good amount of the population will be mutated to the point of where this treatment could become hypothetically useful

Not saying this will happen (I engineer bacteria genomes, not eukaryotic genomes) but there is always a possibility for discovering genes that are associated with aging, and if mutations are found to extend it then genome engineering might be able to do this. Anywho I don't know that much about the other topics, so I'll leave that alone

-Koeng

[Matt Harbowy]

The problem with SENS is not that they're fighting aging. Absolutely, that is a worthwhile goal.

The problem is that aging research has always suffered from a bit of fraud, because almost anyone will pay no matter what amount of money if it gives them more life. The SENS program, and the related Kurzweil effort, are peddling snake oil.

Koeng, I agree with your assessment that finding the genes responsible for aging is a great project. So do most gerontologists.

However, SENS has, more or less, written this approach off, and has decided that the search is over, telomerase is the key. Telomerase may be a factor, but it's not a key. Keys don't tend to act paradoxically, and the evidence for telomere length as the Hayflick clock is sparse, with terrible correlation scores. Furthermore, they argue that telomerase should just be switched off- this is counterintuitive, since telomerase is supposed to lengthen telomeres.

Furthermore, they claim if you could just complete the seven (?) SENS projects, that people would suffer negligible additional senescence and live forever. 

Another big part of SENS is the role of oxidative damage. MitoSENS proposes moving the key genes of mitochondria Into the germline. 'Nuff said.

But my original point is that there is no evidence that antioxidants of any form contribute meaningfully and in a dose dependent way. At best, there is an "optimum" where certain levels help, and then more reverses and harms. This is not clinically relevant yet, because we don't have a good idea of how to measure the body's optimal antioxidant level, in the way that we "know" about 80mg/dl is "optimum" for blood glucose, and when it goes wonky there is benefit to bringing it in line. But we don't even know what drives healthy blood sugars: we just know how to accelerate and brake with sugar and insulin (and other drugs), not steer.

I guess I'm getting frustrated with the uncritical reporting of every bit of news here, and was trying to give some perspective based on my experience, when Reason basically told me to fuck off because I was criticizing (his) pet theory.

I don't want to spoil people's excitement-there's a lot of reason to be excited, but I also think it should be reserved for the few epic achievements or the leveling up, and not every little barely relevant paper. And we have to be cautious of frauds (intentional or unintentional), because there are so many. The recent tell spec and noninvasive glucose meter crowdfunds are a prime example.

Matt Harbowy -hberg...@gmail.com

650 243 8467 - @hbergeronx on Twitter

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/68059571-7c87-46e1-917b-b533f55f9704%40googlegroups.com.

[Koeng]

I actually attended a talk by Elizabeth Blackburn, (won nobel prize for her work on telomerase) and she has an interesting talk on how (I believe) both long and short telomeres can both cause disease, (with huge samples from people with aging and genetic diseases) she actually talked a little about aging (I was thinking about how cool it would be to genetically engineer telomeres in bacteria for simulation of human telomeres, which btw they have created a linear E coli genome that works, pretty cool) but I can't remember what it was. I do remember her saying there was something about correlation but not causation... or something like that. I recommend looking some of her stuff up, its pretty cool! Sorry for no citations

And yes, when you get down critically with the experts of any subject anger appears when they disagree... should have seen me talk to some random people that thought Bacillus subtilis could be mutated into Bacillus anthracis and therefore shouldn't be considered BL1. Thats an extreme example, but it gets the job done. However, playing devils advocate, there is still valid evidence in his argument. But we'll have to let NIH decide what is worthy of funding

-Koeng

[Jonathan Cline]

On Wednesday, April 23, 2014 2:44:55 PM UTC-7, matt harbowy wrote:

 

And I have yet to see a serious paper out of anyone showing that they understand aging any better than the "nuts and berries as medicine" crowd. The most recent I've seen suggested they slowed aging because they had reduced biomarkers of aging, not that they had a meaningful impact of actual lifespans.    ....   my original point is that there is no evidence that antioxidants of any form contribute meaningfully and in a dose dependent way.   I don't want to spoil people's excitement-there's a lot of reason to be excited  ... . And we have to be cautious of frauds (intentional or unintentional), because there are so many.   ...  It is also not clear that MitoSENS has any proof of its claims, either.   ...   Show me papers, not links I have to filter through.

 

Matt, please give your scientific opinion. 

OK, got your point on the antioxidants. 

OK, got your point on the frauds.  There is always a hype machine behind any funding effort, which needs to be guarded against.  Multivitamins debunked as well.  Journalists rarely help in regard to debunking as about half of a good journalist's article is factually erroneous.  DIYbio does help in this regard, to spread more accurate information.

What in your opinion are the areas of excitement right now as in your quote above? 

Where is the "nuts and berries as medicine" position best described, by whom, what group is spearheading this area of research.   Is it Willcox & Willcox?   Does this imply you believe diet strongly modifies gene expression (I don't want to assume what your position is, so I'm asking), and if so by what mechanism?

Do you practice an optimal diet as you've described as above or are you looking at it theoretically.   For example, are you vegetarian or vegan?  Do you drink a lot of black or green tea?  Have you considered taking Theaflavin capsules or others?


SENS, I believe, ignores diet because they assume it is not a significant enough mechanism and they are more interested in looking for big silver bullets.  The SENS crowd also likes to drink alcohol (beer & wine) - which is interesting.


Quote "It is also not clear that MitoSENS has any proof of its claims, either."  - It is clear:   SENS has no proof of it's claims on MitoSENS as of yet.  It is still Hypothetical.


Quote "Show me papers, not links I have to filter through. "    I agree with that.  Discuss specific, individual papers and their conclusions.  It is less worthwhile to point to blog entries or file directories of 100 pdf's.   Pasting DOI's is fine.
 

Reason suggested: "the new and detailed theories proposing aging as a genetic program that are emerging from the Russian research community and related scientific groups"   DOI 10.1134/S0006297912070012.   Yet that is basically suggesting that there is a kill switch and a biological clock in humans.  Does that even pass the test of Occam's razor, compared to the hypothesis of cumulative-damage-induced aging?   And it suggests SkQ1 (plastoquinonyl decyltriphenylphosphonium) in a 0.25 µM solution will (will, not may) slow the switch.   



## Jonathan Cline
## jcl...@ieee.org
## Mobile: +1-805-617-0223
########################

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Sci Hub down :O

Insights into the biosynthesis of the benzoquinone ansamycins geldanamycin and herbimycin, obtained by gene sequencing and disruption.

Does anyone have acess to this? It's about biosynthesis of the substances in Streptomyces.

[dragoljub dimitrijevic]

You're welcome :-)

Dragoljub

--
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/e7dbabf9-c70c-4f2e-868a-7b54718f1cf2%40googlegroups.com.

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Thanks a lot!!!

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Hi, there's a vintage paper that not even sci hub knows. Does anyone know if there's another way how to get this? 

Regulation of blood platelet function by cyclic nucleotides.

 

[Dakota Hamill]

You can try requesting full text from this guy, I've gotten papers through research gate before.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/22929496_Regulation_of_blood_platelet_function_by_cyclic_nucleotides

On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 8:33 AM, Mega [Andreas Stuermer] <masters...@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi, there's a vintage paper that not even sci hub knows. Does anyone know if there's another way how to get this? 

Regulation of blood platelet function by cyclic nucleotides.

 

--

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups DIYbio group. To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at https://groups.google.com/d/forum/diybio?hl=en
Learn more at www.diybio.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to diybio+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to diy...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/diybio.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/diybio/2be9e7fc-f031-4340-9b77-f5bc5000f74c%40googlegroups.com.

[Dakota Hamill]

You're right it seems pretty rare, usually google scholar will give me a link that always works, but it's a dead end abstract only link this time

[Mega [Andreas Stuermer]]

Thanks a lot! I did ;) 

Let's see if he replies. But the paper is old, so.... Hopefully he's still active

[Chip]

I couldn't tell if you received this yet.  Here is the preprint version...

Best,

Chip