Ponce de Leon famously scoured Florida searching for the fountain of youth, but he was just one of hundreds throughout history looking for magical waters to create enduring youth. Apparently all these explorers were looking in the wrong place.
Eternal youth doesn’t come from water, but instead it’s in the dirt—specifically the soil of Easter Island. About 40 years ago, researchers found a compound in the dirt, known as rapamycin, which has been used as an immunosuppressant for transplant patients. In a paper in Nature titled “Rapamycin fed late in life extends lifespan in genetically heterogeneous mice,” researchers theorized that rapamycin could increase humans’ lives by a few years. During this study, the scientists gave the rapamycin to mice, starting when they were 20 months old (the equivalent of a 60-year-old human). They felt the mice might be too old for the drug to affect lifespan. But they were surprised to learn it increased the lifespan of the rodents by 28 to 38 percent. It also works as an appetite suppressant—doctors who study aging agree that decreased calorie intake and genetic manipulation increases lifespan.
Rapamycin works on the cellular protein mTOR, which controls cells’ metabolisms and responses to stress. The downside is that it lowers immune function, meaning users would be more likely to die from opportunistic infections such as flu or staph infection. Experts say that people shouldn’t clamor for the drug (or eat the soil on Easter Island) yet because it would likely do more damage than good. [Photo courtesy of Flickr User badthing1.]
Comments (6)
Comment
- subscribe /
- give a gift /
- terms of service /
- about /
- contact us /
- write for us /
- ad info /
- subscriber services /
- press /
- privacy policy /
- rss /
© 2012 Mental Floss Inc. All Rights Reserved. Mental Floss is a registered trademark owned by Felix Dennis. mentalfloss.com is a trademark owned by Felix Dennis.
Disclaimer: All submissions made to mental_floss become the property of Mental Floss Inc and may be used without further permission by the submitter and without compensation to the submitter. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not submit anything to mental_floss.
Lifespan is so hard to calculate. If two mice, from birth, did everything the same, ate the same diet and the same portions, drank the same water, and exercised the same, there is absolutely NO guarantee that the two will die the same or at the same time. So their findings of a 28-38% increase in lifespan, i can’t agree that this is conclusive. Throw in the daily differences in human life and our dramatically differing lifestyles including parasites (as mentioned with the lowering of immunities) as well as other threats to our bodies there will be no way to determine a concrete study, especially without violating human rights.
posted by Steven on 8-10-2009 at 4:19 pm
Wait, you can’t just eat it? Guess I need to return that plane ticket and shovel…
posted by Karen on 8-10-2009 at 5:34 pm
I agree with Steven in that lifespan cannot be calculated, but there are factos that definitely impact it. His assertion that there is “NO guarantee” that two mice will die at the same time is true, but the fact of him saying that betrays a fundamental ignorance of scientific studies. Unlike “mythbusters science,” (a derogatory term for bad research practice) most studies, and virtually all that make it through peer review into journals, use a large number of repeated tests. So – though I haven’t read the study in question I find it extremely unlikely that they simply took two mice and fed one this chemical. With humans the challenge is not one of human rights – plenty of studies can and are done of humans without infringing on their rights – it’s one of sheer time. Humans live a very long time and it’s tough to wait long enough in a study for enough of the participants to die to get enough data.
posted by Kyle on 8-10-2009 at 6:06 pm
In my last post, please change “factos” to “factors.”
posted by Kyle on 8-10-2009 at 6:08 pm
Is this part of health care reform?
posted by John on 8-10-2009 at 9:50 pm
Kyle is correct. However, I urge people to take a look at the graphs from the paper itself (if you have access to Nature), specifically at the survival curves for some of the controls.
Interestingly, they were able to get the lifespan extension even though the mice were already aged, something that hasn’t been seen with dietary restriction.
Finally it is worth nothing that simply because something works in a creature that has been shaped by evolution to have a short lifespan with high fertility, it does not follow that it will work in humans.
posted by Jorge on 8-11-2009 at 2:10 pm