Longevity Genes. My mother’s older sister lived to 101.
Do I have longevity genes like my aunt?
If I do, would I want to know it?
There are about 80,000 centenarians in the U.S. alive at one time. Nicholas Wade reports that scientists studying more than 1000 Caucasian centenarians in New England have identified 150 genetic variants that predict extreme longevity with 77% accuracy. Interestingly, 23% of the centenarians in the group didn’t have the particular gene variants the researchers monitored. (“Genetic Finding May Provide a Test for Longevity” NY Times July 1, 2010)
These longevity genes seem to trump disease-causing genes that would otherwise shorten life spans. Research suggests that 15% of the U.S. population have the potential to live to 100, barring accidents or unhealthy lifestyles. A genetic test for longevity genes isn’t yet available. The good news is that most of us have genes that will get us to age 88 if we exercise, avoid obesity, don’t smoke and don’t drink too much.
“Biology 2.0”. The Economist recently published a 14-page executive summary updating genetic research (“Biology 2.0” June 19, 2010 pp. 3-16). This is my executive summary of theirs.
Three billion dollars was spent to sequence the three billion letters of the human genome, completed in 2003. Increased computer power and improved DNA sequencing will reduce time and cost of genome mapping. Today a human genome can be read in eight days at a cost of less than $10,000. Evolving technology may soon read it in fifteen minutes for less than $1000.
Borrowing a computer analogy: the chemicals in a cell are the hardware; DNA information is pre-loaded software. The interaction of cellular chemicals is like the constantly changing interaction between memory chips and processing chips.
How our genes “express themselves” is vastly more complex than once thought. Yet biologists believe they will soon understand perfectly how a cell works, and ultimately how assemblages of cells operate in plants and animals. Since 2003, scientists have constructed an organism with a completely synthetic genome, and completed the genome of our closest relative, Neanderthal man, who lacked several critical homo sapiens genes that enable speech and higher cognitive abilities.
Practical applications of the new genomics range from DNA identification, to what goes wrong in cancer cells, to deeper understanding of human behavior (whether healthy or pathological) to better medical diagnosis and treatment. We may yet understand “in pitiless detail” what it is to be human.
Pharmacogenetics. Genomics has not yet delivered the cornucopia of drugs promised early on and few are in the pipeline. Pharmacogenetics seeks to match drugs to a patient’s genomes. Pharmacogenetics could be a boon to patient and drug companies alike, e.g. FDA approval for a given drug only for patients who might benefit from it.
First, however, more must be learned about how genes function and how they are related to disease. All this is fiendishly complex. For example, that hemophila and sickle cell anemia runs in families is fairly easy to connect genetically. But the tendency of relatives to suffer heart disease, strokes, late-onset diabetes and Alzheimer’s disease is less clear cut. Mutations across generations may not cause these diseases but simply create greater risk of contracting them. Environmental factors may also play a role. Meanwhile drug makers seem to seek the quiet life — healthy balance sheets not drained by the costly research necessary to unlock these healing secrets.
Bio-banking of large samples of now less-expensive DNA information may yield breakthroughs in understanding heart disease and stroke. Turning data into knowledge and thence into pharmaceuticals is, of course, the ultimate challenge.
Cancer. Cancer is the focal point of genetic medicine. Cancer is known to be a genetic disease and its victims and their oncologists are willing to take greater risks for a cure. Understanding more about gene mutations (“oncogenes”) will help physicians select the appropriate cancer treatment the first time on rather than by trial and error. Some predict that drug companies will collaborate in financing independent research to more readily identify these oncogenes. Genomics has already led to successful (albeit temporary) treatment of secondary melanoma, one of the most aggressive cancers.
Personal genomics. What you learn from looking at your own genome isn’t worth today’s price (about $10,000). Either the price must come down or the value of the product must rise. Some companies offer to trace your ancestors back to their roots in northeast Africa and their wanderings over the past 150,000 years. Some offer to identify the breeds in your pet’s genealogy. Others identify genetic variations that may put you at risk for specific diseases. Of course chance is not certainty but even the chance of contracting dread diseases can still be upsetting.
Mass research. China is pursuing mass DNA banking that may allow pre-emptive treatment of tumors that are not yet malignant. The Chinese are also studying genetic underpinning of human intelligence with research on schoolchildren that might lead to some politically incorrect racial profiling.
Research elsewhere may produce a fine-grained picture of genetic differences in personality type, religiosity and even the ability to make money. Futurists foresee the creation of global DNA banks — a genetic “Facebook” that could expose to public gaze one’s ancestry, susceptibility to disease, life expectancy, personality traits, intelligence, even criminal inclinations. That global DNA bank could yield a goldmine for medical research. And its discoveries could induce parents to clamor for genetically enhanced children – taller, smarter, more beautiful.
There will be mistakes along the way say the experts, and suffering perhaps. Information wants to be free, and technology once invented cannot be unlearned.
Muses futurist Stephen Brand:
“We are as gods, and might as well be good at it”.