Genes down-regulated in spaceflight are involved in longevity in C. elegans | Hacker News Reader

Genes down-regulated in spaceflight are involved in longevity in C. elegans

nature.com

83 pointsHooke25 comments

While the findings are interesting and may hold therapeutic potential, this is a very zoomed in perspective.

We know that epigenetic changes occur in microgravity and they occur across the entire genome. While one gene may see an upregulation or downregulation, it's important to know this happens to many genes i.e. differentially methylated regions (DMRs). And these DMRs are not entirely predictable as there are many mechanisms associated with epigenetics. For example, two species at different levels of maturity may exhibit different DMRs in microgravity.

So while we may see downregulation in one age-related gene, you may very well see an upregulation of the many other age-related genes. We'll have to find out with further inquiry.

Still, very cool stuff and I hope more funding goes into microgravity effect on gene expression.

How is it possible to distinguish microgravity effects from radiation damage since the only place to study microgravity is above the atmosphere, and without similar shielding properties?

I don't know anything about this research, but I imagine they could also expose samples on Earth to similar radiation?

Further, for reduced gravity, in space or Moon or Mars, constant or supplemented, surfing research a year or so ago suggested, we basically have no clue.

For instance, it's oft repeated that artificial gravity requires large radii to avoid distress. And yet, centrifuges can be as small as 2 m, as currently on ISS. And people are diverse in their tolerances. And details of motion restriction matter. It's not a small design space. But how does tolerance vary? How to select or train for it? We don't know.

Health side, is the Moon sufficient gravity to blunt various micro-gravity effects? Is Mars? Is some pattern of various levels of gravity exposure? While sleeping, exercising, working? We've no clue.

> I hope more funding goes into microgravity effect

My main takeaway was, once Starship can provide lower-cost long-term vibration-tolerant physically-larger orbital housing for more people ... there's a large space medicine research agenda that's been backlogged for years on lack of plausible cost opportunities.

Suggestion: the Smithsonian should have giant statues of e. coli, Drosophila, and c. elegans."

Because these little creatures have done more for scientific research than anything else I can think of.

possibly white mice and HeLa too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laboratory_mouse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f9/Henriett...

Having recently finished 'Project Hail Mary,' I am of course inclined to see this as evidence for the panspermia hypothesis!

If our very distant ancestors evolved to hitch a ride on a comet, they'd probably need a mechanism for slowing or suspending aging while they traveled in zero-g.

We also know that nematodes can be revived after a very long period of hibernation [0].

This doesn't quite fit in with our current story of evolution, but then, I personally have no idea what the weakest empirical links in that story are.

[0] https://nypost.com/2018/07/30/scientists-just-brought-40000-...

Finally, a rationale for space tourism! Much like the hot springs on Earth, a trip to orbit extends lifespan (in bacteria). I, for one, cannot wait to see this breathlessly hyped in the science press. Step aside blood transfusions from teens to the elderly, there’s a new fountain of youth in town.

I like to pay an extra 50 Million, for the "Deluxe" package where there are 10 extra boosters on my ship and I go 20x Faster, and age _even slower_ while travelling faster than my colleagues.

I only go for the space "treatments". Calling it that doubles the price, but you can so totally tell the difference.

I wonder, however, if after spending significant time in space and then returning to Earth if the benefits reverse. Or if it even has a negative outcome. It could be that if you stay in space longevity is increased but after returning to Earth the bacteria has trouble re-adjusting ?

Space travel weakens the immune system

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-90458-2

https://biosignaling.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1478...

So maybe it's a good idea for people with chronic inflammation/auto-immunity

Could it be possible to add (2012)?

Or, in other words, gravity ages you.

It constantly damages us, so yes.. any force applied to hold constantly against will damage us.

Connected to some of our early work in language modeling applied to space biosciences at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory/DOE with Saira Mian, Michael I. Jordan and David Blei: "Statistical modeling of biomedical corpora: mining the Caenorhabditis Genetic Center Bibliography for genes related to life span" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1533868

The paper itself talks about "Space" but only mention microgravity. There's also an artificial atmosphere, cosmic rays etc etc. And despite the click-bait subject, there s quite a distance from c elegans to mammals

It's amazing how the body is reacting to a high DNA damage environment by making lifespans shorter (I'm not saying this is happening intentionally mind you, just that somehow the body is reacting "appropriately"), thus ensuring the species overall has a better chance, even if the individual in question is losing out.

The article seems to say that aging is actually slowed in space (abstract: "...These results suggest that aging in C. elegans is slowed through neuronal and endocrine response to space environmental cues.")

Oops! That's what I get for not reading the link carefully.

That take assigns a lot of imaginative intent to a biomechanical process.

I literally specified that it wasn't meant to be read as intentional.

"Appropriately" vs "Intentionally" are the same thing, when discussing a low level process that does not have any inherent concept of the resulting effect you assign it to.

Your comment implies intent regardless of you specifying a lack of intent. It's the linguistic parallel to me pouring water on my shirt and saying "I'm doing this without getting my shirt wet."

> "Appropriately" vs "Intentionally" are the same thing

"Appropriately" just means, the correct course of action, which is totally possible to do without intention.

A process that doesn't have intention can't do something appropriately or inappropriately. You wouldn't say your toaster "appropriately toasts bread", it either does it or it fails.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com