Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
Start date Dec 17, 2012

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

<Silver Donator>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,781

Tuco said:
Yeah but isn't there a massive set of problems with replacing the liver cells with your new genetic liver?

The liver is a good first start, because it does regenerate. If you can introduce your modified cells, then in a controlled manner depress/kill the non modified ones, eventually you're ending with a liver that's almost entirely your new cells.

There's a couple parts in your body that would be easily replaceable with modified versions of your own (another good example: marrow). Most won't be, alas.

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est

<Nazi Janitors>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,782

Ukerric said:
The liver is a good first start, because it does regenerate. If you can introduce your modified cells, then in a controlled manner depress/kill the non modified ones, eventually you're ending with a liver that's almost entirely your new cells.

There's a couple parts in your body that would be easily replaceable with modified versions of your own (another good example: marrow). Most won't be, alas.

And CRISPR isn't good at targeting all cells, right? It's used for targeting a few cells? We'd need to invent some kind of retrovirus vector to "spread" the changes once they are successful?

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

<Banned>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,783

Cad said:
And CRISPR isn't good at targeting all cells, right? It's used for targeting a few cells? We'd need to invent some kind of retrovirus vector to "spread" the changes once they are successful?

You can design delivery systems in which a CRISPR system is packaged. You can design and composite vesicles that target specific cell or tissue types

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est

<Nazi Janitors>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,784

ZyyzYzzy said:
You can design delivery systems in which a CRISPR system is packaged. You can design and composite vesicles that target specific cell or tissue types

So, how would you make a "universal" change (i.e. all cells in body), is it possible with anything like what we could even theoretically make? Or is it science-fiction for adult organisms?

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

<Banned>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,785

Cad said:
So, how would you make a "universal" change (i.e. all cells in body), is it possible with anything like what we could even theoretically make? Or is it science-fiction for adult organisms?

Why would you even want to do that?

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est

<Nazi Janitors>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,786

ZyyzYzzy said:
Why would you even want to do that?

Anti-aging?

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

<Banned>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,787

Cad said:
Anti-aging?

Would want to target progenitor/multipotent adult stem cells/partially differentiated cells of various tissue types. Plus doubt there would be 1 ubiquitous anti-aging therapy for a cell types due to their nature of their various functions and cell life cycles.

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est

<Nazi Janitors>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,788

ZyyzYzzy said:
Would want to target progenitor/multipotent adult stem cells/partially differentiated cells of various tissue types. Plus doubt there would be 1 ubiquitous anti-aging therapy for a cell types due to their nature of their various functions and cell life cycles.

So you think a real anti-aging therapy would be a cocktail of various stem cell therapies to hit the major tissue types?

I really don't know anything about life science other than what you'd learn in a basic biology class, so you'll have to excuse the noob questions...

iannis

Musty Nester

Jun 22, 2017

#5,789

Yeah, it's science fiction for adults.

The reality is that the body ages at different rates. Not that you couldn't do it (assuming you could do the individual cell systems in the first place) You just couldn't do it with one pill is all. Different tissues have different lifespans. Every tissue constantly renews itself. Blood, skin, do it pretty quick. Bone, tendon, do it pretty slow.

And some are highly variable.
And some cells don't do it at all.

So it would have to be a massive cocktail that seems like it would probably kill you. I just mean it would have to be stressful on an organ level. More likely it's a thing that, if possible, would be done in stages every x time period. And if you're gonna live 300 years, what does it matter really if you have to visit the youth clinic once or twice a year.

Sentagur

Low and to the left

<Silver Donator>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,790

iannis said:
Yeah, it's science fiction for adults.

The reality is that the body ages at different rates. Not that you couldn't do it (assuming you could do the individual cell systems in the first place) You just couldn't do it with one pill is all. Different tissues have different lifespans. Every tissue constantly renews itself. Blood, skin, do it pretty quick. Bone, tendon, do it pretty slow.

And some are highly variable.
And some cells don't do it at all.

So it would have to be a massive cocktail that seems like it would probably kill you. I just mean it would have to be stressful on an organ level. More likely it's a thing that, if possible, would be done in stages every x time period. And if you're gonna live 300 years, what does it matter really if you have to visit the youth clinic once or twice a year.

From Sci-Fi books i read they need to figure out how to replace Telomeres in cells, with every cell division they get shorter and this contributes to organ deterioration. A stem cell injection helps if those stem cells change into organ cells with fresh telomeres. Simple as that!

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA

<Banned>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,791

Cad said:
So you think a real anti-aging therapy would be a cocktail of various stem cell therapies to hit the major tissue types?

I really don't know anything about life science other than what you'd learn in a basic biology class, so you'll have to excuse the noob questions...

I would think so. Would even think such therapies would eventually be personalized

iannis

Musty Nester

Jun 22, 2017

#5,792

You also have to assume an individual diagnostic expertise which we don't really have yet, but could conceivably attain.

The physiology that they teach in textbooks is sort of a generalized theoretical perfect. It's got to be pretty close to that if you expect a living human... But Variants do exist. Like you can have double veins in your triceps or something and you'd never fucking know it until you get an MRI.

iannis

Musty Nester

Jun 22, 2017

#5,793

Sentagur said:
From Sci-Fi books i read they need to figure out how to replace Telomeres in cells, with every cell division they get shorter and this contributes to organ deterioration. A stem cell injection helps if those stem cells change into organ cells with fresh telomeres. Simple as that!

Couple of big theories about what aging actually is. Telomeres, free radicals, transcription errors compounded over time, or just simple as fuck progenitor cells just aren't adapted to self replicate forever. Even something about mitochondria but I forget what that one is exactly.

They're probably all correct. ALL THE THINGS.

Sheriff Cad

scientia potentia est

<Nazi Janitors>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,794

iannis said:
Couple of big theories about what aging actually is. Telomeres, free radicals, transcription errors compounded over time, or just simple as fuck progenitor cells just aren't adapted to self replicate forever. Even something about mitochondria but I forget what that one is exactly.

They're probably all correct. ALL THE THINGS.

At current life expectancy pace I have about 50 years for them to figure some shit out. I'll be saving my shekels to get in on the first round of anti-senescence.

Reactions: 1 user

Ukerric

Bearded Ape

<Silver Donator>

Jun 22, 2017

#5,795

iannis said:
You also have to assume an individual diagnostic expertise which we don't really have yet, but could conceivably attain.

That's part of Genomic Medicine 2025, a large and extensive plan in France to get every cancer patient in 2025 a full sequencing of its tumors, and a treatment that is entirely targeted to its exact tumor mutations, not "generic soandso cancer".

(designing the security for the main datacenter for that one is a fuckin' nightmare)

Reactions: 1 user

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!

<Gold Donor>

Jun 23, 2017

#5,796

Reactions: 1 users

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

<Donor>

Jun 23, 2017

#5,797

Tuco said:
I don't know genetics but I'm extremely excited about genetic engineering. I feel like it'll make so many health and cultural issues that are the forefront of today's challenges look antiquated like scurvy.

Selection based on gender is a slippery slope. We aren't a 50/50 gendered species on accident. We evolved this way. We fuck with that at our peril. Or at least, I would say we fuck with that at the peril of the nuclear family idea of human organization.

I suppose we could live like chimps or muslims where the best male gets to murder all the other males and then rape all the females. Or maybe a society of all females and blue haired hag beasts with just a handful of healthy males kept in cages.

Or maybe we like it the way we have it?

To answer your gif; it's because genetic expression doesn't just stop at the level of the organism. It can affect whole extended phenotypes. For instance, altering certain beaver genes this way or that might result in fewer natural damns being built which may decrease the frog population which may result in an increased mosquito or fly population and so on and so on. The permutations are endless, potentially anyway.

Altering the natural m/f ratio in homo sapiens would be..... catastrophic to say the least, imo. Maybe in some fucked up Hobbesian way it would be 'beautiful' or 'good' to do it. To blow it all up. I don't think it would be but hey that's just me. But in any case, good or bad, Kansas would certainly go bye-bye.

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!

<Gold Donor>

Jun 24, 2017

#5,798

AngryGerbil said:
Selection based on gender is a slippery slope. We aren't a 50/50 gendered species on accident. We evolved this way. We fuck with that at our peril. Or at least, I would say we fuck with that at the peril of the nuclear family idea of human organization.

I suppose we could live like chimps or muslims where the best male gets to murder all the other males and then rape all the females. Or maybe a society of all females and blue haired hag beasts with just a handful of healthy males kept in cages.

Or maybe we like it the way we have it?

To answer your gif; it's because genetic expression doesn't just stop at the level of the organism. It can affect whole extended phenotypes. For instance, altering certain beaver genes this way or that might result in fewer natural damns being built which may decrease the frog population which may result in an increased mosquito or fly population and so on and so on. The permutations are endless, potentially anyway.

Altering the natural m/f ratio in homo sapiens would be..... catastrophic to say the least, imo. Maybe in some fucked up Hobbesian way it would be 'beautiful' or 'good' to do it. To blow it all up. I don't think it would be but hey that's just me. But in any case, good or bad, Kansas would certainly go bye-bye.

I agree on m/f. We don't need China where everyone wants to have only sons. I was more referring to non-sex characteristics.

Oldbased

> Than U

Jun 27, 2017

#5,799

Reactions: 1 user

iannis

Musty Nester

Jun 27, 2017

#5,800

I'm holding out for x ray vision.

Granted with yoga pants it's a lot less fun. But I think in another 10 years the fashion will swing back to large obstructionary clothing. And I need to be prepared to see what they got going on under there.

Reactions: 1 user

Show hidden low quality content

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share: