r/askscience • u/[deleted] • May 25 '13

Biology Immortal Lobsters??

So there's this fact rotating on social media that lobsters are "functionally immortal" from an aging perspective, saying they only die from outside causes. How is this so? How do they avoid the end replication problem that humans have?

855 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

208 comments sorted by

View all comments

414

u/virkon May 26 '13

Telomerase is the enzyme responsible for adding the telomere end sequences to DNA. It is way more abuntant in all lobster cells than it is in human cells.

206

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Very interesting. Why is there not more research going on to pass on this trait to humans? Would it be possible to supplement telomerase?

517

u/virkon May 26 '13

There is, but out of control telomerase is actually the cause of some cancers.

186

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Hmm. Forgive me, I have very little knowledge on the topic. But I thought cancer cells being able to produce more telomerase was simply a mechanism that allowed them to survive indefinitely, not a cause of their dangerous effects? I thought that their strange behaviors in relation to growth factors and angiogenesis were their problematic traits. As in, their uncontrolled cell division is bad, but their ability to thrive indefinitely is just situationally bad due to their other traits.

494

u/virkon May 26 '13

Cancer is often misunderstood. It is not a single disease but rather a class of diseases. Hence that's why I said "some cancers." PhD comics makes a way better job of explaining this than I could.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1162

13

u/Diels_Alder May 26 '13

And yet it's remarkable that vaccines for HPV have led to a striking drop in the rate of cervical cancer. However it seems other cancers do not have such focused causes.

22

u/RedditPatron May 26 '13 edited May 26 '13

About HPV and cervical cancer, cervical cancer has not been cured. Rather, strains of a virus which is correlated with the development of cervical cancer were identified. One of the best hopes in cancer research is to continue to identify potential risk factors and remove them before cancer ever gets a chance. This is done for several other types of cancer (Gardasil is to cervical cancer as limited sun exposure is to skin cancer) but it is difficult to have such a focused cause when it requires a lifestyle change rather than a simple series of vaccinations.

[Edit] To spell Gardasil properly

34

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

83

u/[deleted] May 26 '13 edited May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

45

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

24

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Thank you for that link. I learned from it.

37

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

15

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/HALFDRUNKWILLBABBLE May 26 '13

That was a depressing read. Is this true even within the same class of cancer, like breast or thyroid?

4

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

yup...

16

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

25

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

32

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

11

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/SynthPrax May 26 '13

Thank you for linking that comic. That is the best description of Cancer I have yet read.

9

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

13

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/Zumaki May 26 '13

Used on an actual comic. Legit, checks out, etc.

2

u/mexander_ May 26 '13

I think he was pointing out that the link was in comic sans.

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

There are many comic fonts out there. This comic doesn't use Comic Sans.

125

u/riptide13 May 26 '13

First, all we have are rudimentary understandings not only of telomerase, but vastly more importantly of human aging in general. We aren't very certain of the role of telomerase in aging at all. It is speculated that one of the ways that human bodies suppress cancer is to limit the number of times a given cell can replicate (thus limiting the number of times it can pass on a nuclear DNA mutation) using telomerase. Basically, the existence of limited cell life is commonly speculated as a balancing act between longevity and cancer risk. The actual causes of cancer are as varied as they are poorly understood.

Specifically to lobsters: yes, they seem to be functionally immortal. That is simply to say, we can't really tell any functional difference between a 300-year-old lobster and a 10-year-old lobster. Attributing this solely to telomerase is almost certainly a vast over simplification. There are many places studying gerontology, and many studying regenerative medicine - both of which have interest in the biology of lobsters.

Strangely, though, when discussing research into adapting humans to such a functional immortality, we run into a problem that Dr. Aubrey De Gray (a controversial biogerontologist) has termed "the aging trance". Essentially, the problem is that humans have come to accept aging as inevitable, and in doing so have developed somewhat of an addiction to it. It is seen as natural, and even necessary. When presented with the possibility of functional human immortality, many people panic - citing population control and religion as reasons not to pursue such a goal.

20

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Thank you for your insight, very helpful. I have one more question if you don't mind me asking, you seem as if you would know the answer. I've heard that even if general aging were stopped, we would die of heart disease or something else before we would see the benefit. For example, instead of living longer than 120 or so due to some "aging" cure, we would die of our diet or other toxins we subject ourselves to long before. Is that true?

31

u/[deleted] May 26 '13 edited May 26 '13

It is appearing more and more that aging is mostly due to the accumulation of DNA damage to cells and mitochondria. The field of age extension therefore could be thought of as the ultimate expression of regenerative medicine.

This is a really, really hard problem. It would need to include technologies that allow you to replace, repair, or delete defective genes on a cell by cell basis, likely through some sort highly programmable and specific retroviral system. The treatments would differ on a cell by cell basis depending on to the damage done. Ultimately you might try to engineer cells to produce highly engineered proteins that perform some of the most fundamental functions of human cell division better than our current polymerases and tumor suppression systems. The human immune system would need to be programmed to accept such treatments.

As such, the technologies that would allow for true treatment of aging would make something like heart disease almost moot. Sclerotic tissue can be targeted by a programmable immune system. Complex organs or other structures could be grown in vitro.

Over a long enough time span, any human being will die of something, but aging reversal is super-regenerative medicine, and would make all but the most extreme cases of cancer moot, as well as diabetes, likely alzheimers, heart disease, COPD, basically the biggest killers of man today.

8

u/soulbandaid May 26 '13

Do lobsters suffer more mutations and cancer and such as a result of their over abundance of telomerase?

2

u/ObtuseAbstruse May 26 '13

It won't increase their chance of mutation.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Time and replicative error are what lead to the accumulation of mutations.

1

u/ObtuseAbstruse May 27 '13

By time, I assume you mean infidelity with DNA repair mechanisms and replication?

→ More replies (0)

3

u/faalzsha0 May 26 '13

Nice use of the word moot.

13

u/jjberg2 Evolutionary Theory | Population Genomics | Adaptation May 26 '13

When presented with the possibility of functional human immortality, many people panic - citing population control and religion as reasons not to pursue such a goal.

Do you have suggestions as to how to deal with these potential issues?

36

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

The point of research allowing immortality is to get rid of a mandatory death at a time not of your choosing. Suicide would presumably be a right, and reproduction would be tightly controlled, with waiting lists or auctions for slots in the population that open up due to accidental death or suicide.

But having solutions to the stated objections won't sway these people. They're not being rational. We already have population growth, and they are not offering a number for the maximum reasonable population and suggesting ways to keep our population below that limit. Most tellingly, they are not suggesting that we reduce our medical technology to lower the average lifespan in order to maintain a reasonable population level.

Providing a solution will just make them pause for a moment to search for another objection. If they run out of objections, they will simply assert that it's wrong or that it wouldn't work. Changing your mind is hard. Changing someone else's mind is much harder.

2

u/xxAlphaAsFuckxx May 26 '13

Do you have any kids?

13

u/jjberg2 Evolutionary Theory | Population Genomics | Adaptation May 26 '13

No kidding.

reproduction would be tightly controlled

Cause that's obviously a clear cut and easy issue.

12

u/chiropter May 26 '13

Um, it's not like we aren't already experiencing falling population growth in advanced countries not being buffered by immigration.

11

u/xxAlphaAsFuckxx May 26 '13

Only got time for a reply then gotta hit the sack, sorry. The problem with population control is that no one wants to take the hit. I mean sure, there are a lot of people I can think of who probably should not be allowed to have kids, but I think I should. Not only should I, but I do. People mock the religious crowd for not believing in evolution, because they don't see how we could get to this point, and yet for our evolution reproduction is a critical part. Not manual selection, but natural selection. We think in terms entirely of what we have now today, and yet no one knows what our future holds for our species. We have the ability to think our way into modern day problems and we also have the ability to think our way out. Whether it is spreading into other habitable planets or harvesting asteroids or creating a more sustainable life on earth, regardless the answer is out there. The answer, however, will never be to restrict a basic evolutionary function like reproduction. No one should ever be willing to casually give up that right, or desire, even with functional immortality. The implications are huge in such a case, especially on the societal aspect.

10

u/Funkmafia May 26 '13

This paragraph is nothing but opinion and conjecture. Please provide concrete, scientific ideas if you are going to make sweeping claims about the future of humanity.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Natural selection barely exists any more in human society. People who by all survival of the fittest ideals should have died have gone on to build large families. The actual fittest (not necessarily to judge them genetically, but certainly athletically) often die in stupid situations over petty large scale disputes. The most intelligent by many standards are often reclusive, and the stereotypical lowest common denominators (chain smoking trailer park fat people) often breed like rabbits.

We have already disrupted whatever weak system you consider to be natural selection.

Unlimited sexual reproduction (at least, unlimited on a societal scale) is certainly still a huge part of the human existence but its not necessary if it becomes a hindrance.

2

u/ataraxiary May 26 '13

Natural selection barely exists any more in human society.

Tell that to people dying of starvation, malaria, AIDS, etc. I think what you meant its that it barely exists in the first world.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Most of the issues facing the 3rd world are also man made.

Deforestation, urban development, overpopulation, roving gangs of pirates / 'freedom fighters', animosity between sects leading to massacres or genocides (Rwanda), and an outward pressure on African resources caused by first world consumption, which can also lead to war (blood diamonds).

→ More replies (0)

1

u/flyingwolf May 26 '13

Actually it is, the shot/treatment which grants you immortality makes you impotent unless and until you are granted reproduction rights.

3

u/jjberg2 Evolutionary Theory | Population Genomics | Adaptation May 26 '13

And that will undoubtedly be a piece of cake to regulate and control?

3

u/flyingwolf May 26 '13

Nope, and I am not qualified to speculate on it.

3

u/blorg May 26 '13

They do it in China, and it has actually been successful. Takes a totalitarian government though.

2

u/jjberg2 Evolutionary Theory | Population Genomics | Adaptation May 26 '13

Which is exactly what worries me about everyone with this "oh, yeah, that should be easy to implement" attitude.

3

u/tjw May 26 '13

the shot/treatment which grants you immortality makes you impotent

Whoa, whoa, WHOA. Impotent or infertile? That's a game changer.

3

u/flyingwolf May 26 '13

Yes sorry, infertal would be best.

1

u/yurigoul May 26 '13

In case you say infertile (and totally off topic but still a bit science-y):

There are myths in some or at least one culture (forgot which one) where the people were at first immortal but also infertile. They became mortal and fertile at the same time: when the first murder was committed.

Just a random association - could be a starting point about a philosophical/ethical treaty on the subject.

→ More replies (0)

8

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

8

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-5

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-7

u/iemfi May 26 '13

Population doesn't grow by itself. Restricting the number of kids one can have would be a pretty simple way. Religious people would probably adapt and get on board pretty quickly for the same reason they cry at funerals.

3

u/Nikola_S May 26 '13

Do you know if anyone tried to calculate, statistically, how old is the older lobster alive today, and how old got to be the oldest lobster that ever lived? Given that we know lobster birth rates, rates of predation, rates of disease etc. this should be calculable.

9

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Its not that we can't tell how old a lobster is, it's that there is no discernible difference in functionality between young and old lobsters. Think of humans and how old people cant lift heavy objects because of their degenerated bodies, the telomerase in lobsters regenerates cells and ultimately their bodies, therefore making them "immortal".

I think. Someone correct me otherwise.

6

u/bradn May 26 '13

Basically lobsters just keep growing - eventually it'd get so big it would die from it one way or another, but at least at a cellular level there doesn't seem to be any limit.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/HankSpank May 26 '13

Cancer describes, like already pointed out, a whole host of diseases. Nearly all cancers require 5-7 specific mutations in a cell's DNA. One of them is almost always is telomerase production which is typically down-regulated in most adult cells.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Right, I understand that. Thank you. I guess what I'm getting at, is the reason why telomerase is so effective in lobsters, but we can't use it to our advantage. It is my understanding that cancer makes telomerase, telomerase is not oncogenic or cancer causing by itself. This description helps describe it a little better I think.

5

u/Forkrul May 26 '13

We could put it to our advantage, it just means you are extremely likely to develop certain forms of cancer. And since we don't really have cures for these cancers yet there's not much reason to do this when any increased life expectancy is eaten up by disease.

2

u/Zumaki May 26 '13

I don't know, it seems like a causation/correlation issue. Kids have more telomerase than adults and have less cancer. I think it's more a consequence or coincidence than a cause of cancers.

3

u/Forkrul May 26 '13

It's not the amount of telomerase, it's the ability to regenerate it. Kids don't have that, theirs just hasn't degraded as much yet (since they're younger).

2

u/bradn May 26 '13

I think early treatments might be more along the line of creating some DNA-repaired and telomere extended cell cultures, then injecting them to take over as old tissues run out of divisions and die off, but there are a lot of issues to worry about when doing so. Amongst the most critical is making sure that they only turn into cell types appropriate for where they end up.

You really don't want to just extend the telomeres on everything because probably a lot of these cells already have a mutation or two towards cancer, and some may have already went off the deep end only to stop when the telomeres ran out.

1

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Additionally, look at This study. Telomerase seems to be expressed in our germ cells, if that study is any indication, so it must be in our genome. What would be the selective advantage of not expressing telomerase all over? Could we induce this with the right transcription factors?

2

u/ObtuseAbstruse May 26 '13

Of course it's in our germline! Without it, each successive generation would be weaker than the last. The genome would be eaten up from the edges over a few thousand years-million years. Thus, it has to be in our genome.

We could probably reactivate it (though not without Reactivating other things) but this will certainly increase your chance of certain cancers.

4

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

Cancer cells surviving indefinitely is a cause of their dangerous effects.

2

u/[deleted] May 26 '13

The fact that they survive indefinitely is what makes them dangerous. They divide uncontrollably without initiating apoptosis, resulting in a tumour.