I could be completely wrong, but
Ten years ago, we thought aging was probably the result of a slow decay, a sort of rusting. But Professor Kenyon has shown that it’s ... controlled by genes.
Weren't those researching age saying the exact same thing only reversed, ten years ago? (ie, that ten years previously they thought aging was genetically determined, but they've now show that it's just a slow decay).
I'm having a bit of a "would you make up your minds" reaction to this.
I thought the current version was "Decay counterbalanced by repairs, genes control how active repairs are".
TEDGlobal 2011- Cynthia Kenyon: Experiments that Hint at Longer Lives
Video Link: http://www.ted.com/talks/cynthia_kenyon_experiments_that_hint_of_longer_lives.html
Speaker's Bio (from TED):
Summary:
Different animals have different lifespans (i.e. mice- 2years, v. bat- 50 years) There must be something in the genes for aging, so you should be able to change the aging gene to expand life span.
They did experiments on a roundworm and found that mutations that damage a gene called daf-2 could double the worm’s lifespan. The daf-2 gene encodes a hormone receptor which promotes aging. (similar to the ones that promote food uptake and growth.)
They did the same mutation in flies and mice, and it worked on them.
People who lived to 90-100 in a population of Ashkenazi Jews were more likely to have mutations to daf-2 which would make it work less well. They are also less susceptible to things like cancer and age related deseases.
She explains how and why it works.
Follow-up questions about- Certain animals that don’t have aging. And can we do this by changing genes instead of developing a medication. (She says that would be a bad idea).