"Programmed" .vs. cumulative damage causes of cell-cycle failure

Gregory Bloom gjb at evolving.com
Fri Nov 10 12:46:15 EST 1995

It appears to me that owing to the continued success of immortalized
cell lines in dividing and thriving in spite of the usual environmental
assults from OH- radicals, glycolization, methylation, etc., the
question of "programmed" .vs. cumulative cell damage as the primary
cause of ageing swings heavily in favor of the "programmed" causes.

This being so, does it make much sense to invest heavily in 
antioxidants, dietary restriction, exercize and other lifestyle
modifications, when the best they can offer is to perhaps sustain
the life of cells which have already "'flicked out" past their
Hayflick limit?  Might it make more sense for us to invest the
money and time we dedicate toward these "optimization" measures
into institutions that are actively persuing the "programmatic"
problems of cell-cycle failure?  Should I save up my vitamin money
to buy biotech stocks?


Gregory Bloom  mailto:Gregory.Bloom at evolving.com  vox:303.740.5706
fax:303.740.5800  ESI, 6892 S. Yosemite Court, Englewood, CO 80111

More information about the Ageing mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net