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

Steve Chambers steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz
Sat Nov 11 01:30:17 EST 1995

In <30A38FE7.1CFB at evolving.com> Gregory Bloom <gjb at evolving.com> writes:
>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.

That's only if what you and I refer to as "aging" is the result of
loss of cell doubling potential (ie. the "Hayflick limit".)  I'd love to
see some evidence that it is.

Besides which, an immortalised cell line quickly loses it's resemblance
to the cell type from which it arose - in other words it's damaged, or
"aged" might be a better word ;-)


(I_lurk,_therefore_I_am!_\  ,,,                           Steve Chambers
                           (o o)          steve at chambers.ak.planet.co.nz

More information about the Ageing mailing list

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