Tom Mahoney wrote:
> Many cells in rodents such as "normal diploid rodent fibroblasts"
> possess active telomerase throughout their proliferative life span
> and are basically already immortalized, see Oncogene 16(13):1723-30.
So why do they have a finite (indeed, short) proliferative lifespan?
Incidentally, that paper happens to note that "With continued passage,
the entry of cultures into a slow growth senescent phase (passage 10-20)
was associated with ... constant mTERT expression".
> Unpublished work has shown that mouse telomeres are stabilized in those
> mouse cells that don't normally express telomerase such as spleen and
> kidney cells. These cells have shown an unlimited replicative capacity
> and normal phenotype expression with the ectopic introduction of mTERT,
> (mouse telomerase reverse transcriptase component).
Whose unpublished work?
> The issue is not of such import as to suggest a separate paper on the
> subject and those involved with the research accept it as self evident
> based on the results of human hTRT.
Tom, you are just unbelievable. I have painstakingly explained to you
why it is the very opposite of self-evident. If those involved with
the research think otherwise then they are extremely ill-informed, and
if they don't realise that such a result would merit rapid publication
-- in a prestigious journal -- then perhaps you should enlighten them.
Such ignorance of the issues does not exactly inspire confidence in the
results you report.
Again: Who are they? If they don't want to be named, please explain
why not.
> It is of interest that ... some mouse cells
> can become immortalized in the absence of telomerase
> Another interesting note regarding life span in mice was recently
> published
These may indeed be of interest, but they do not bear in the slightest
on your original contention that telomerase immortalises mouse cells.
Stop confusing the issue. You are only compounding your error.
Aubrey de Grey
