« Los Alamos computer disk was 'traded for meth' | Main | US election: Here come the big guns »

Nature Podcast 02 November

On this week's Nature Podcast we cover rejuvenating resveratrol, retinoblastoma mutations, enforcing insect altruism, conservation strategies, E. coli's coat, cool quantum states, loose marsupials, and have a special on science and Islam.

Listen | About


For this week's topic for discussion see our Islam and Science special and check the Nature Newsblog


To SUBSCRIBE to the Nature Podcast for FREE copy and paste this URL into iTunes or your preferred media player or RSS reader:
http://www.nature.com/nature/podcast/rss/nature.xml

Posted by Arran Frood on November 1, 2006 07:28 PM |

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1395

Comments

The resveratrol story sounds truly fascinating, but if resveratrol is supposed to mimic the effects of calorie restriction there is one thing that worries me:
Studies with C. elegans and yeast have lead to the concept that there is a trade-off between reproductive capacity and longevity. Longevity caused by calorie restriction helps the organism to survive times when food is scarce - which is when reproduction makes no evolutionary sense. Activation of the SIRT1 pathway in mammals could therefore also lead to such reproductive deficiencies. This would be a rather nasty side effect for resveratrol and other sirtuin-activating drugs (which are developed right now) because it would be inevitably coupled with the targeted pathway.
In their study, Sinclair et al did not provide any data associated with fertility or mating behaviour. I think it would be a really interesting question to address, but they should hurry to do so before all the mice of the study are dead ;-) I'm pretty sure they also have a control group though, which recieves a standard diet plus resveratrol and would live even longer, so maybe they use these to check that.

PS: One could only sell a drug with such "side effects" to elderly people who do not want to have children anymore, but the rejuvenating effects would diminish the later you are taking the drug. If you have to decide as a young guy if you want to take a drug that makes you, let's say, live 20 years longer but would prevent you from having children - what would you do? Just imagine the socioeconomic consequences for society, when people are getting even older for the sake of not having children...
PPS: I'm wondering if anybody working on sirtuins is reading this...

Posted by: Christoph Schmitt | November 5, 2006 05:09 PM

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by staff before being published. You can be as critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Excessively long entries may be cropped. Remember this is for feedback and discussion - not for publishing papers or press releases.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. Email addresses are required: this is just in case we need to discuss your comment with you privately. They won’t be published.


Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'inthefield at nature.com'.

Search