Scientists find 1500 'ageing' genes that could lead to new treatments

This stylistic diagram shows a gene in relation to the double helix structure of DNA and to a chromosome (right). The chromosome is X-shaped because it is dividing. Introns are regions often found in eukaryote genes that are removed in the splicing process (after the DNA is transcribed into RNA): Only the exons encode the protein. The diagram labels a region of only 55 or so bases as a gene. In reality, most genes are hundreds of times longer. Credit: Thomas Splettstoesser/Wikipedia/CC BY-SA 4.0

Researchers from The University of Queensland have helped identify nearly 1,500 genes associated with ageing that could lead to new health treatments.

Dr Joseph Powell, from UQ's Institute for Molecular Bioscience (IMB), said the discovery, made by an international team of scientists, could lead to improved prevention and treatment for age-related diseases.

"We examined the link between gene activity and ageing, identifying genes that became more or less active as people got older," Dr Powell said.

"This information could be used to predict people who are at risk relative to their age for disease, and allow people to make lifestyle and environmental changes to mitigate that risk.

"While an anti-ageing treatment is still well into the future, this work could provide a roadmap for developing new treatments for age-related diseases."

The team made the discovery by studying gene activity levels in the blood of over 15,000 people, pinpointing 1,497 age-associated genes, most of which were previously either not known or not linked with ageing.

The UQ researchers, including Dr Powell and Professor Peter Visscher from UQ's Queensland Brain Institute, used this information to develop a new method of predicting biological age based on gene activity profiles.

"Participants with a higher biological age, meaning their predicted age based on their gene activity profile was higher than their actual chronological age, also had worse disease risk profiles, for example, increased blood pressure and cholesterol levels," Dr Powell said.

"Conversely, some participants had a lower biological age, indicating they may be healthier than others of the same chronological age."

The method has been incorporated into a website where researchers analysing human gene activity data can predict the of their participants, and assess whether participants are ageing faster or slower than expected.

The study also identified that the changes in levels that occur as we age appear in conjunction with changes to the enhancer regions of DNA, which can act as dimmer switches to regulate the activity of genes.

"This study has illuminated some of the underlying molecular mechanisms that cause your disease susceptibility to rise as you age, opening new avenues for future studies," Dr Powell said.

Explore further

Early warning gene signature for Alzheimer's

More information: Marjolein J. Peters et al. The transcriptional landscape of age in human peripheral blood, Nature Communications (2015). DOI: 10.1038/ncomms9570
Journal information: Nature Communications

Citation: Scientists find 1500 'ageing' genes that could lead to new treatments (2015, October 23) retrieved 24 August 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Oct 23, 2015
Excerpt: "This study has illuminated some of the underlying molecular mechanisms that cause your disease susceptibility to rise as you age, opening new avenues for future studies," Dr Powell said.

Also reported as: These Are the Genes Linked to Aging

"RNA is quite dynamic, since it's responsive to processes in our tissues and cells," he says. "If we get sick, say with the influenza virus, or, in this case, if we get old, and we've had a more challenging lifestyle or been exposed to things in the environment, our RNAs react and can be found at different levels."

In the context of my atoms to ecosystems model and everything currently know about healthy longevity vs virus-driven pathology, it is important to again note that:

The major antigenic changes of the influenza virus are primarily caused by a single amino acid near the receptor binding site. http://comments.s....1244730

Oct 23, 2015
In the context of my atoms to ecosystems model
you mean the model that requires mutations, which you claim are always pathological?
which is already debunked with common biological knowledge?
Based on his writings, both published and unpublished, James Kohl presents an unsupported challenge to modern evolutionary theory and misrepresentations of established scientific terms and others' research. It was a mistake to let such a sloppy review through to be published

there is NO SCIENCE in creationist religious postings

Oct 23, 2015
See also: Your comment on Systems biology (un)certainties has been approved and is now live at http://comments.s...aac9505,

Is anything less that this atoms to ecosystems approach to modeling biologically-based cause and effect going to be acceptable from this point forward?

What this article suggests to me is that others develop models based on nutrient-energy dependent base pair changes, or that their models cannot be validated with experimental evidence.

Structural diversity of supercoiled DNA

Re: "comparisons of supercoiling-dependent twisted, writhed, curved, and kinked conformations and associated base exposure. Each of these structural features may be differentially recognized by the proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules that modulate DNA metabolic processes."

Oct 25, 2015
It was refreshing to see the peer-review influence of numerous coauthors on the study. Papers that are written by only one or two researchers don't often have such frank limitation explanations.

Of course, the blunting influence of decision-making by committee was also evident. For example, the study compared its techniques with the Horvath epigenetic predictor, although 11 of the 22 cohorts included subjects aged 20 or younger. Another study that used epigenetic DNA methylation markers to estimate biological age study pointed out that predictor: "Works poorly for blood samples from subjects who are younger than 20."


Oct 25, 2015
See also: Your comment on Systems biology (un)certainties has been approved and is now live at http://comments.s...aac9505,
Not Found

The page you were trying to reach could not be found.
2- just because you like to troll a Journal and post pseudoscience to Science Magazine doesn't mean you are in ANY way correct or even reputable
from the site
Comments are not reviewed...

Science does not endorse any User Submission or any opinion, recommendation, or advice expressed therein, and Science expressly disclaims any and all liability in connection with User Submissions...

These postings do not necessarily represent the views/opinions of Science
also note: your continued trolling of SciMag only proves you have no credibility, otherwise your "views" would be published in a peer reviewed study, not in a comment section

epic fail

Oct 25, 2015

See also: Inching toward the 3D genome http://comments.s...comments

See also: Video: Altering the human genome in 3D http://news.scien...enome-3d

If anyone thinks they can make a case for mutation-driven evolution of organized 3D genomes, see also: Quantum interpretations feel the heat https://www.scien...eel-heat

Excerpt: "But if you throw in thermodynamics — the physics of heat — then a bit of logical deduction and a simple thought experiment can clinch the case for Type II."

you have no credibility, otherwise your "views" would be published in a peer reviewed study

My 2013 review was subjected to standard peer review and the revised version was accepted by the editor after it was accepted by both reviewers. http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Oct 25, 2015
"Works poorly for blood samples from subjects who are younger than 20."

Other evidence reported by Andrew D. Johnson's group clearly show the link from nutrient-dependent microRNAs to organized genomes. When life history transitions are in progress, clear-cut results that link a single RNA-mediated amino acid substitution to differences in morphological and behavioral phenotypes are more difficult to find. That explains why the honeybee model was used to predict the finding reported here: Oppositional COMT Val158Met effects on resting state functional connectivity in adolescents and adults http://link.sprin...4-0895-5

There is no explanation for the amount of ignorance that Captain Stumpy continues to display here -- unless he is in the process of mutating into a new species of biologically uninformed science idiots with dirt for brains.

Oct 25, 2015
See also:
why would we want to read your pseudoscience elsewhere when you fill PO with it regularly?
My 2013 review was subjected to standard peer review
not really: from your magazine Sr. Staff
salut harold,
dis donc c'est chaud le papier de kohl….soit tu va devoir le retirer,
soit tu pubie toutes les tribunes contre : c'est aussi une facon de
démonter la pseudo science. j
translated by google as
hello harold,
So say what's hot in the paper ... kohl. or you will have to remove it,
or you pubie every forum against: it is also a way to
dismantle the pseudo science. j
so kohl, why is it you make claims but the science says otherwise?
why is it everyone else is "biologically uninformed science idiots with dirt for brains" when the EVIDENCE states you're wrong?

that is called Dunning-Kruger

or simply delusional behaviour
which is, of course, perfectly in line with your fanatical religious beliefs

Oct 25, 2015
@jk cont'd
My 2013 review was subjected to standard peer review
also please note that your "model" is cited by exactly ONE person, and that person is A. Jones, BA, in the following: "Criticisms of the nutrient-dependent pheromone-controlled evolutionary model", which is found here: http://www.ncbi.n...4049134/

in said criticism, it demonstrates that you are ignorant of much of biology
it also is the reason that your senior staff of the journal sent the above to the Dr. Mouras that approved it for print.

there is NO time or place for religion in SCIENCE
that is why you have zero credibility among actual scientists. they don't even acknowledge you when you troll SciMag because they know that trying to talk logic to a religious fanatic is like the following:

you go crapping all over the comments with religion and thinking you won something

Oct 25, 2015
please note that your "model" is cited by exactly ONE person, and that person is A. Jones, BA

From 1995 to 2015 the model from my book was used to link atoms to ecosystems across all living genera via their nutrient-dependent physiology of biophysically constrained RNA-mediated protein folding.

The most recent citation to my works is "Role of olfaction in Octopus vulgaris reproduction" http://www.resear...35f4.pdf

The sequencing of the octopus genome has since linked nutrient energy-dependent microRNAs and adhesion molecules to RNA-mediated cell type differentiation in all living genera via supercoiled DNA that protects organized genomes from virus-driven genomic entropy.

you have zero credibility among actual scientists.

I will advise the first person who will link viruses to cell type differentiation in E. coli

Oct 25, 2015
you have zero credibility among actual scientists.

I helped to design the experiment that led to this 2008 report at the Society for Neuroscience annual meeting in Washington DC. I attended, but the student presented the findings. "Olfactory/pheromonal input and human female proceptive sexual behaviors/preferences" Conclusion: "Our results suggest that combining the known hormonal effects of androstenol with the possible behavioral affects of androsterone may help to extend non-human animal models of chemical communication to humans."

I was the external examiner for an honors thesis by a different student who was bold enough to ask her university to bring me in for the defense of her thesis. It cost the university several hundred dollars to do that and they graciously paid all my expenses plus paid a fee directly to me.

I also won a monetary award for publication of http://www.sexarc...kohl.htm and all expenses were paid to present it.

Oct 26, 2015
I helped...I was...I also won...from my book ...I will advise
self aggrandizement with no credibility?
you've also been proven to be a chronic liar WRT interpretations of science here on PO (100% failure rate)

you've also been proven to be incapable of learning relevant scientific facts, from communication of said science (be it definitions to interpretations) to your failure to accept validated experimental evidence (Lenski, Extavour, et al)

thus, by definition, your narcissistic posting above is simply reinforcing my point and demonstrating you have no factual presentations of evidence to support your creationist religion and pseudoscience

see also: http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

you are continuing to validate the above study

Oct 26, 2015
self aggrandizement with no credibility?

Precisely the opposite. My claims merely attest to my expertise. Your claims attest to your ignorance.

Oct 26, 2015
Precisely the opposite
Actually, not
it doesn't attest to your expertise any more than it proves Faeries exist or your creationist beliefs are valid. it is called "argument from authority fallacy"

considering that i've proven you to be a chronic liar WRT evidence and interpretation on PO alone, then this is demonstrating that you have no actual evidenciary based argument that is valid, thus you appeal to your perceived authority

problem with your "perceived" authority is that it is negligible in the face of evidence, which directly refutes your claims, be they "creationist" or other religious claims or your "debunking of Evolution" or any of your stupidity like "all mutations are pathological" etc

using logic, your attempts to argue from authority make you look even worse, as it DEMONSTRATES you have no evidence

this is called fanatical

Oct 28, 2015
This is evidence of pseudoscientific nonsense:

lncRNA genes are a disparate set of loci related only by their size (more than
200 bases in length), are non-homologous, and have variable functions [5]. Their discovery has been further complicated because they are expressed at very low levels, sometimes only at specific developmental stages, and in specific tissues [6].

See also: http://medicalxpr...ome.html Researchers discover more than 3,000 genes in a little-studied part of the human genome
"The genes we found are called long non-coding RNAs, or LncRNAs," said Gay Crooks,

If true, does this mean there are now 3000 more genes in the human genome?

See: A gene is the basic physical and functional unit of heredity. Genes, which are made up of DNA, act as instructions to make molecules called proteins.

Oct 28, 2015
If there are not 3000 more genes in the human genome, the lncRNAs are not genes and the pseudoscientific nonsense touted by those who claim they have discovered new genes can be placed into the context of genes that automagically "evolved' via the assumptions of population geneticists who linked de Vries definition of mutation to the evolution of new genes and new species.

That pseudoscientific nonsense about mutations and new genes and new species can also be viewed in the context of experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect that links atoms to ecosystems via RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that differentiate all cell types in all individuals of all living genera. Fixation of the substitutions occurs in the context of the nutrient-dependent physiology of reproduction, not mutation-driven evolution.

See: Nutrient-dependent/pheromone-controlled adaptive evolution: a model.http://www.ncbi.n...24693353

Oct 28, 2015
the lncRNAs are not genes

The RNAs themselves are not genes, this is true. i don't know why Crooks worded it that way, but what he's referring to is the part of the genome from which those RNAs are transcribed.

Oct 28, 2015
What are these authors referring to as eQTLs?

Human expression QTLs are enriched in signals of environmental adaptation http://www.ncbi.n...3787676/

Do you realize that your criticisms of my model were also criticisms of their model?

Do you know how much ignorance you expressed in your criticisms by citing Nei's book and PZ Myers blog when this article was published in 2013, a few month's after mine?

Crook's wording is much like yours. You both have no idea of how cell type differentiation occurs so you must grasp at the straws of theory as they blow away in the wind. Catch as many as you can and try to put them back into another bundle of pseudoscientific nonsense -- but realize, NO ONE WILL EVER TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY, AGAIN. -- except Captain Stumpy and Vietvet.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more