Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.



Yup. You're right.

But will you go there if we beg; perhaps offering a bribe of a sundae with a
cherry on top?



I don't want to go there because I don't really know the answer.
*grin* But for a sundae (in hand), I'd make a point of finding out...

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"J Fortuna" wrote in message ...
I think I read somewhere that orchids
are mainly or only identifiable as orchids because of the flowers, and so I
am thinking that there could be a plant species out there that would be an
orchid if only it did flower but it never does.

I'm reading what everybody is writing here and trying to absorb it.

I did just want to add something to J Fortuna's sentence above. It's
kind of an aside...

For the masses of us, orchids are 'mainly' identified by specific
flower parts that other flowering plants don't have, i.e. the column
and by the arrangement of petals and sepals and that odd
petal-turned-lip-or-pouch thingy. However, the seed is very different
and probably unique to the family and so is the recently germinated
baby plant; before the embyro develops leaves, roots or stems, it
makes something called a protocorm, (which may be stem tissue for all
I know). If you gave me a sufficiently large bit of pollen from a
plant I would probably be able to tell if it came from an orchid.
It's that unique. Pollen from the slipper group would probably prove
my undoing. Maybe.

I want to understand this stuff, but it is way beyond me. Only the
most general concepts just beyond red and white pea plants are firmly
fixed...

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.

Go ahead, go there...

Rob Halgren wrote in message ...
This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.

Go ahead, go there...

Rob Halgren wrote in message ...
This isn't my specialty either, but if this does happen, it is
probably a function of telomere length. The telomeres are repetitive
sequence at the end of each chromosome. Due to the way DNA replication
works, you lose a little bit of telomere with every cell division. So,
the sorter the telomeres, the older the organism. Neat... I think this
is one of the more prevalent hypotheses about how the aging function
works. There is probably also a contribution from DNA damage, your DNA
accumulates various mutations and damage over time, and there are
proteins which sense this. Next you are going to ask me how everything
gets reset to 'normal' in the next generation... I don't really want to
go there.

You learn all sorts of things from an orchid newsgroup... *grin*

Rob

Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there. There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Rob

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there.

Thanks!

This is greatly appreciated!

I'll get you a sundae if, or when, we meet (possibly at a show in Michigan,
if I get a chance to go, or at a SOOS show in Toronto, should you get a
chance to attend that ;-) I'll even throw in a coffee ;-).

There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?

Cheers,

Ted

"Rob Halgren" wrote in message
...
Al wrote:

One of the things I remember about Dolly the cloned sheep is that,
while they able to reset the sequence of events in the genes and grow
her up from cells of her mother, they started with cells of a specific
age, as measured by the telomere length, so dolly, even as a "baby"
sheep, was subject to the same age related problems as her mother,
since her cells were biologically the same age. They were not able to
reset the clock built into the genes but only restart the sequence.



Ok, I'll go there.

Thanks!

This is greatly appreciated!

I'll get you a sundae if, or when, we meet (possibly at a show in Michigan,
if I get a chance to go, or at a SOOS show in Toronto, should you get a
chance to attend that ;-) I'll even throw in a coffee ;-).

There is a critter called telomerase which adds
telomere repeats to the ends of chromosomes. In the real world, it is
only expressed in a very limited set of cells, for a very limited time.
So your germ cells may have this enzyme turned on, but your skin cells
won't. In fact, turning on telomerase activity in somatic (body) cells
has been associated with cancer progression. So, since Dolly was cloned
from a somatic cell (I don't know which kind), the poor little ewe
started out with shorter telomeres than she should have.

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?

So, we could turn telomerase back on in all your cells... This
might make your cells 'young' again. However, you would get terrible
cancers and die. So that isn't really the answer now, is it? *grin*

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?

Cheers,

Ted

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit

Ted Byers wrote:

Interesting. I wonder if they could have rejuvenated the cell Dolly was
made from, before it began to divide, by turning back on. If so, would it
turn itself off again at the right time, or would an intervention be
required to turn it off later? Or is an exprimental manipulation to
lengthen the telomeres without turning on the gene (perhaps be extracting
the genetic material, manipulating it and then putting it back)?



I'd wager that somebody is working on something similar. I don't
really know what is going on in the cloning world. I do know it isn't
quite as simple as just resetting telomere length. DNA damage and
(perhaps) the accumulation of damage in long lived proteins play a role
as well. Interestingly, this doesn't really apply to orchids, which
are effectively immortal. Or if it does, the meristematic region of an
orchid would be the equivalent of an eternally young tissue. It is
interesting to consider what mechanism could allow a plant to continue
to grow forever, but limits the age of animals.

Nope! But then, those who fear death would likely want it examined in
animals to see if the problems associated with turning telomerase on can be
avoided, in an effort to prolong life. Through my own chronic illness (no
safe, effective treatment and uncontrollable pain: less than a 50% chance of
living to age 65 according to the latest stats I've seen), I have learned
not only not to fear death but to see it as a welcome friend. What good is
a prolonged life if you don't have your health?


Indeed, and I wish you well with your illness. The worst day above
the ground is better than the best below it... I'm reasonably confident
there will be ways to prolong quality life in the very near future.
There already have been substantial advances in lifespan and quality of
life, just in the last 50 years or so. By quality I mean active and
healthy. So if people could be as active at 80 as they are at 60, that
would be a substantial improvement, even if total lifespan didn't
increase. Prolonging life is no good, if that extra time is spent in
hospital. This will end up really changing our social structure, of
course, and I don't know if we are ready for it yet. We'll probably all
need to work until 80 anyway, just to pay off the U.S. deficit.

--
Rob's Rules: http://www.msu.edu/~halgren
1) There is always room for one more orchid
2) There is always room for two more orchids
2a. See rule 1
3) When one has insufficient credit to purchase
more orchids, obtain more credit