From sea to shining sea
FReepers love Free Republic
Give what you can afford
Or sign up to donate monthly
and a sponsoring FReeper will donate $10
Urgent: Save Lazamataz! Donate today
Posted on 04/20/2011 8:53:53 AM PDT by decimon
Animals that reproduce asexually by somatic cloning have special mechanisms that delay ageing provide exceptionally good health. Scientists at the University of Gothenburg have shown how colony-forming ascidians (or sea squirts) can activate the enzyme telomerase, which protects DNA. This enzyme is more active also in humans who attain an advanced age.
"Animals that clone themselves, in which part of an individual's body is passes on to the next generations, have particularly interesting conditions related to remaining in good health to persist. This makes it useful to study these animals in order to understand mechanisms of ageing in humans", says Helen Nilsson Sköld of the Department of Marine Ecology, University of Gothenburg.
There are enormous differences in the lengths of life of the Earth's species. Some animals and plants that reproduce asexually can in principle achieve essentially eternal life; there are examples of deep-sea corals that are tens of thousands of years old. Helen Nilsson Sköld has decided to study sea squirts and starfish, which are species whose genes resemble closely those of humans.
"My research has shown that sea squirts rejuvenate themselves by activating the enzyme telomerase, and in this way extending their chromosomes and protecting their DNA. They also have a special ability to discard 'junk' from their cells. Older parts of the animal are quite simply broken down, and are then partially recycled when new and healthy parts grow out from the adult bodies."
Some species of starfish reproduce asexually by tearing apart their bodies, while others reproduce sexually only. This makes them particularly interesting animals to study. Both types of starfish can reconstruct lost body parts, but the species that reproduce asexually have considerably better health.
However, one consequence of asexual reproduction is that the species as a whole will have a very low genetic variation. This means that they will be particularly vulnerable to climate change, and the subsequent new types of changes in the environment. There is a high risk that these animals and plants will lose out – and then we will lose important knowledge about the riddle of ageing.
Ping
Let’s see, sex or eternal life as “Animals that reproduce asexually by somatic cloning”?
I don’t know, who really wants to live forever!
Have you actually tried somatic cloning? Ya never know, ya know.
Well, I always knew that women would be the death of me...
Yeah, but who wants to have sex with themselves?
“who wants to live forever”
I can’t imagine someone not wanting to like forever. The answer is a relationship with Jesus Christ and we are promised eternal life.
I know your comments likely concerned physical life on earth and I know I’d desire a longer life here on earth as well. However I wouldn’t want to trade finite human life for an infinite mindless existence at the bottom of the sea. :-)
Ugh. Just ugh.
Without sex, while you may not live longer, it will seem like it... It would cut down the divorce rate, tho.
Well, it has been suggested to me that I do.
The most important phrase and non-event in modern pseudo-science was just uttered: "Climate change."
Now, starfish have been around forever, practically. They have survived plenty of terrestrial climate change. And in reflecting on the consequences of their genetic non-diversity upon survivability in the face of climate change, we would NOT conclude that they have been shown to be "particularly vulnerable." We know that, short of raising the temperature of the oceans worldwide to levels higher than they have ever been since multi-cellular life emerged, starfish will always be able to find a latitude and depth in which to live.
Conclusion: Just as one little brown excrescence can ruin a whole punchbowl, one little bow in the direction of the climate-change orthodoxy can ruin a whole scientific article.
What a lame presser! If they don't name the citation, provide a URL or link, they usually name the journal. What boneheads! The author has only one other citation about melanoma at PubMed.
I even linked to the abstract in post #16. ;-)
Thank you!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.