Anti-Aging Cocktail Extends Mouse Lifespan by About 30 Percent
Scientists in Europe have tested an anti-aging drug cocktail in mice and found that it extended the animals' lifespans by around 30 percent. The mice stayed healthier for longer too, with less chronic inflammation and delayed cancer onset.
The two drugs are rapamycin and trametinib, which are both used to treat different types of cancer. Rapamycin is also often used to prevent organ rejection, and has shown promise in extending lifespans in animal tests. Trametinib, meanwhile, has been shown to extend the lifespan of fruit flies, but whether that worked in larger animals remained to be seen.
So for a new study, a research team led by scientists from the Max Planck Institute in Germany investigated how both drugs, on their own and together, could extend lifespan in mice.
True to its reputation, rapamycin alone was found to extend the lifespan of mice by 17 to 18 percent. Trametinib wasn't too bad either, boosting longevity by 7 to 16 percent. But when their powers combined, treated mice saw a significant lifespan extension of around 26 to 35 percent.
The extra time added to the animals' lifespans weren't merely offset by frailty and illness, though. The combo treatment delayed the growth of liver and spleen tumors in the mice, and reduced age-related inflammation in the brain, kidney, spleen, and muscle. The animals seemed to be more active at advanced ages compared to control mice, with reduced body weight and a slower decline in heart function.
As intriguing as the results are, we shouldn't expect to be able to pop some pills and live to 130. Instead, the most promising aspect for human applications might be in improving the quality of our twilight years.
"While we do not expect a similar extension to human lifespans as we found in mice, we hope that the drugs we're investigating could help people to stay healthy and disease-free for longer late in life," says geneticist Linda Partridge, co-senior author of the study.
"Further research in humans in years to come will help us to elucidate how these drugs may be useful to people, and who might be able to benefit."
To test the drugs, the researchers fed hundreds of mice regular doses of rapamycin, trametinib, or both from six months of age, and measured their survival for the rest of their lives. While benefits were seen from either drug alone, the best outcomes came from the combined treatment.
Median lifespans were increased by 34.9 percent in female mice and 27.4 percent in males, while maximum lifespans increased by 32.4 percent in females and 26.1 percent in males.
The team says that the benefits of the drug combo don't seem to be simply down to a higher dose. Although both drugs act on the same signaling pathway – known as the Ras/Insulin/TOR network – they target different points. When the researchers analyzed gene expression, they found certain changes only occur when both drugs are given.
Importantly, no extra side effects were seen from combining the drugs, outside of those already known for each alone.
Human trials for the drug combo could begin relatively soon. Both drugs are already approved for use in humans in the US and European Union, with anti-aging benefits hinted at in previous studies. Rapamycin, for example, seemed to extend the fertility of perimenopausal women by up to five years in one recent study.
The research was published in the journal Nature Aging.
Sudden Death Among Professional Bodybuilders Raises Health Concerns
Microbe From Man's Wound Able to Feed on Hospital Plastic
Exposure to Daylight Boosts The Immune System, Study Suggests
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Verge
12 hours ago
- The Verge
You sound like ChatGPT
Join any Zoom call, walk into any lecture hall, or watch any YouTube video, and listen carefully. Past the content and inside the linguistic patterns, you'll find the creeping uniformity of AI voice. Words like 'prowess' and 'tapestry,' which are favored by ChatGPT, are creeping into our vocabulary, while words like 'bolster,' 'unearth,' and 'nuance,' words less favored by ChatGPT, have declined in use. Researchers are already documenting shifts in the way we speak and communicate as a result of ChatGPT — and they see this linguistic influence accelerating into something much larger. In the 18 months after ChatGPT was released, speakers used words like 'meticulous,' 'delve,' 'realm,' and 'adept' up to 51 percent more frequently than in the three years prior, according to researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Human Development, who analyzed close to 280,000 YouTube videos from academic channels. The researchers ruled out other possible change points before ChatGPT's release and confirmed these words align with those the model favors, as established in an earlier study comparing 10,000 human- and AI-edited texts. The speakers don't realize their language is changing. That's exactly the point. One word, in particular, stood out to researchers as a kind of linguistic watermark. 'Delve' has become an academic shibboleth, a neon sign in the middle of every conversation flashing ChatGPT was here. 'We internalize this virtual vocabulary into daily communication,' says Hiromu Yakura, the study's lead author and a postdoctoral researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development. ''Delve' is only the tip of the iceberg.' But it's not just that we're adopting AI language — it's about how we're starting to sound. Even though current studies mostly focus on vocabulary, researchers suspect that AI influence is starting to show up in tone, too — in the form of longer, more structured speech and muted emotional expression. As Levin Brinkmann, a research scientist at the Max Planck Institute of Human Development and a coauthor of the study, puts it, ''Delve' is only the tip of the iceberg.' AI shows up most obviously in functions like smart replies, autocorrect, and spellcheck. Research out of Cornell looks at our use of smart replies in chats, finding that use of smart replies increases overall cooperation and feelings of closeness between participants, since users end up selecting more positive emotional language. But if people believed their partner was using AI in the interaction, they rated their partner as less collaborative and more demanding. Crucially, it wasn't actual AI usage that turned them off — it was the suspicion of it. We form perceptions based on language cues, and it's really the language properties that drive those impressions, says Malte Jung, Associate Professor of Information Science at Cornell University and a co-author of the study. This paradox — AI improving communication while fostering suspicion — points to a deeper loss of trust, according to Mor Naaman, professor of Information Science at Cornell Tech. He has identified three levels of human signals that we've lost in adopting AI into our communication. The first level is that of basic humanity signals, cues that speak to our authenticity as a human being like moments of vulnerability or personal rituals, which say to others, 'This is me, I'm human.' The second level consists of attention and effort signals that prove 'I cared enough to write this myself.' And the third level is ability signals which show our sense of humor, our competence, and our real selves to others. It's the difference between texting someone, 'I'm sorry you're upset' versus 'Hey sorry I freaked at dinner, I probably shouldn't have skipped therapy this week.' One sounds flat; the other sounds human. For Naaman, figuring out how to bring back and elevate these signals is the path forward in AI-mediated communication, because AI is not only changing language — but what we think. 'Even on dating sites, what does it mean to be funny on your profile or in chat anymore where we know that AI can be funny for you?' Naaman asks. The loss of agency starting in our speech and moving into our thinking, in particular, is what he is worried about. 'Instead of articulating our own thoughts, we articulate whatever AI helps us to articulate…we become more persuaded.' Without these signals, Naaman warns, we'll only trust face-to-face communication — not even video calls. We lose the verbal stumbles, regional idioms, and off-kilter phrases that signal vulnerability, authenticity, and personhood The trust problem compounds when you consider that AI is quietly establishing who gets to sound 'legitimate' in the first place. University of California, Berkeley research found that AI responses often contained stereotypes or inaccurate approximations when prompted to use dialects other than Standard American English. Examples of this include ChatGPT repeating the prompt back to the non-Standard-American-English user due to lack of comprehension and exaggerating the input dialect significantly. One Singaporean English respondent commented, 'the super exaggerated Singlish in one of the responses was slightly cringeworthy.' The study revealed that AI doesn't just prefer Standard American English, it actively flattens other dialects in ways that can demean their speakers. This system perpetuates inaccuracies not only about communities but also about what 'correct' English is. So the stakes aren't just about preserving linguistic diversity — they're about protecting the imperfections that actually build trust. When everyone around us starts to sound 'correct,' we lose the verbal stumbles, regional idioms, and off-kilter phrases that signal vulnerability, authenticity, and personhood. We're approaching a splitting point, where AI's impacts on how we speak and write move between the poles of standardization, like templating professional emails or formal presentations, and authentic expression in personal and emotional spaces. Between those poles, there are three core tensions at play. Early backlash signals, like academics avoiding 'delve' and people actively trying not to sound like AI, suggests we may self-regulate against homogenization. AI systems themselves will likely become more expressive and personalized over time, potentially reducing the current AI voice problem. And the deepest risk of all, as Naaman pointed to, is not linguistic uniformity but losing conscious control over our own thinking and expression. The future isn't predetermined between homogenization and hyperpersonalization: it depends on whether we'll be conscious participants in that change. We're seeing early signs that people will push back when AI influence becomes too obvious, while technology may evolve to better mirror human diversity rather than flatten it. This isn't a question about whether AI will continue shaping how we speak — because it will — but whether we'll actively choose to preserve space for the verbal quirks and emotional messiness that make communication recognizably, irreplaceably human.
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Our Galaxy's Monster Black Hole Is Spinning Almost as Fast as Physics Allows
The colossal black hole lurking at the center of the Milky Way galaxy is spinning almost as fast as its maximum rotation rate. That's just one thing astrophysicists have discovered after developing and applying a new method to tease apart the secrets still hidden in supermassive black hole observations collected by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT). The unprecedented global collaboration spent years working to give us the first direct images of the shadows of black holes, first with M87* in a galaxy 55 million light-years away, then with Sgr A*, the supermassive black hole at the heart of our own galaxy. These images are incredible – but also difficult to interpret. So, to figure out what we're looking at, scientists turn to simulations. They build a bunch of virtual characteristics, and figure out which of them most resemble the observational data. This technique has been used a lot with the EHT images, but now it's been kicked up a notch. A team led by astronomer Michael Janssen of Radboud University in the Netherlands and the Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy in Germany used high-throughput computing to develop millions of simulated black holes. Then, they used that data to train a neural network to extract as much information as possible from the data, and identify the properties of the black holes. Their results show, among other things, that Sgr A* is not only spinning at close to its maximum speed, but that its rotational axis is pointed in Earth's direction, and that the glow around it is generated by hot electrons. Perhaps the most interesting thing is that the magnetic field in the material around Sgr A* doesn't appear to be behaving in a way that's predicted by theory. M87*, they discovered, is also rotating rapidly, although not as fast as Sgr A*. However, it is rotating in the opposite direction to the material swirling in a disk around it – possibly because of a past merger with another supermassive black hole. "That we are defying the prevailing theory is of course exciting," Janssen says. "However, I see our AI and machine learning approach primarily as a first step. Next, we will improve and extend the associated models and simulations. And when the Africa Millimetre Telescope, which is under construction, joins in with data collection, we will get even better information to validate the general theory of relativity for supermassive compact objects with a high precision." The team has detailed their methodology and findings in three papers published in Astronomy & Astrophysics. They can be found here, here, and here. Did a Passing Star Cause Earth to Warm 56 Million Years Ago? A Game-Changing Telescope Is About to Drop First Pics. Here's How to Watch. Trailblazing Satellite Mission Delivers Its First Artificial Solar Eclipse
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Yahoo
Early humans adapted to extreme habitats. Researchers say it set the stage for global migration
WASHINGTON (AP) — Humans are the only animal that lives in virtually every possible environment, from rainforests to deserts to tundra. This adaptability is a skill that long predates the modern age. According to a new study published Wednesday in Nature, ancient Homo sapiens developed the flexibility to survive by finding food and other resources in a wide variety of difficult habitats before they dispersed from Africa about 50,000 years ago. 'Our superpower is that we are ecosystem generalists,' said Eleanor Scerri, an evolutionary archaeologist at the Max Planck Institute of Geoanthropology in Jena, Germany. Our species first evolved in Africa around 300,000 years ago. While prior fossil finds show some groups made early forays outside the continent, lasting human settlements in other parts of the world didn't happen until a series of migrations around 50,000 years ago. 'What was different about the circumstance of the migrations that succeeded — why were humans ready this time?' said study co-author Emily Hallett, an archaeologist at Loyola University Chicago. Earlier theories held that Stone Age humans might have made a single important technological advance or developed a new way of sharing information, but researchers haven't found evidence to back that up. This study took a different approach by looking at the trait of flexibility itself. The scientists assembled a database of archaeological sites showing human presence across Africa from 120,000 to 14,000 years ago. For each site, researchers modeled what the local climate would have been like during the time periods that ancient humans lived there. 'There was a really sharp change in the range of habitats that humans were using starting around 70,000 years ago,' Hallet said. 'We saw a really clear signal that humans were living in more challenging and more extreme environments.' While humans had long survived in savanna and forests, they shifted into everything from from dense rainforests to arid deserts in the period leading up to 50,000 years ago, developing what Hallet called an "ecological flexibility that let them succeed.' While this leap in abilities is impressive, it's important not to assume that only Homo sapiens did it, said University of Bordeaux archaeologist William Banks, who was not involved in the research. Other groups of early human ancestors also left Africa and established long-term settlements elsewhere, including those that evolved into Europe's Neanderthals, he said. The new research helps explain why humans were ready to expand across the world way back when, he said, but it doesn't answer the lasting question of why only our species remains today. ___ The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
