What prompted you to take Selegiline off your list?
Already under consideration for ITP’s 2024 cohort.
2 Likes
Why did you remove glycine + NAC?
Also being considered for 2024.
4 Likes
What I would really like to see is for the ITP program to start testing other delivery methods besides oral… for example injection.
It seems, for example, that injection may be more practical at higher doses for rapamycin. There are typically a lot of Gasto/Intestinal issues associated with high oral dosing of rapamycin.
Also - perhaps higher dosing levels for rapamycin - the highest I’ve seen is 100mg/kg, but it was not lifespan oriented:
4 Likes
That’s a lot of rats to inject each day!
Nobody ever said longevity research was easy 
1 Like
Yes - and the world could then also get validation of and be able to compare key longevity results from other types of therapies, including ones where results been published in top journals, but where third party, triple lab replication could be gold.
Thinking OSK/partial reprogramming, some of George Church’s CRISPR things, other gene therapies, GDF11 supplementation, klotho, etc, etc
Does anyone know the Hevolution group? Perhaps they could allocate some of their planned $1B a year to multiply the resources of the ITP and expand it in this direction?
1 Like
Not sure if this was mentioned above:
And
1 Like
Another suggestion. This study from about a year ago made a big finding - turns out the negative side effects of steroids like prednisone can turn into positive effects with less-frequent dosing, like weekly vs daily - just as people here are doing with rapamycin. Maybe weekly-dosed steroids would make a good test for the ITP? Seems like the effects when prednisone is dosed weekly have a lot in common with weekly rapa.
3 Likes
FYI… they are deciding on the next compounds to test!
3 Likes
Exciting! May the best interventions win.
1 Like
It would be very interesting to get a list of the proposed compounds for the ITP program, and their rankings from their review board…
I will shoot Richard and his team an email seeing if we can get that information.
1 Like
No luck…
No, information submitted to the ITP Access and Steering Committees is held in confidence, along with the ranking of compounds. Sorry. When compounds are selected for 2024, they will be posted on the ITP web site.
We are at the stage where analyses for 2019 mice (90th percentile) can be presented at scientific meetings, but not in publications. The paper on 2018 and 2019 drugs should be submitted for publication soon.
The data at the 50th percentile for 2021 is also something we are permitted to present at scientific meetings, but won’t be available for publication until a paper is prepared, perhaps 9 months from now.
I am not sure whether discussion of such unpublished data sets in a publicly accessible web-based forum like Rapamycin News would be approved by the ITP Steering Committee. My own opinion is that we should do this, to encourage discussion within the scientific community and (we hope) inspire others to base new studies on our own data. But it’s not my decision. I will ask Dr. Fox if she would be willing to include this question on the agenda for the next ITP monthly conference call.
Rich
5 Likes
Thanks so much for asking about this part!
Do we know anything about what might have been discussed at what scientific meetings already?
Btw, any chance you could add in this first (and perhaps second) question to him if you have an email chain going
I think I’ve seen the number before - I think its about $500K per compound.
I will check on the non-oral compounds, but right now I know they are focused on oral-only compounds.
2 Likes
Thanks a lot. Yes, was especially interested if they (a) would have more bandwidth if there was extra funding and (b) weather the interest of doing non-oral would be different if they don’t have to sacrifice multiple oral compounds to do fewer non-oral (hence the tie to “if extra funding would be available” is crucial to include when asking him).
I have a tie to one of the Americans who have started to work for Hevolution and want to soft pitch both of the ideas above and see what he thinks.
1 Like
I have discussed with Richard and his team, in the past, the idea of expanding funding via third parties.
It was a short time time after Hevolution had been announced. Opinions vary a lot in the geroscience research community on this issue, but Richard is firmly of the opinion that he’d never take money from Hevolution because of MBS’s human rights record. But I’ve recently asked him again about how we might help him raise money or increase his budget so that he can increase the number of compounds and delivery approaches to be tested. I haven’t heard back yet on this.
2 Likes
Got it. Thanks for all that color. I know of some other potential sources too, so keep me posted on what you hear.
1 Like