Dario Amodei CEO of Anthropic is saying in the next years if scaling is continuing as it has been with hardware improvements, algorithmic improvements, and investment, we will have great models for drug development.
If it’s inexpensive to ship a custom synthesis to the Ora Biomedical, then we can use the same models that the drug companies use for super longevity drug synthesis that improve worm lifespan massively. Then it would be nice to be able to in some custom way test this in humans, or at least mice.
The infrastructure seems like it’s all going to be in place later this decade for super longevity drugs.
Not that hard:
Model → Custom synthesis → Ora Biomedical → Lifespan improvement in worms → humans or mice
We don’t have to lift a finger, just pay a model for a small sum, the synthesis, then Ora Biomedical. The human or mice testing seem like it isn’t in place, maybe some in-silicon testing could be possible?
I thought the same yesterday. Ora Biomedical has just started, and we already have 3 compounds increasing lifespan by +30% (nilvadipine, GSK2126458, and sulforaphane). They might have more internally that they don’t share. I might be too optimistic, but I think it’s possible that by the end of this year, we’ll have at least one compound (or combination of) doubling lifespan in C. elegans.
Then either we wait a few years for an ITP study (or equivalent on rodents, Ora Biomedical might move to that? Or maybe zebrafish before?). And/or we test it in humans on various age-related functions where you can see clear improvements in less than 1y (egg count, fertility, aging clocks, periodontal disease, etc.).
Nowadays, most pharmaceutical companies have started using artificial intelligence-supported programs to develop drugs, and they are finding molecule discoveries that take decades to come up with within days. For example, alphafold software, which creates the 3D structure of proteins
Just remember that Metformin produces consistent longevity improvements in C. Elegans that isn’t replicated in mice or humans. Even if we double the lifespan of C. Elegans, it may not work for mammals.
However, it might. I just wouldn’t start a treatment based solely on C. Elegans data.
I agree with you on this. It would be interesting to know how many or which drugs were used in mice and then had similar benefits in humans? I think I read somewhere (forgot where) that the percentage of substances that work in similar way in humans as in mice is very small? Anybody has a qualified opinion on this subject?
I think the key thing about C Elegans is the absence of senescent cells and in fact the failure of adult somatic cells to divide. Hence something that fixes the problem (?s) of senescent cells should not show results in C Elegans.
FWIW – there is a “right to try” law. It’s a long shot, but maybe the companies can use it to bring drugs online more quickly for some people. The kicker would be defining aging as a disease (it is certainly life threatening). OTOH, it is certainly a condition, so maybe not that hard.
Right to Try is one pathway for patients diagnosed with life-threatening diseases or conditions who have exhausted all approved treatment options and are unable to participate in a clinical trial to access certain drugs that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
This is a bottom up, brute force approach. It has a value but as I see it is just half of the story and it make take a very long time to produce any substantive outcomes by itself. Instead, how about combining it with some top down approach like studying long lived vertebrates e.g. Greenland sharks and figuring out what makes them live longer than humans? And then verifying hypothesis by designing molecules that could be tested for safety, efficacy including health span and lifespan extension in other species and eventually in humans as discussed here?
If we’re looking at animal models, then naked mole rats FTW. Lifespan is correlated with size, so whales, sharks etc. being long lived is not that shocking. The naked mole rat is shocking - roughly the size of a mouse lives as long as 30+ years, or some ten times as long as a mouse, a fellow rodent. The fellow rodent is important as reptiles (such as giant tortoises) and fish can be long lived due to a very specific physiology, so too birds (f.ex. parrots), very different from mammals. Naked mole rats also almost never get cancer and are super resistant to poisons and contaminants such as heavy metals, toxins and the like (makes sense, as they dig and live in underground tunnels, and the soil is full of trace metals, various minerals organic and inorganic toxins).
Let’s figure out what allows a tiny mammal like that to live ten times as long as expected, never get cancer, and be resistant to pollutants (very useful in the modern world), and see if we can’t crowbar that into humans… let’s see, if a human can live 80 - 130 years then times ten, we’d get 800 -1300 years of cancer free life - I’ll take it!
Matt Kaeberlein talks about the naked molerat in a recent podcast. Researchers hypothesize the longevity has to do with a form of hyaluronic acid they produce
It would be interesting if it was possible to do a Ora Biomedical like program for happiness then later. It would be the ultimate healthspan drug if it not only hit superlongevity but also superhappiness.
Well humans are not worms we have evolved a bit. You may find it shocking; but, I think that a cocktail of molecules required to substantially prolong human lifespan most likely wouldn’t do much for worms… Of course being able to test such a cocktail on worms still has a value by e.g.ruling out toxicity.
we have evolved a bit. You may find it shocking; but, I think that a cocktail of molecules required to substantially prolong human lifespan most likely wouldn’t do much for worms… Of course being able to test such a cocktail on worms still has a value by e.g.ruling out toxicity.