Researchers investigating calorie restriction have noticed that its effects on longevity can be inherited through epigenetic variations - which makes sense, given the reasons why individual longevity variations in response to available food evolved in the first place. If it is advantageous for a given individual at a given time to shift metabolism into a mode that allows it to live longer due to a decline in available food, then it's probably also advantageous for the children to do that from birth as well: "The tiny soil-dwelling worms C. elegans, when given mutations that make them live longer, transmit that trait even when their progeny don't inherit the life-extending mutations. ... Although much more research remains to be done, the new study raises the tantalizing possibility that if Grandma practiced caloric restriction - which affects the expression of longevity-enhancing genes - her descendants might reap the benefits. The inheritance occurs through "epigenetics": alterations not in the coding sequence of DNA (those ubiquitous A's, T's, C's, and G's) but in chemical changes that affect whether genes are expressed. ... [A] protein complex called ASH-2 [alters] histones in C. elegans, reconfiguring the histone-DNA complex into an 'open' state that promotes gene expression. Deficiencies in ASH-2 extend the worm's life span by as much as 30 percent. ... [researchers] blocked the three key proteins that make up the ASH-2 complex by mutating their genes. As expected, the worms lived longer - typically, an extra seven days beyond their lab life span of 20. [Researchers] bred the mutated worms with normal worms until their descendants no longer had the mutations. Nevertheless, the progeny still lived longer, as did their own descendants: even though their genes for the key proteins were normal, an epigenetic memory of longevity persisted."

Link: http://www.technologyreview.com/biomedicine/38943/

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

One longevity-related line item that doesn't come up often enough in discussion is the matter of the expected state of your wallet as you move through life. Given that you have a fair degree of control over your long-term health, do you also have the same degree of control over the funds needed for future medical treatment? Reliability theory, a consideration of aging as damage, suggests that the only paths to a longer life are those which reduce or repair the accumulated biological damage that leads to aging. Reliability theory also tells us that this will lead to a lower chance of systems failure - which we might interpret as a lower chance of the need for medical intervention at any given time.

Thus it makes sense to look at the foreseeable biotechnologies of enhanced longevity as a way to reduce long term expenditures on medicine, on average, for individuals. One might hope that everyone - and not just those who have nursed an aging car through its last years - understands the difference in maintenance costs for a well-repaired machine versus one that's showing all the signs of accumulated wear and tear. Damaged machines spiral down into ever more expensive breakdowns, and that's just as true of people as it is of the things people build. Yet much of the public debate over medicine seems to focus on the idea that living longer implies greater medical expenditure - possibly another aspect of the Tithonus Error, the naive belief that living longer though biotechnology means being old for longer rather than being young for longer.

(As an aside, unrelated to the present point, the prospects for greater expenditure in the field of medicine would be a sign for rejoicing in a sane world. It would mean an industry primed for growth, needing more workers, gathering funds for investment in new ways to serve the growing number of customers, and so forth. No-one complains when the demand for cars, shoes, or shiny internet sharing widgets increases. Yet because medicine is so completely socialized in countries like the US, you see the inevitable spiral towards rationing, rejection of expenditures, and decay of new development rather than a healthy, competitive industry).

The tools for personal longevity will, I think, remain crude for the next couple of decades. Essentially, exercise, calorie restriction, and the avoidance of sharp things. Amazing things are happening in the labs, and we can clearly see how to extend life - but amazing in the lab doesn't yet translate to available in the clinic, and won't for a while. But even with these crude tools, barring genetic bad luck (or any of the other fatal forms of bad luck), the vast majority of us have a fair degree of control over our future health and medical budget. You might look at this open access paper, for example:

The authors followed up 27,738 participants aged 40-79?years and prospectively collected data on their medical expenditure and survival covering a 13-year-period. Participants were classified into those walking <1 and ?1?h per day.

...

The present results indicate that the multiadjusted lifetime medical expenditure from the age of 40?years for those who walked ?1?h per day was significantly lower by 7.6% in men and non-significantly lower by 2.7% in women than for those who walked <1?h per day. This decrease in lifetime medical expenditure was observed in spite of a longer life expectancy (1.38?years for men and 1.16?years for women) among those who walked ?1?h per day. Thus, a healthy lifestyle not only extended longevity but also decreased the amount of lifetime medical expenditure, especially men.

It would be interesting to see the results on medical expenditure in a similarly large study that focused on deliberate exercise as opposed to time spent walking - but I think this illustrates the point, even with the smaller differences in life expectancy and health than are typically seen in studies that compare sedentary people with those who exercise regularly.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

The response of metabolism to lowered methionine intake appears to be a major component of the mechanisms of calorie restriction: "Methionine dietary restriction (MetR), like dietary restriction (DR), increases rodent maximum longevity. However, the mechanism responsible for the retardation of aging with MetR is still not entirely known. As DR decreases oxidative damage and mitochondrial free radical production, it is plausible to hypothesize that a decrease in oxidative stress is the mechanism for longevity extension with MetR. In the present investigation male Wistar rats were subjected to isocaloric 40% MetR during 7 weeks. It was found that 40% MetR decreases heart mitochondrial ROS production at complex I during forward electron flow, lowers oxidative damage to mitochondrial DNA and proteins, and decreases the degree of methylation of genomic DNA. ... These results indicate that methionine can be the dietary factor responsible for the decrease in mitochondrial ROS generation and oxidative stress, and likely for part of the increase in longevity, that takes place during DR. They also highlight some of the mechanisms involved in the generation of these beneficial effects."

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22006472

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

An example of present work in growing skin from stem cells: scientists "are participating in research to study how to make use of the potential for auto regeneration of stem cells from skin, in order to create, in the laboratory, a patient's entire cutaneous surface by means of a combination of biological engineering and tissue engineering techniques. Skin is a tissue that naturally renews itself throughout our lives thanks to the existence of epidermic stem cells. ... We have found that this regenerative potential can be preserved in vitro (in the laboratory) if the cells are joined and become part of generated skin using tissue bioengineering techniques. ... The researchers have already been able to join together these epidermic stem cells into skin created by means of bioengineering, and they have observed that the cells preserve the regenerative potential that they normally have in our skin. That is, using a small biopsy from a specific patient, they can generate almost the entire cutaneous surface of that individual in the lab. ... The regenerative capacity of epidermic stem cells in these conditions is overwhelming, and it leads to the possibility of using these cells as a target for even more complex protocols, such as gene therapy. ... In fact, these researchers have already demonstrated, at the pre-clinical level, that it is possible to isolate epidermic stem cells from patients with different genetic skin diseases, cultivate them and, using molecular engineering as a first step, incorporate the therapeutic genes into each patient's genome to take the place of the one that the patient does not have or that functions abnormally. Afterwards, in the second step, the stem cells would be assembled into patches ready to be transplanted onto the patients."

Link: http://www.physorg.com/wire-news/80303525/bioengineering-to-repair-and-generate-healthy-skin.html

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

There's an article over at Reason Magazine today that calls out one example in a pattern of abuse of meaning that I've long found threatening. Attempts to fundamentally rework the meaning of a basic and important word are one of those little fragments of 1984 that manage to drift into the real world, an unsavory activity in which the meaning of the word is both kept and entirely inverted at the same time. I think the following quote captures the essence of this particular case:

Lawler, a member of President George W. Bush's controversial Council on Bioethics, tried to make the case that using technology to radically extend human lifespans, and boost human intellectual, emotional, and physical capacities, will end in coercion. Those who don't want to take advantage of the kinds of enhancements that biotechnology, nanotechnology, and cognitive technology will offer, argues Lawler, will ultimately not have a choice about using them. ... But is that so? If anyone should be concerned about coercion, it is the transhumanists who rightly fear that bioconservatives like Lawler will try to use the power of the state to halt the research that would lead to the development of enhancements would enable them to improve their life chances and those of their children.

Shades of Freedom is Slavery march through all too many minds, methinks. That is a real threat, as halting and slowing research in the life sciences is something that the bureaucrats of the modern state are very good at indeed. That people carefully try to invert the word "coercion" to mean "the existence of freedom of choice that I personally do not approve of" is also a threat, as freedom of choice and freedom from coercion are the deep roots of wealth and technological progress. Without them, you end up living in something akin to the backward ruins and ruined, predatory culture of the final years of the Soviet Union.

Freedom is fundamental to transhumanist ideals - such as developing the means to greatly extend youthful life span through biotechnology. Freedom is vital for the research and research community needed to open these new doors:

Freedom of research is, in essence, economic freedom, which is no different from personal freedom - the freedom to invest and work in whatever arrangements you can freely agree upon with other people. The most rapid progress occurs in free marketplaces, free for the exchange of ideas, free for association with others for mutual benefit, free for the exchange of goods. Any and all interference by centralized entities - such as governments - is inefficient and serves only to slow things down, make goods more expensive, and ensure that some research never happens at all.

Further, freedom is the very essence of transhumanism itself, which is no more than the human imperative to create new choices where before there was nothing. Having a choice today in an area where there was no choice yesterday is an increase in your freedom, and building those new choices - these new freedoms - is exactly what humanity achieves through technology:

Transhumanism, make no mistake, is just a fancy name for common sense. Change for the better is good, right? Common sense. It's what we humans do in our scattered finer moments - we work to change things for the better. It's common sense to fetch in the harvest on wheels rather than on foot, and it's common sense to repair the biomolecular damage of Alzheimer's before the mind begins to rot. It's common sense to build perfect immune systems from nanomedical robots, and it's common sense to develop the technologies of regenerative medicine to their logical end. It takes work, but what is work compared to a world of suffering? Choosing not to attain these goals makes about as much sense as standing out in the rain to spite yourself.

The Soviet Union may be gone in all but the longer memories, but there is no shortage of people who would strive to rebuild it again, today, in their country, one piece at a time. There are so many petty would-be totalitarians in this world, each laboring under the belief that central control of the matters they care about will work - this time! - if it is just done their way. The real danger of centralized government is that sooner or later, those would-be totalitarians get their hands on their ability to do real harm by attempting to enact their visions.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

An unfortunate fact of life for anyone engaged in trying to persuade the world to adopt a new point of view - that crash development of rejuvenation biotechnology is a good and plausible idea, for example - is that people who are skeptical or only vaguely interested in your ideas don't tend to be vocal or engaged. So it's hard to assess their views in comparison to those people who have already been won over. This is simply a matter of priorities: when people take the time to publish their thoughts and lucid arguments, they tend to do so for their own causes, for the ideas they agree with. Time is, after all, fleeting - there are only so many blog posts and essays that can be written in any one life.

So as an advocate or activist, one has to pay attention to this hole in awareness; it's one of the things that makes advocacy a challenge. You're often none the wiser as to exactly how or why vast swathes of the population manage to be unresponsive to your message and outreach efforts. They know, but getting them to tell you is like blood from a stone.

On this topic, I see that Aubrey de Grey of the SENS Foundation recently gave a talk in Baltimore on SENS and the path to rejuvenation biotechnology. One of those attending was Kavan Peterson, a writer from ChangingAging, which is something of a pro-aging organization - both in the sense of empowerment and opposition to ageism, which are noble causes, but also in the less desirable sense of apologism for aging. There are already far too many talking heads trying to persuade the world that progressively accumulating pain, suffering, and loss of function are just fine and dandy. In any case Peterson, unlike most skeptics, took the time to write. So we should take the time to learn from that:

The Immortal Life? An Evening With Aubrey de Grey

I am skeptical of de Grey's work and I'll use his own introduction to explain why: "It may seem premature to be discussing the elimination of human aging as a cause of death, when so little progress has been made in even postponing it says Aubrey de Grey." That's right - despite all the marvels of modern medical science, there is absolutely zero evidence that any known treatment has ever extended human life by a single day. Immortality is as fantastical an idea today as it was in ancient times.

My Evening With Aubrey de Grey

I'd like to think of ChangingAging.org as the preeminent pro-aging blog so it was a great opportunity to talk to the world's leading anti-aging advocate. And surprisingly I came away with the impression that although our rhetoric is wildly divergent - as divergent as anti- vs pro-aging rhetoric can be - we share similar goals.

First, where we diverge - as our masthead says, we look at human aging "as a strength, rich in developmental potential and growth." De Grey argues aging is "obviously, unequivocally humanity's worst problem."

That's a big difference. But lets look at our goals.

You should read the rest of it; this is an example of the type of person we'd like to persuade to support SENS and the broader field of work on repair-based strategies to reverse aging. Separately, I noticed another blog post from a different attendee, one who falls into the category of peripherally interested, I believe. She made this remark:

I asked the question: "There are assumptions in your theory, that the patient will get to the doctor on time, that the doctor is well trained in this new technology, and that the insurance companies will pay for these services." His answer was that his main focus is on the biological aspect and that these issues will come up and will need to be addressed at some point.

Also worth learning from.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

This is an open access report in book format that delves into the factors that cause regional variations in life expectancy and rates of age-related disease - and thus longevity - in the first world. Given its origins, don't expect to see much on the stifling regulation that raises prices and reduces quality and innovation in medicine, but most of the other important contributing factors are addressed: "Over the past 25 years, life expectancy has been rising in the United States at a slower pace than has been achieved in many other high-income countries. Consequently, the United States has been falling steadily in the world rankings for level of life expectancy, and the gap between the United States and countries with the highest achieved life expectancies has been widening. International comparisons of various measures of self-reported health and biological markers of disease reveal similar patterns of U.S. disadvantage. The relatively poor performance of the United States with respect to achieved life expectancy over the recent past is surprising given that it spends far more on health care than any other nation in the world, both absolutely and as a percentage of gross national product. Motivated by these concerns, the National Institute on Aging requested that the National Research Council convene a panel of leading experts to clarify patterns in the levels and trends in life expectancy across nations, to examine the evidence on competing explanations for the divergent trends, and to identify strategic opportunities for health-related interventions to narrow this gap."

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK62369/

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

From Next Big Future: "The [SENS5] conference itself was high quality - many of the scientists that I describe in my book, 100+, were there. Hearing about the tangible progress that these researchers are continually making was very exciting. I noticed that there were many companies that attended this conference, which is an indication that extending health span is a prospect which is starting to garner serious consideration. ... There are a large and growing number of corporations which, although not explicitly focused on anti-aging, are developing treatments and drugs related to longevity. Gene therapy and personalized medicine are the future, and these companies know that. ... The field of regenerative medicine is getting substantial resources. That includes tissue engineering, which is essentially growing organs. The recent successes with growing and implanting human tracheas are exciting. ... The most common concern is that increased life spans will lead to overpopulation. This fear rests on the false Malthusian idea that population grows faster than our ability to provide for ourselves. We haven't run out of resources as population has grown because humans are a resource themselves, providing problem-solving ideas. Also, fertility and world population growth rates are on the decline. ... Perceptions [of longevity science] have changed. The term health extension is actually less controversial than life extension, since everyone wants robust health. There is little resistance to treatments designed to keep people healthy."

Link: http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/is-longevity-research-speeding-up.html

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Research into calorie restriction has, as I'm sure you know, been picking up in pace and breadth over the past decade or so. The drug industry is interested in trying to replicate the end results without the dietary changes, which should ensure continuing funds and interest for the foreseeable future. Lowering calorie intake while still obtaining optimal levels of micronutrients is a practice that, much like regular exercise, has long term beneficial effects on health and longevity in healthy animals and people. These benefits are very reliable and exceed those that can be provided by any presently available medical technology - they also exceed the results of many of the interesting ways to extend healthy life in laboratory animals. This state of affairs won't last, given the pace of progress in biotechnology, but based on the present landscape for medical development we should expect calorie restriction and exercise to remain the best available tools for most of us for a good twenty years yet.

I noticed a good open access review paper today (the full thing is in PDF format only) that covers all of what has been learned of calorie restriction (CR) in the past decade or two. That includes the results of a fair number of human studies, what is now known of the underlying biochemistry and mechanisms, differences between intermittent fasting versus constant dietary restriction (DR), and more:

CR has been demonstrated to extend the maximal lifespan of a diverse group of species. This extension of life is maximized when: 1) the magnitude of CR is elevated to the highest possible value before inducing malnutrition and 2) the duration of CR is maximized. Animals on CR regimens exhibit a variety of improvements in overall health in general and cardiovascular health in particular. Unfortunately, the likelihood of discovering whether or not CR extends human life is rather remote due to the ethical and logistical limitations of research design. The optimal magnitude and duration of CR for humans will also likely never be known for the same reason. Nonetheless, many human CR studies have noted favorable changes in biomarkers related to cardiovascular and glucoregulatory function, which likely relate to quality of life and may relate to longevity.

...

Regarding DR, neither carbohydrate restriction nor lipid restriction extend life. However, protein restriction appears to extend maximum lifespan by 20%. Recent findings suggest that methionine restriction may be the single cause of life extension observed in protein restriction studies. Future studies should examine the effects of different magnitudes of methionine restriction on life extension.

It's pessimistic to think that optimal calorie restriction practices will not be uncovered for humans, however. Scientists can measure changing levels in biomarkers over years of calorie restriction, so identifying optimal practices really rests on the larger area of work that relates to linking biomarkers with aging and longevity. If measurable aspects of our biology can be firmly linked to future life expectancy - and there is no reason to think that the development of such biomarkers is implausible - then a whole range of medical and health practices become open to far greater optimization than is presently possible.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Via EurekAlert!: "As a person ages, the ability of their beta cells to divide and make new beta cells declines. By the time children reach the age of 10 to 12 years, the ability of their insulin-producing cells to replicate greatly diminishes. If these cells, called beta cells, are destroyed - as they are in type 1 diabetes - treatment with the hormone insulin becomes essential to regulate blood glucose levels and get energy from food. Now, [researchers] have identified a pathway responsible for this age-related decline, and have shown that they can tweak it to get older beta cells to act young again - and start dividing. ... a protein called PDGF, or platelet derived growth factor, and its receptor send beta cells signals to start dividing via an intricate pathway that controls the levels of two proteins in the beta cell nucleus, where cell division occurs. Working with young mice, [researchers] found that PDGF binds to its receptor on the beta cell's surface and controls the level of these regulating proteins allowing cells to divide. However, in older mice, they discovered that beta cells lose PDGF receptors, and that this age-related change prevents beta cells from dividing. [Researchers] further found that by artificially increasing the number of PDGF receptors, they can restore the ability of the beta cell to divide and generate new cells. ... By understanding what genes are turned on and off in a young beta cell, we can try to recreate that genetic environment in older beta cells such that they divide in a desirable, controlled manner."

Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/jdrf-rmo101211.php

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Sequencing of the genome of the long-lived naked mole rat was announced earlier this year, but here's more: "Scientists have sequenced the complete genome of the naked mole rat, a pivotal step to understanding the animal's extraordinarily long life and good health. A colony of more than 2,000 naked mole rats at The University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio contributed to the findings ... If we understand which genes are different or are expressed differently in naked mole rats - compared to short-lived mice that clearly have poor defenses against aging and cancer - we might find clues as to why the naked mole rat is able to extend both health span and longevity, as well as fight cancer, and this information could be directly relevant and translatable to humans. ... The mouse-sized naked mole rat is the longest-lived rodent known, surviving up to 31 years in captivity. This is much longer than its laboratory rodent relatives, and the naked mole rat maintains good health and reproductive potential well into its third decade. Naked mole rats live underground in large family groups, like termites and bees, with only a single breeding female. These social rodents are extremely tolerant of life in low oxygen and high levels of carbon dioxide."

Link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-10/uoth-big101211.php

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

From where I stand, it looks much like the equities market has given the sign of doom over the past couple of months. The view of the next couple of years I subscribe to is that equities will fall dramatically some more very soon, then there will be a variety of massive government intervention timed to influence the presidential elections in 2012. The markets will then rise much as they did after the last massive intervention, but fail to regain the highs of this year, and thereafter fall into the pit through 2013. All of these equity market gyrations, like those of the past couple of years, are just a symptom of the deep underlying economic malaise in what was formerly a grand economic powerhouse - though malaise is probably the wrong word, as it suggests something that just happened, faultlessly. This is very much a state of affairs created through the actions of a comparatively small number of people in positions of power - evenly distributed between government and financial industries in a symbiotic state of regulatory capture - and then again by the actions of the rest of us in letting them do what they do, in failing to understand enough of economics to see cause and effect, and in failing to act to stop this process.

It's no great secret that the US is decaying; this is history unfolding as a procedural. The US is ever more rapidly becoming just another Europe, Japan, or pick your dysfunctional fascist-leaning (per the dictionary definition) economy of choice. The ending of empires that centralize economic and legislative power, develop a ruling class, grow their military, and debase their currency is pretty much written in stone - it's the details of the move from wealth enjoyed in freedom to authoritarian poverty that will surprise people in their nature and timing.

But in any case, what does the sign of doom in the markets mean for the next few years of research funding, and especially speculative research funding for efforts such as SENS? In my experience it means much the same as it does for raising funds to launch startup companies. This is to say that when the economy is in the doldrums, raising funds is very challenging - especially when the equity markets have just started on their way down in earnest and fear is rife. Funding agencies and investors pull back, either because they've suffered losses or because they have the luxury of waiting for a few years for better times.

To my eyes that makes the next few years the time to double down on raising funds from high net worth philanthropists. These are people who will be slowing their normal flow of deals and investment, but who have most likely not suddenly lost wealth in any meaningful way. There is an argument to be made that investments in early stage research made in the shadow of a falling market and economic destruction will be more effective on a dollar for dollar basis: there may be greater access to researchers and resources at lower prices due to a downturn in the normal state of their employment, for example.

One rather important item to take away from all this is that, like everyone else, I'm wrong about the market at least half the time. The fundamentals underlying modern national economies, and the US in particular, are truly terrible, however. If markets are up, it's because they're being propped up by the Federal Reserve, most recently by an uncharacteristically direct process that amounts to devaluation of the dollar and pumping newly created-from-nothing money into equities. I consider these large-scale manipulations to be something that cannot continue forever: the only goals they achieve are (a) political, keeping one faction or another in favor by providing the modern equivalent of bread and circuses in the form of high equities prices, and (b) personal in the sense that some of the ruling class become very wealthy in the course of carrying out these activities. They don't create wealth in any meaningful sense, only the hollow illusion of it. Eventually the cards must come crashing down and the hole will grow too large to be filled in by the standard model of government bailout. As they say, the trouble with other people's money is that you eventually run out of it.

So maybe the next few years will see the US equities indexes much lower than they are now, and the fundraising scene a desert. Maybe not, but I think it more likely than the alternatives. If you're in the business of raising funds, now is the time to be stacking away for the coming winter, and finalizing all the deals you can.

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm

Following on from an earlier consideration of state of the mind and how that may interact with the operation of metabolism over the long term to affect aging, here is a very readable open access paper that tries to draw lines between longevity, psychological factors, and mitochondrial biochemistry: "A central question concerning longevity remains: Why do some people live long whereas others die early? Another equally critical question concerns morbidity: Why is aging associated with a greater incidence of almost every categorized disease - including degenerative, metabolic, and malignant disorders? Since disease incidence, mortality, and longevity are all associated terms in the same aging equation, a more general question may be posed: What are the pathways that impact individuals' rate of aging? ... Compelling evidence suggests that both biological and psychosocial factors impact the process of aging. However, our understanding of the dynamic interplay among biological and psychosocial factors across the life course is still fragmentary. For example, it needs to be established how the interaction of individual factors (e.g., genetic and epigenetic endowment and personality), behavioral factors (e.g., physical activity, diet, and stress management), and psychosocial experiences (e.g., social support, well-being, socioeconomic status, and marriage) in perinatal, childhood, and adulthood influence health across the aging continuum. This paper aims to outline potential intersection points serving as an interface between biological and psychosocial factors, with an emphasis on the mitochondrion."

Link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3180824/

Source:
http://www.longevitymeme.org/newsletter/latest_rss_feed.cfm