Very odd abstract found. Any comments?

ufotruth at ix.netcom.com ufotruth at ix.netcom.com
Wed Sep 9 23:36:17 EST 1998


On Wed, 09 Sep 1998 22:59:42 -0500, James <james at nospam.com> wrote:

>I don't think that explanation works because statistically it should average
>out.  If there is a relationship between replicative potential and age, whether
>or not there is a lot of varuance, and whether or not it is linear, you should be
>able to see it with a large sample size.

I see what you are saying. If when human cells divide they do lose
little bits of their telomeres then, on average at least, the cells of
a 70 old for example should have less replicative potential than that
of a 10 year old.

This is just common sense and logic. Perhaps the cells of some tissues
in the body divide faster than others and lose their telomeres quicker
but it still seems like, on average, the replicative potential should
be less in an older person than a younger person.

For example. Lets say we have two samples of skin cells. One from a 70
year old human and one from a 10 year old human. Unless the cells in
the 70 year old male had mysteriously not divided hardly at all over
the last 60 years or his life, or the 10 year year old had some
disease which made his cells divide at a VERY fast pace, then
LOGICALLY and RATIONALLY the cells from the 10 year old should have
MORE replicative potential than from the 70 year old....

Anyone understanding me?

Best Regards,
William






More information about the Ageing mailing list