Here’s a detailed explanation with sources for my graphic illustrating potential effects of targeting aging with rapamycin in humans. This is based on a *speculative* extrapolation from mice to humans /1
The graphic represents impact on life expectancy for a typical 50 year old woman from curing cancer or heart disease and comparing it to potential impact from an intervention like rapamycin that targets biological aging. Green = healthy years, red represents unhealthy years /2
The calculations for effects on life expectancy from curing cancer or heart disease come from work done by Jay Olshanksy and colleagues published in Science here:
Dozens of independent studies report lifespan and age-related health benefits from rapamycin in mice, including reversal of deficits in multiple tissues. Average lifespan extension 9%-25%. At least two studies show big effects from transient treatments during middle-age.
/4
In my lab, we showed 12 weeks of rapamycin treatment from 20-23 months increased remaining life expectancy by up to 61%. This was the largest effect we saw. It was in males at the highest of 2 doses we tested
Work from Pan Zheng’s beautifully showed 6 weeks of rapamycin treatment in 22-24 month old mice rejuvenates the immune system. *Highly recommend* reading this paper. They also did a small survival experiment and found dramatically increased lifespan ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/artic…
/6
We don’t know how much this 6 week rapamycin regimen increases lifespan in mice because they didn’t finish the experiment, but it’s at least a doubling of remaining life expectancy (>100%).
/7
Median survival of the control mice is 15 weeks. Median survival of the rapamycin-treated mice is greater than 30 weeks. Maybe *much* greater (80% still alive!!!). So it’s at least a 100% increase in remaining life expectancy.
/8
Back to the graphic presenting possible effects in humans. If we assume this is a 50 year old woman, she will have ~30 years of life expectancy remaining. So, that’s at least 30 more years for the 50 year old woman, which is what's shown /9
When combined with the dozens of other studies showing rapamycin broadly improves health during aging in mice, I feel pretty comfortable suggesting that healthspan could also be greatly improved in aging people, as represented by the green shading
/10
To give you a glimpse, among the things rapamycin improves in aging mice are: cancers, cognitive function, heart, immune, kidney, oral health, intestine/gut dysbiosis, tendon, liver, auditory function, ovary…
/11
For now, evidence mostly comes from work in mice, with hints of potential benefits in companion animals and humans. Fortunately, we are starting to see baby steps toward clinical trials for rapamycin. Stay tuned, I expect you’ll be hearing a lot more on this in 2022
12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The best opportunity to end cancer as we know it is through targeting the biology of aging, something that is feasible today. It's time to leave behind the one-disease-at-a-time approach and embrace 21st Century Medicine #geroscience@EricLander46@POTUS
@EricLander46@POTUS Cancer was the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in the US in 1971 when the War on Cancer was declared. Cancer is still the second leading cause of death behind heart disease in 2021
COVID-19 may end up being the 3rd leading cause of death in 2021. Death from COVID-19 is strongly age-related, just like cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's disease, kidney disease, diabetes, ...
We didn’t do multi-omics in our 2016 rapamycin study, but we did do some function measures and disease pathology not included here. Both studies reported lifespan extension
/2
The omics data here are compelling that there is a strong rejuvenation effect from parabiosis that persists for some period of time after the treatment ends. The actual impact on lifespan is significant but appears to be much less than 126 ppm rapamycin
Preprint, not peer-reviewed yet. Correlation does not equal causation. Still, really interesting I think! @DrEmilyBray@BrianahMccoy
For those who know me, you're aware I'm not a big believer in time restricted feeding (I like to eat). And this study absolutely doesn't prove TRF is causal for the observed association with reduced disease risk in dogs. But it's intriguing, isn't it?
Lots of things we don't know. Are dogs fed once a day less likely to be obese? More active? Eat different types of diets? Will this replicate in another study population?
Strongly encourage you to *read the paper* and reach your own conclusions. As always, I welcome feedback if you think I got something wrong, but here’s what I took away:
/2
In fruit flies:
Time restricted feeding (TRF, 12h:12h) did not reproducibly extend lifespan
Drugs versus diets: Here’s some data to support my assertion that rapamycin as a pharmacological intervention for healthy aging is likely to have a better side effect profile than dietary interventions /1
Consider a hypothetical clinical trial of caloric restriction or intermittent fasting. Nearly every participant will experience multiple of the following adverse events: dyspepsia (hunger), headache, dizziness, fatigue, insomnia, poor thermoregulation, … /2
… loss of libido , constipation, diarrhea, nausea, dehydration, irritability, hypoglycemia, halitosis, dysmenorrhea … These are all well-known side effects of fasting. It seems very likely the true AE rate will approach 100% in the CR/IF group /3
Genuinely surprised at the response this Tweet is getting and how many folks were unaware of the data showing caloric restriction is not universally beneficial. Many people assume these diet interventions have no risk, which is obviously false /1
I’m not trying to bash caloric restriction/intermittent fasting/time restricted feeding. The science is important, and I think many people obtain health benefits. Although those who would probably benefit most are least likely to actually practice them IMO /2
I would suggest that the risk profile for diet interventions is significantly higher than commonly appreciated, including adverse psychological effects. The impact of individual genetic and environmental context is not understood /3