[idopmstuff]

"A successful aging treatment would be something that:

prevents diseases of aging, ideally more than one;

preserves a healthy function that normally declines with age (like fertility, immune function, cognitive function, resilience, or physical fitness); or

reverses the course of at least one age-related disease."

I think a lot of the anti-aging companies out there would say that the real answer is a combination of the second and third - reversing the course of age-related decline.

Also, I think it's sort of contradictory to have two of these points focus on diseases of aging but in a subsequent section say that oncology isn't anti-aging. Cancer is in many ways a disease of aging (it's very clear from the numbers that increasing in age causes increases in likelihood of developing cancer, generally more than any other single factor). Curing cancer obviously isn't going to get you a general-purpose anti-aging treatment, but that's why it seems odd to say that reversing the course of an age-related disease is a successful aging treatment.

[hyghjiyhu]

From an anti aging perspective, cancer is the most visible symptom of DNA gradually becoming more and more damaged.

The anti aging solution that happens to solve cancer as a side effect is then to figure out how to repair DNA damage, and/or replace cells with damaged DNA with cells with intact DNA.

[avogt27]

Pedantic semantics gripe: DNA damage refers to actual damage to the DNA molecule (breakage of the sugar-phosphage backbone, loss of nucleosides, etc). DNA accumulates MUTATIONS over time, which lead to the loss of genetic fidelity.

Many cancers have unregulated DNA repair pathways, which is one of the mechanisms by which they can sustain proliferation without succumbing to apoptosis. Common chemotherapeutic targets are actually DNA repair factors that can both help kill the cells and sensitize them to radiation. It's well known in the DNA repair field that cells maintain rather delicate balance between carcinogenics and death by regulating repair. The vast majority of research into DNA repair is aimed at solving problems treating cancer, with some peripheral voices (albeit ones that garner more publicity) working on anti-aging applications. I personally wouldn't sign up for any of these start-up nonsense treatments; traditional scientific orthodoxy may be overly reductionist, move slowly, and lack imagination but good god does it beat all of these people that treat grand problems in biology like some sort of app you just need to take the right angle on to figure out.

[hyghjiyhu]

Perhaps it was unwise to use the term dna damage yes. I used it to mean any deviation from the initial dna of the fertilized egg, including breakage, point mutations, missing chromosomes, viral insertions and probably more I can't think of right now.

Edit: I suppose those are all called mutations. Somehow I thought mutation meant a small local change only.

[lawlessone]

We all get cancer everyday, normally our immune system destroys it.

[Jalad]

Wouldn't it only be cancer if your immune system doesn't destroy it? If your immune system can handle it, that's just normal.

The DNA damage that the parent was talking about would lead to cancerous cells which your immune system cannot handle, which is different from the ones that your immune system can handle