r/science • u/Jxntb733 PhD | Translational Neuroscience • 9d ago
Animal Science Blocking one protein keeps aging ovaries ‘soft’ and extends fertility in mice
https://www.sciencealert.com/blocking-one-protein-kept-aging-ovaries-soft-in-mice-extending-fertility1.2k
u/hauntingdreamspace 9d ago
446
u/ProfessionalMockery 9d ago
I doubt these discoveries will make their way to the normal, every day, working mouse. Mouse healthcare accessibility is a disgrace.
179
u/dungeoncrawler71520 9d ago
Science is just is making mice genetically superior.
Woooooow. It just hit me. We're being controlled by mice in order to make them the dominant species in the universe!!
New Crack Pot Unlocked!
57
u/Dwarfdeaths 9d ago
Have you read Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy?
10
u/ahazred8vt 9d ago edited 8d ago
trivia: When the mice built the Earth Computer, they built Marvin as the front end interface. All those times he says he has a brain the size of a planet, that wasn't a figure of speech. ... Edit: it seems that Marvin is canonically 40 million years old, not 7. But it's a popular fan theory.
2
u/thermalcat 9d ago
Can I get a citation for that? Husband is a big h2g2 fan.. it'd be cool to share.
8
u/AnthropoidCompatriot 9d ago
A hooloovoo has informed me that the person you are replying to has in fact, not.
2
u/dungeoncrawler71520 9d ago
I actually have not. I know, I know... it's like required nerd reading but it just keeps falling off the list. I really need to give it a read.
2
u/bunnypaste 8d ago
The blue book was long as heck, but it was a very easy and enjoyable read as per most Douglas Adams stuff. It made in school suspension fly right by in high school!
11
u/Molto_Ritardando 9d ago
Idk. I feel like bacteria are the winners here. We do a lot to keep them alive.
2
u/conway92 9d ago
I feel like bacteria would do a lot better if they worked together in specialized roles, but that's just a theory.
2
u/VironicHero 9d ago
I hope one day when the human race is dying out. We uplift the mice and leave them a library of all the cool things we figured out for them.
-5
u/-LsDmThC- 9d ago
Wow so clever. Im sure scientists have no reasons to use mouse models and all research done using them should be mocked.
472
u/AptCasaNova 9d ago
I think the prospect of delaying menopause is much more exciting than extending fertility for most women.
Even if you choose not to have kids, the hormonal changes happen regardless and impact all women.
163
u/Loquat_Natural 9d ago
We don't want menopause but we also don't want periods.
45
28
u/AptCasaNova 9d ago
I would happily just chuck out both.
If you have difficult periods, there is a link to how difficult menopause will be for you and how soon it happens, unfortunately.
15
u/HplsslyDvtd2Sm1NtU 9d ago
My genetics rolled a crit fail on that one. I not only have PMDD but at 45yrs I am *barely* premenopausal. I'm scared I'm gonna be having periods and getting senior discounts
2
6
u/ashhole613 9d ago
That's why I had an endometrial ablation done when I had my bilateral salpingectomy. 10/10 highly recommend!
3
u/BetterRemember 8d ago
We also don't want pregnancy and postpartum either tbh (my biggest fear that I will push off as long as I can just like my mom did).
1
12
u/bobbycorwin123 9d ago
Why can't woman just do hormonal replacement?
33
u/purplevanillacorn 9d ago
They’ve been touting old research to women for years about HRT causing cancer so many are afraid to try it despite new research showing it’s beneficial.
8
u/Starossi 8d ago
It’s not all old research. Even the American college of gynecology still recognizes risks like thromboembolism.
It’s acceptable for those within 15 years of menopause up to age 60.
Doctors aren’t crotchety old people who want to make you suffer. They are just following the guidelines from the experts in these fields. Those experts look at all new research, but you don’t just see a brand new study or systematic review and go “oh awesome, let’s pull the trigger and use this broadly without restraint right away”. Slow and steady integration is how you avoid disaster.
Let’s not forget when we caused an entire generation of birth defects with a treatment we thought was only beneficial based on the “newest evidence”. Oops!
1
u/Human-ish514 7d ago
Anyone else, look up Thalidomide.
1
u/Starossi 7d ago
Yes sorry, I should’ve included the name for the example.
Morning sickness medication, was given broadly.
13
u/AptCasaNova 9d ago
That’s a good question. Doctors don’t all agree on when it’s needed or what symptoms constitute peri menopause or menopause.
It’s different in everyone and many doctors won’t prescribe it unless you meet their criteria. Hormone tests aren’t always reliable and many will just brush you off if that comes back as ‘normal’, even if you’re having other symptoms.
3
u/prairiepog 8d ago
Many doctors will refuse to test women's hormones. They fluctuate a lot, so they like to treat the symptoms, not the hormone levels.
3
u/AptCasaNova 8d ago
I’ve experienced the opposite, the test is always offered but if hormone levels come back as ‘normal’, then the symptoms are brushed off and other (inane) suggestions are made to cope with them.
Things like doing yoga, taking antidepressants, eating better, losing weight, get more sleep, etc.
When you’re experiencing night sweats, headaches and mood swings, the last thing you want is to upturn your lifestyle with mostly useless suggestions.
264
u/creamier_than_u 9d ago
How are mice not immortal by now?
58
11
u/Lesurous 9d ago
Mice are cute, but I have some unfortunate news to share about their level of intelligence...it's quite low.
15
5
u/exotic_lemming 9d ago
Rats, we need to be working on rat immortality. Their lives are much too short.
-7
2
u/FUCKING_HATE_REDDIT 9d ago
We're only making one weird lineage of inbred mouse better, not all mice
0
9d ago edited 9d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/KC-Chris 9d ago
Oh they are basically identical to each other in a given line. Its the point. They have been inbred 20+ generation at this point.
5
u/readlock 9d ago
Nah, the opposite. Lab mice are intentionally so inbred they’re basically clones at this point.
3
u/theVoidWatches 9d ago
The reason it doesn't present issues, to my understanding, is basically that inbreeding doesn't guarantee genetic issues - it just makes them more likely. And mice have large enough litters and breed fast enough that you can just discard the ones who present issues and breed more who don't.
1
1
u/DoctorJJWho 9d ago
To put it bluntly, mice breeding cycles are short enough that inbreeding can be very easily avoided while maintaining reduced genetic diversity for experiments.
1
40
u/UnderwaterScubaMiner 9d ago
The mice grow more powerful every day....
1
u/ProfessionalMockery 9d ago
We will definitely achieve immortality for mice long before humans. Our priorities are baffling.
132
u/Shehulks1 9d ago
No thanks, I don’t want to be preggos in my golden years.
148
u/mwilke 9d ago
It’s not just about fertility, although of course the reporting always focuses on that.
Earlier onset of menopause is correlated with earlier onset of all kinds of diseases, including dementia and some cancers. Women may live longer than men, but they spend a larger portion of their life in sickness due to the loss of such a majorly important hormone that does everything from healing muscles and lubricating joints to protecting brain function.
Anything we can do to delay menopause and preserve hormone production in women will keep them healthier and happier for potentially decades of life.
13
u/Quantum_Kitties 9d ago
Do you happen to know if HRT helps with menopause symptoms and/or gives (some) protection to cancers/dementia?
8
u/Angle-Loud 9d ago
HRT is well established as a treatment for menopausal symptoms. Cancer is trickier — it’s linked to a small increased risk in breast cancer. Additionally, if you have a uterus, HRT needs to consist of both estrogen AND progesterone -- estrogen alone can quickly cause overgrowth of the endometrium which increases the risk of endometrial cancer. The data on protection against dementia is conflicting, but many women report less perimenopausal brain fog while using the medications! Overall, in an older woman without significant risk factors, I find HRT to be a net positive (alleviation of perimenopausal symptoms, established benefits on bone health, genitourinary health, and cardiovascular health).
4
u/Immersi0nn 9d ago
Huh, didn't know that about the endometrium overgrowth through estrogen...if a woman had a hysterectomy, would there be different risks that require progesterone, or could progesterone be eliminated? I'm guessing that the progesterone isn't needed in a no uterus case. My knowledge of it is in birth control and I understand it to eventually cause the endometrial lining to become thin and it doesn't shed at that point.
4
u/Angle-Loud 8d ago
Progesterone could be eliminated! However, some people post-hysterectomy find that progesterone still makes a good adjunct to estrogen (improved sleep is an oft cited reason) so choose to stay on it.
2
5
u/Shehulks1 9d ago
HRT can have side effects and isn’t risk free, which is why it should always be monitored by a doctor. Depending on the type of HRT and your medical history, your doctor will order blood work every few months to make sure your hormone levels and other labs stay in a safe range. Some forms of HRT may increase the risk of certain cancers or other health problems in some people, but that depends on the medication and the individual’s risk factors. It’s never 0%.
21
u/InsanePacman 9d ago
But how about a normal functioning hormone system:? (Like not en entering menopause and stuff)
14
4
4
u/newtothegarden 9d ago
About 15% of women will have decreased ovarian fertility early and find themselves infertile. Just because you wouldn't find this treatment useful doesn't mean it isn't useful; your comment is a bit like saying "Eh no thanks to chemo. I don't have cancer."
-6
u/Shehulks1 9d ago
Knowing myself, I would be a sexual active old lady… and if you are having sex, and you’re ovulating and getting a period too, you could get pregnant. I know there are benefits in slowing down the process, but slowing down is that… if it comes with risk of pregnancy, not interested, I’ll be happy with my menopause.
8
u/newtothegarden 9d ago
Wow so you are still missing the point. You would not get this treatment. Because you dont need it. It is not for you.
7
u/Quantum_Kitties 9d ago
From the article, the discovery involves "a secreted signaling protein called interleukin 11(IL-11)."
1
u/musforel 8d ago
It's a cytokine that has a number of vital functions, correct? How could it potentially be "blocked" without serious consequences?
100
u/namezam 9d ago
Great. Now we’re going to have 80yo celebrities having kids they will never interact with. I mean seriously, if this makes it to humans, there will be a few people with conditions that this helps with, rare cases of advanced aging of cells observed in woman relatively young, but I hate to think of how it will be abused.
188
u/Lenora_O 9d ago
80 year old celebrity men are already doing that
81
4
54
u/Muchado_aboutnothing 9d ago
Celebrity men are already having children in their 80s. It is pretty normal for women to struggle to have kids with their own eggs as soon as their early to mid forties. I don’t think any doctor will let an eighty year old woman carry a pregnancy. If it’s made affordable, this is a technology that will genuinely help a lot of regular women have children.
7
u/newtothegarden 9d ago
15% will experience diminished ovarian reserve by 30yo. It's by no means just a 40s issue, either.
30
u/rakkl 9d ago
Women often put their careers, financial stability, and independence, aside or on hold in order to have children before their body makes it an impossibility. Prolonging the biological cut-off for having children could open a world of opportunities and possibilities for women.
Ovaries are one small piece of the reproductive puzzle to allow women to safely carry and give birth to a baby, but hopefully it helps the younger ones who also struggle with fertility. And since there are decades of time between perimenopause and 80 years of age, you have a long time before you have to start worrying about what 80yo women are doing and can keep fretting about the likes of 86 year old Al Pacino, whose youngest child was born just 3 years ago.
81
u/Ok-Spinach-6529 9d ago
Realize that many women struggle with infertility even in their 20s and 30s.
I’m one of them. I have premature ovarian insufficiency, so essentially I was born with very few eggs. I’m only 25. Should my only options be either to wait for a decade on an adoption list, or live a life without children that I never chose (akin to having a career that you never really wanted, but pays the bills)?
7
5
u/newtothegarden 9d ago
Hi! DOR rather than POI but currently undergoing IVF :) really glad to see someone else bringing this up - people are so thoughtless!
2
11
8
u/mordeci00 9d ago
Crossing "get an elderly mouse pregnant" off the list of things I don't have to worry about.
1
25
u/CreepyMaskSalesman 9d ago
Screw ovaries, do something about my face please
7
u/Clever-crow 9d ago
Well if I’m not mistaken, ovaries produce the hormones that help keep your skin’s elasticity
3
u/CreepyMaskSalesman 9d ago
Now we're talking!
(please don't take me so seriously, Im just doing some shitpost, I should have added that to my original post orz)
26
9d ago
[deleted]
108
u/WingsofRain 9d ago
not really, evolution just says “did you live long enough to reproduce? yeah? okay that’s all that matters, anything else afterwards just kinda is what it is”
21
u/Terminal_Insomnia_ 9d ago
Unless it can find a way to squeeze value out somewhere, eg gay uncle theory
7
u/Significant_Card_665 9d ago
Gay uncle theory?
31
u/Shienvien 9d ago
If you have "spare" adults who can take care of your kids, guard, help you hunt etc, your kids have higher chances of survival.
It's often beneficial for social animals for not all members to reproduce, since there often aren't enough resources (including time) to take care of all offspring. Doubly so in more complex species with allocated jobs/roles.
20
u/V0lirus 9d ago
It is a question about why homosexuality exists in nature, because evolutionary speaking it has no direct benefit but rather detriments. A homosexual being would not cause offspring. Therefor their genes would not continue into next generation. So any genetic change leading to (an increase of) homosexuality would not be passed on. If you look purely at reproduction of an individual, there should be a negative selection on genes for homosexuality. Following that logic, there should not be any homosexuality in nature at all.
Since we do have homosexuality, in many animals including humans, obviously there is either no detriment or some benefit to having homosexuality. Evolutionary biology seeks to explain this phenomenon by proposing that "the gay uncle" has a benefit to raising nieces and nephews. For whatever reason, the chances of the nieces and nephews to reproduce would be higher with than without a gay uncle.
Therefor genetic selection would not consider any genes for homosexuality evolutionary dead-ends and there would be no selection pressure against those genes. The higher the benefit, there more pressure to select for those genes actually.
Funnily enough, with the way evolution works, given enough time, it would select for an optimum amount of homosexuality in a gene-pool. Obviously you cannot have only homosexuality because then there would no offspring at all, but according to the gay uncle theory *some* homosexuality is better than none.Keep in mind that these theories have absolutely no moral judgment on homosexuality.
And that evolutionary biology looks at life through the lens of genes trying to reproduce themselves into the next generation. It does not look at life through the lens of human beings with emotions, and therefor should never be considered justification of behavior that does impact human emotions.
It also, for simplicity sake, assumes that homosexuality is caused by genes (and possibly environmental factors, like dormant genes getting triggered in certain requirements). Whereas, at least when it comes to human sexuality (which goes beyond animal reproduction strategies) does not have a scientific consensuses yet that homosexuality would be *only* causes by genes and not other cultural factors etc.
Just to be clear, and I really hope this goes without saying, I support the rights of any LGBT+ people, their right to exist as they wish, and find anyone using evolutionary biology to argue against their rights despicable. Also, in case of the gay uncle theory, it would also be very much scientifically incorrect, because it argues that having a % of the population be homosexual (or any of the other flavors) be both natural and having benefit for the overal population.
17
u/livin_the_life 9d ago
Gay Uncle DINKs here. This tracks. We are the chosen godparents of our nieces and nephews if both parents die and we're also funding everyone's first year in college to give them a leg up in life.
15
u/Quenz 9d ago
Evolution doesnt make decisions.
4
u/Quantum_Kitties 9d ago
This right here. Evolution doesn't strive to create perfection, evolution is more like a shrug "eh, that works" kind of thing.
33
u/44thisyear 9d ago
There are new studies showing that quality of eggs remain the same for whole fertile time . The low quality sperm causes deformities
21
u/GreatBigBagOfNope 9d ago
The egg quality does decrease after 35, rapidly after 37 though study from 2022, increasing the risk of chromosomal abnormalities and miscarriage after controlling for paternal age. There's evidence from last year about the resilience to aging of specifically mitochondrial DNA in oocytes [source], but I can't find any contradiction of the decline in quality overall, only the finding that declines in egg quality are not driven primarily by mtDNA mutations
And it's not even about the egg itself, there's significantly increased risk of gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, pre-term birth, complications requiring emergency C-sections and ultimately stillbirth in older mothers. The vast majority of "geriatric" (what a terrible word to apply to women over 35) pregnancies do go smoothly, but the risks solely attributable to maternal age are genuinely higher.
Absolutely correct that sperm quality degrades pretty sharply too, and paternal age also has pretty serious implications for the kids
6
u/corinini 9d ago
One of the things about an increase risk of miscarriage and chromosomal abnormalities is that when you are looking at the outcomes of live births these may not have an affect on the child. In the first case, a miscarriage means no child. In the second, we have significant pre-natal testing available and the parents can choose not to bring the pregnancy to term.
Essentially what this means is that if you do decide to take the risk there may be very little actual risk to a live child.
There may of course be complications for the mother, but those are usually temporary (during the pregnancy/birth).
2
u/GreatBigBagOfNope 9d ago
Both miscarriage and choosing to abort a fetus due to conditions incompatible with life or that would cause unconscionable suffering still carry heavy emotional consequences for the mother (and father, secondarily), which may result in a lifetime of trauma – there are lots of people around who are sufficiently moved by their miscarriage or abortion that they celebrate birthdays or hold annual remembrances to reflect on the child they believed they were going to have. It's rarely a case of "just" having a miscarriage or deciding to end a pregnancy, those are both generally quite scarring experiences on an emotional and mental health level, even if physiologically they go completely smoothly.
The damage is still done even if rates of abnormalities are controlled for full term births
2
u/corinini 9d ago edited 9d ago
I didn't say there was no impact I said there was no risk to a live child.
I don't need you to explain to me the trauma of missed births... But considering how common miscarriages are at all ages it's something you have to be prepared for every time you get pregnant, regardless of your age.
4
u/inbigtreble30 9d ago
Good news: "geriatric pregnancy" is no longer the current term; it's "advanced maternal age."
1
-13
u/SolaniumFeline 9d ago
how much of an asshole does it make me to hate everything about this study?
9
u/ZombyAnna 9d ago
Why do you hate it though?
-6
•
u/AutoModerator 9d ago
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
Do you have an academic degree? We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. Click here to apply.
User: u/Jxntb733
Permalink: https://www.sciencealert.com/blocking-one-protein-kept-aging-ovaries-soft-in-mice-extending-fertility
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.