Talk:Strategies for engineered negligible senescence/Archive 1

Useless?
There is hardly anything here that is not on the Engineered Negligible Senescence page, except for the nice little table. Shouldn't you just delete this page, and add whatever is missing from the ENS page (including the links at the bottom of this page)?

I'm fairly new and though I am supposed to "be bold", I don't want to step on your toes (whoever wrote this page).

But I think it should be merged.

Nabarry 23:01, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Journal Image Caption
The journal image caption is currently long, but it does provide germane information regarding the scope of the journal and the research being done in this area. Image side-bars with long captions are commonly used in print texts, and there are instances of much longer captions in other Wikipedia articles, such as Race_and_intelligence.--Nectarflowed (talk) 02:25, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Good point. And I see that the second sentence is a little better now that the "world leaders" bit has been taken out.  I didn't like that bit, and that's why I zapped the sentence.  I do usually favour brevity, but I will let this version remain.  —RadRafe | t 13:47, 21 May 2005 (UTC)


 * the caption --even modified -- is unjustified altogether, the picture is unjustified altogether, and I have removed it--it amounts to placing he name of one particular worker at the head of an article on a general subject in an unduly prominent position. I'll be glad to discuss it here, but I seriously suggest you consider whether this article would not be considerably stronger and more defensible without it. iI cannot think of any parallel to such a picture in such a place. DGG (talk) 01:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

SENS criticism added
This article does not seem to give the views of SENS critics a hearing, NPOV section added.--User:213.186.192.40

Glucosylation vs Glycosylation
Should it not be Glycosylation insted of Glucosylation? Fortunatedly there already is a decent article on Glycosylation... may I suggest modifying this? -Curious
 * I'd probably second this concern, as I had thought it was Glycosylation as well. It's a difference of Glucose and Glycogen apparently... hmm. Well, I'm going to change it soon if no one objects, and modify the Gly page with a link to ENS as well. If someone objects, please do so now (or then) and I request that you also define the Glucosylation page in the process. I googled the word so it definately does exist, but has yet to be defined. Can we cross-reference this with De Gray's website (if he has one) to determine the correct term? --Tyciol 09:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I just read a number of articles, including "In planta sequential hydroxylation and glycosylation of a fungal phytotoxin: Avoiding cell death and overcoming the fungal invader", in PNAS USA 2001 January 16; 98(2): 747–752 that use "Glycosylation" in the title, and "Glucosylation" in the article body as a synonym. Glucosylation, I believe, refers more specifically to bonding glucose to a larger molecule e.g. a protein, whereas glycosylation more generally refers to bonding any saccharide of any size similarly. In another article, "PROTEIN GLUCOSYLATION AND ITS ROLE IN PROTEIN FOLDING" in the Annual Review of Biochemistry of July 2000, the term "glucosylation" is used consistently, and unambiguously indicates that an oligosaccharide bonds with a protein through its glucose residue. Tyciol, glycogen is just one isomer of poly-glucose, so it sort of makes sense that glucosylation would refer to the oligosaccharides, whereas glycosylation would refer to larger molecules. (DAH 9/3/07) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.249.55 (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

paragraph of AD in overview
I wasnt the one who removed it, but its out of place there, and I think it would be excessive detail in the article in general, which is not about the ravages of AD. In the absence of argument, I will remove it. DGG (talk)

Section 1.2
Entitled "The Seven Causes of Aging", may need some revisions for clarity. I'm a biochemist, and there are a few sentences that I just can't make sense of, so I imagine the general public may have a problem with it as well. I don't want to be nit-picky, but someone really should go over the grammar and syntax of the whole section, too. "1. Cell Loss or Atrophy" has a confusing sentence structure; "this research involves a large number of details, and is already occurring on many fronts" could be interpreted to mean that the research itself is particularly nuanced, whereas I think its intended meaning was that the "details" in question are still unknown. "2. Nuclear Mutations and Epimutations" claims that cancer can be cured through "whole-body interdiction of lengthening telomeres", but the links supporting this point are dead, and for such a controversial and emotional topic, the editor really needs to be more clear about what this means. Does this therapy consist of transfecting every somatic cell with a gene? Is there a drug that affects telomere extension? Furthermore, the linked article on telomeres clearly establishes that they actually prevent mutations during replication, an inconsistency that may be overlooked by a casual reader and thus cause a misinterpretation of the article. In "3. Mitochondrial Mutations [...] Dr. de Grey claims that experimental evidence demonstrates that the operation is feasible," but neither Dr. de Grey nor the evidence of which he speaks is cited. The entirety of "5. Extracellular Cross-Links" is confusing and fails to convey a coherent idea; why is it important that the extracellular matrix is not inside the cell? Why does Dr. de Grey propose to develop drugs to disrupt "chemical bonding" when "In senescent people many of these become brittle and weak."? These are two very different ideas that need to be rectified in order to make the paragraph make sense. "6. Junk Outside Cells" and "7. Junk Inside Cells" need to be much, much more specific. I know what a beta sheet structure is on a protein, but anyone who doesn't have a background in biochemistry has no idea, so "Junk outside cells might be removed by [...] small drugs able to break chemical beta-bonds [sic]," doesn't really mean anything to the layperson. Also, an editor should reconsider the use of the word "junk" when it is being used to refer to plaque. The only other useless materials of which I am aware that will not be excreted are the appendix and tumors. The identity of intracellular "junk" should be specified, because I can barely begin to guess. Finally, the editor should explain what prevents the "enzymes [...] taken from bacteria, molds and other organisms that are known to completely digest animal bodies," from digesting functional cell components. -DAH24.131.249.55 05:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Requested move
I propose that this article be moved to "Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence" because that's the name under which the concept outlined in the article is best known, abbreviated "SENS" (see here). --Phenylalanine (talk) 01:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This -- SENS -- is certainly what it is referred to as by the Methuselah Foundation, which is the body most associated with it. Orlando098 (talk) 17:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I support the move. SENS is the acronym by which this concept is known and will be popularized. AaronCW (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree/Support -- for the reasons given above. --Ben Best (talk) 23:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I would agree with the move, though I am not sure whether or not it should be spelled out in full, which does seem clearer to someone encountering it who is not already familiar with the topic. DGG (talk) 04:26, 3 July 2008 (UTC) If there is no disagreement in anotherfew days, I will make the change. DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Note: Roughly two weeks have passed and nobody has objected to my proposal. I think we have reached consensus and the page should be moved. Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 10:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

✅ and talk pages moved and redirected. Had to add something from the other talkpage to the archive as well. Any probs gimme a shout. Khu kri  10:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

some recent edits

 * 1) . The material in this article seems at present written altogether in favor of de Grey's theories. I myself have no particular fixed position, but as it is clear that at the least there is no  consensus that he is right, the views of opponents must be given  equal coverage. this is pretty basic to NPOV.
 * 2) . The material of the controversy with MIT review was an almost complete copy of the material in the specialised article. I have accordingly removed it. Perhaps someone can write a proper one-paragraph summary. It does not belong in both places in full.
 * 3) . The "7 causes of aging" is a somewhat extended copy of the material in the main life extension article. Perhaps the duplication should be somewhat reduced. I notice the detailed paragraphs are unsourced, though I imagine the sources in the lede paragraph of that section applies. There's no point duplicating the cites, but perhaps they should be moved.
 * 4) . The details of the criticism of the theories previous present in the main life extension article were removed there. I accordingly put them here, but they were removed. The reason given was SYNTH, and I am not in the least sure that this was correct, for the material was fully cited. the original removal was justified as WP:BOLD in the edit summary without discussion. I consider my insertion the second step, REVERT. the next step is supposed to be discussion on the talk page, not removing it again. I could of course just restore it, and start the discussion, and the only reason I am going to wait a day or two in doing this is to give those who actually care about the subject a chance to do it themselves. I don't have a particular interest-- I only care about NPOV. DGG (talk) 04:49, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi DGG, I agree with you that both critics and supporters must be given equal coverage in the article. Regarding the second and third points, please point me to a policy or guideline that prohibits the use of a specific wording on the grounds that it's similar to that found in another Wikipedia article. Also, I agree that much material needs to be sourced. If you can provide citations please do. Also, consider that for an article devoted to SENS, it's normal that things are outlined in more detail that in other more general and non-specific articles, like "De Grey" and "life-extention". The article is still very short (about 30 KB). With respect to the criticism I removed from this and other articles, I did so based on WP:SYN (see  ). The criticism is in violation of Wikipedia policy on Original research. For the moment, I am going to revert your deletion of the De Grey controversy material per WP:SS and WP:SPINOUT, but I will see if I can further condense the material. --Phenylalanine (talk) 09:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)