In this issue, Vadim Gladyshev presents a framework for understanding cellular ageing and life-span and the distinction between the two 1. I start with this, and end by hinting at what a challenge now exists to integrate thinking at lower levels of organisational hierarchy to higher ones, and the reverse. Gladyshev's thesis 1 in brief: A typical enzyme with a single substrate will produce a product that is not 100% pure; a small percentage of ‘byproduct(s)’ is also produced. If the cell were a bottle factory (my analogy), this would equate to the accumulation of misshapen, useless, bottles. These would pile up and compromise the working of the factory: its production steadily declines, and in the end ceases. An accumulation of damage in the factory's machinery has the same effect, if not attended to. But the cell is not a factory: it can divide, hence diluting the unwanted byproducts and producing new, undamaged, cellular components. Division of damage is not strictly equal, however, and that has consequences, as we will see later. The bottom line: ageing is caused by myriad damaged forms, and life-span determined by mechanisms that dilute or combat them. A corollary that occurs to me is that a slight evolved ‘sloppiness’ is inherent to biological systems, because if it weren't, organisms would not demonstrate adaptive responses within and between generations. The procession of life is sustained by the same feature: propensity for, and response to, stochastic effects and imperfection/inhomogeneity. Perfect systems with predictable outputs do not ‘explore’ possibility space. But explorers expose themselves to more sources of damage than couch potatoes living a relatively predictable life. The scars and injuries of past adventures never fully heal. As a non-equilibrium manifestation of matter, life locally distorts the usual propensity for matter to order itself to the lowest energy – highest entropy – equilibrium form. By-products of energy metabolism and anabolic processes that order living organic matter accumulate slowly; slowly enough for no effective purging mechanisms to have evolved to combat many of them. Moreover, reactive oxygen species (ROS) even play a crucial role in the normal physiology of the cell, signalling mitochondria to expand. The cell does combat ROS, but it also ‘needs’ ROS. Cells also have mechanisms to repair damaged DNA, and dispose of damaged protein, but none functions perfectly: equilibrium chemistry and physics do leave their mark on life; but how much? If a cell divides at a fast rate, the mark is greatly lessened by damage dilution, according to Gladyshev 1. This conceptual framework elegantly accounts for certain properties of cancer cells, and the emergence of senescent cells during ageing: unequal division of damage upon cell division gradually leads to enough accumulated damage in the ‘mother’ cell to stop it dividing. And now for some ‘sleight of hand’, as we move up the systems biology hierarchy: senescence of a cell is bad news, alright, because damage can no longer be diluted by division; but worse still, for the whole organism – a mammal, to be precise – senescent cells are a positive ‘nuisance’. They don't just die, but contribute to ageing by releasing pro-inflammatory factors, compromising neighbours 2. Senescent cells are still far enough from the equilibrium organisation of matter to survive – just – but their host is in trouble. Immune surveillance culls such cells, but ever less efficiently as the immune system itself starts its own age-dependent decline. Organismal ageing-related phenomena can be partially de-coupled from cellular ageing by eliminating senescent cells 2, but it strikes me as interesting, also, to ascertain the damage threshold(s) for senescence and how they might vary. Gladyshev notes, importantly, that there are many types of damage-related processes and entities in cells; there is no single, simple, cause of cellular ageing. Therefore at the level of an organism – several organisational levels of hierarchy away from the individual cell – it would be surprising if the manifestation of ageing were anything but complex, and variable between organisms. Differences in immune systems and apoptotic thresholds in different organisms e.g. can also be claimed to be important factors influencing ageing. Which side is right? Both and neither. Systems biologists know that top-down causality exist as well as bottom-up; this could well mean that the symptoms of ageing – the organism-level effects, such as degenerative diseases – influence the cellular root. The nexus of cellular and organismal studies of ageing is an extremely fertile area that should receive more attention. Andrew Moore Editor-in-Chief
Read full abstract