Do Genes Determine Who Lives to Be 100 or More?
There's been a lot of controversy lately about a study published in the journal Science by a group of Boston University researchers who say they've been able to identify about 150 genetic variations that predict longevity.
If they are correct, a test based on those markers could predict who is most likely to have a long life and who isn't, all other factors being equal. Is the study valid? And if it is, does that mean how long you live is mostly predestined from birth, and that how you live doesn't matter as much?
The BU scientists, who studied 1,050 centenarians and 1,267 control subjects in New England. report that 90 percent of the centenarians fit into various clusters of the 150 genetic variations, which are linked to Alzheimer's, hypertension and 17 other age-related diseases. They maintain that the model they created is able to predict a long lifespan with a 77 percent accuracy. The team found that the oldest subjects--those 110 or older--had genetic signatures with the highest proportion of longevity-associated genetic variations.
Since the study was released July 1, however, critics have attacked the sample size and the genetic analysis methods, saying they undermine the credibility of the findings. "I think it is very unlikely indeed that the findings in the Science paper are correct, or even mostly correct," Duke University geneticist David B. Goldstein told The New York Times. Here's a blog post from the science publication Nature that goes into the details.
Perhaps the big problem with the study is how it has been misinterpreted by some in the nonscientific news media. The headline of this AOL Health story, for example, proclaims that seniors with the right genes are "The Chosen Ones" and quotes an endocrinologist saying that the study confirmed that genetics are "most important" in determining who lives longest. However, as the BU researchers themselves noted in their paper in Science, that is not the case. To the contrary, they write, previous studies of twins have indicated that only 20 to 30 percent of their longevity to age 85 is due to genetics. As Science News correctly reported,
Environmental factors, including lifestyle choices such as diet, smoking and exercise habits, are still the most important determinants of longevity.
Additionally, the researchers' findings, if accurate, indicate that there is no one genetic path for reaching ripe old age. Instead, the study identified as many as 19 different genetic combinations that might help a person to get there. That suggests that the explanation for longevity is probably a lot more complicated than we ever suspected.
Meanwhile, data gathered by Germany's Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research on "supercentenarians"--that is, people who live to 110 or older--indicates that, whatever the explanation, there seem to be more of them than ever, and they tend to have an astonishing vigor well into their 9th and 10th decades. The study found no strong correlation between living long and having long-lived ancestors, which tends to undermine any argument that longevity is largely genetic. Indeed, ancestry was no more important a factor than whether a person had offspring. Additionally, the survey showed that supercentenarians didn't have any magical immunity to disease. Indeed, some were cancer survivors. The one exception: Almost all of them didn't develop dementia, or at least avoided it until just before their deaths.
The researchers, who spent the past decade searching for supercentenarians, found about 600 of them worldwide, including 20 people who lived past 115. More than half of the super-centenarians--341 people--lived in the United States. The oldest person in the study was a French woman, Jeanne Calment, who died in 1997 at the age of 122. (She recalled meeting Vincent Van Gogh when she was 13.) When interviewed at 120, Calment said she believed that the secret of her long life was "fun" and that she enjoyed pleasurable things in moderation. She liked good food, wine, cakes and chocolate, and allowed herself one glass of port and one cigarette per day.
Previous Post: Good Economic News, Bad iPhone Press, the Queen of Gombe and a Bribe to Put Down That Cookie
Next Post: Healthy Minds, Underwater World Cup, BFFs and Modern Vacations

Comments:
Kiger, you are confusing "life expectancy" with "lifespan." No one particular group of humans has a longer LIFESPAN than any other (except females, who outlive males by about five years). That's why the world's oldest person title has gone to someone between 114 and 116 for the last ten years...not much variation. In regards to the "up to age 85," that's a colloquial comment, not an exact measurement. Some see the difference starting at "75": http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16463022 By the way, I don't think anyone is saying that it's OK to live a horrible lifestyle and get away with it. Rather, here is an apt analogy: Two people were born. One was Michael Jordan. The other was you. Who is going to be the better basketball player? Certainly, Michael Jordan had certain genetic advantages (height, for example). Yet had he not practiced and played hard, he would have never become the player he became...which is, some say, the greatest of all time. Now, suppose you went out and practiced just as much as Michael Jordan and just as hard...would you be able to play like him? Probably not. And when it comes to longevity, that's the truth that a lot of overly optimistic reports overlook. You could do everything right and still die at 56 (like Linda McCartney). No amount of "the power of positive thinking" is going to help progeria victims, either.
I don't know to what extent the influence of genetics on longevity changes after age 75, but I do know that as the BU study itself points out, twin studies show that up until age 85, it plays only a 20 to 30 percent role. Additionally, there is evidence that lifestyle is a far more significant influence upon longevity that genetics into the late 80s. As this Scientific American article notes, Seventh Day Adventists, who mostly are vegetarians and don't drink alcohol or smoke, have a well-documented average lifespan of 88 years, which is about 10 percent longer than the typical American lifespan. (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=genetic-factors-associated-with-increased-longevity-identified) The BU study actually looked at subjects between ages 95 and 119, so its results really only are relevant to whether genetics play a role in reaching centenarian or super-centenarian status.
There are so many stories of people like my uncle who made it to 86 smoking two packs a day vs. Jim Fixx who was extremely healthy when he died young, so clearly what you're born with can play a large enough role to override how to treat your body. Up to a point.
This is a very biased and selective opinion report. You completely ignored the fact that, while genetics at BIRTH play only a minority role in longevity, the proportion of longevity that is related to genetics increases significantly after age 75.