Researchers at the Institute of Healthy Ageing at UCL (University College London) stated yesterday that the free-radical theory of aging is ‘wrong’.

As much as this study disappoints me, it would be disingenuous for me to omit it from this blog, and as much as one has to sigh at the possibility of countless hours of research going up in smoke, it is of course helpful if it redirects our energies elsewhere (if it is indeed true).

To summarize the press release, which is unfortunately a bit lacking in details, Dr David Gems from UCL and his colleagues studied the action of ‘key genes’ involved in removing superoxide in C. elegans (nematode worms). They (presumably) upregulated these genes to enhance the worms’ innate anti-oxidative capacities. They found that the lifespans of the worms were ‘relatively unaffected’ by the change.

Which led Dr Gems to say:

One of the hallmarks of ageing is the accumulation of molecular damage, but what causes this damage? It’s clear that if superoxide is involved, it only plays a small part in the story. Oxidative damage is clearly not a universal, major driver of the ageing process. Other factors, such as chemical reactions involving sugars in our body, clearly play a role. A healthy, balanced diet is very important for reducing the risk of developing many diseases associated with old age, such as cancer, diabetes and osteoporosis, but there is no clear evidence that dietary antioxidants can slow or prevent ageing. There is even less evidence to support the claims of most anti-ageing products.”

In the absence of the actual study, I can’t really comment on the science, except to say that I hope they checked their results properly. However, I guess I’ve never heard of a substance that extends lifespan as a result of its anti-oxidant capacity alone. Indeed, if supplementing with anti-oxidants did extend lifespan, one would assume a daily vitamin C would do the trick (it doesn’t). Does this mean there’s no point in trying to quench free-radicals? Well, as Dr Gems says, they’re good for reducing the risks of age-related pathologies, just not the main one – death.

From my limited information, it appears that this study stands in opposition to the recently-reported ‘Universal Theory of Aging‘, which suggests aging is a result of the re-deployment of sirtuins away from DNA regulation to sites of oxidative damage. So, I’m of the opinion that the book is not yet closed on the Free-Radical theory of Aging, and it’s just another case of over-excited scientists jumping the gun.

After all, there is always this study: Extension of murine life span by overexpression of catalase targeted to mitochondria., which one would consider to be more important given that it used a higher organism (mice). I guess the debate will continue to rage for some time yet.