Genes, aging: Study retracted that tied variants to living past 100

Citing “technical errors” and “inadequate quality control,” scientists from Boston University have retracted a study that claimed to have found 150 genetic variants linked to extreme old age.

About a year ago, the team, led by geneticist Paola Sebastiani and longevity researcher Dr. Thomas Perls, published results of an examination of the DNA of more than 1,000 centenarians -- people who had lived 100 years or longer. They reported discovering 150 genetic variants linked to extreme old age. While there was no single gene behind reaching triple digits, and environment remained a factor, the work suggested that someday people might be able to get a test to see if they carry a “longevity gene.”

In our coverage of the story (see link to left), the Los Angeles Times also noted that further study of the genes could hold clues for the development of drugs to treat or manage age-related diseases including diabetes and Alzheimer’s, since they occur at lower rates in people older than 100.

For obvious reasons, the research generated a lot of excitement among regular folks.

But it also attracted scrutiny from research geneticists, who quickly questioned the Boston University team’s methods. Within a week, some noted that the team had used different DNA sequencing chips to identify the genes in different subjects. Using different chips could produce data that were essentially incompatible, they said. Duke University geneticist David Goldstein told Newsweek that using one kind of chip to test centenarians and another to test a control group could result in false positives -- equipment-related discrepancies that could be misinterpreted as significant differences lurking in the genes. The team should have doublechecked their results using a single chip, he added.

Faced with such concerns, the researchers analyzed the data again -- and apparently found that there were errors.

In a retraction notice published in Science, they said that their “main scientific findings remain supported by the available data,” and that they would “pursue alternative publication of the new findings.”

This doesn’t mean genes don’t have a role in determining how old you’ll live. But the search for the fountain of youth is still on.

Thanks to Retraction Watch for pointing the way to the Newsweek piece.