Energy-Carrying Molecules to Boost Aging Mitochondria?

Here I'll point out the latest in the Question of the Month series from the SENS Research Foundation, in which the staff are far more polite than I regarding the unmerited hype that seems to accompany both supplement research in general and research emerging from the Sinclair lab at Harvard in specific:

Q: In recent months, I've seen quite a lot of promotional material for a dietary supplement called nicotinamide riboside (NR). The companies involved say that Harvard researchers showed that this supplement restores mitochondrial function in the cells of aging mice, completely reversing the aging process in muscles. Some of them add that other research has shown that it improves metabolism, fights fat and obesity, and is protective of brain function. What do you think of this supplement?

A: It must be clarified that the substance used in the Harvard research was not actually NR, but another compound called nicotinamide mononucleotide (NMN). But NMN is unsuitable for oral supplementation, so the Harvard researchers injected their mice with NMN rather than giving it to them in their feed. With the excited coverage that greeted the research, supplement companies have promoted NR as a substitute, because it was already in production and can be taken orally. Because NR is a precursor to NMN, which in turn is used for the synthesis of the energy shuttle molecule nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD), many supplement vendors assert or imply that the results with NMN can also be gained with NR.

That all may sound promising, and it certainly makes for effective marketing copy. But no study has actually been done demonstrating that NR has similar effects to NMN in the muscles of otherwise-healthy aging mice. In fact, one study found that high-dose NR supplementation was unable to increase NAD+­ levels in muscle tissue or the mitochondrial fraction of normal, healthy mice. Additionally, overexpressing the gene that converts NR to NMN in these animals' muscles still didn't affect muscle mitochondrial function in the way that the Harvard researchers reported with NMN, suggesting that the effects observed with injected NMN may involve some kind of systemic response to having NMN itself circulating in the bloodstream. This casts considerable doubt on the assumption that either NR, or some other supplement that raises cellular NAD+­ levels, will replicate the effects of NMN on aging muscle. Additionally, interpretation of the Harvard report is greatly hampered by the lack of information of the animals' weight or food intake, which raises the possibility of effects mediated by calorie restriction or (contrariwise) by the simple overfeeding of all the animals in the study.

It's also important for readers of the press coverage to understand just what was involved when such stories reported that NMN treatment "reversed the effects of aging" on the mice's muscles. Readers would be forgiven for imagining the muscles of frail, elderly mice suddenly swelling to youthful size, able to perform tiny rodent bench presses with the strength and endurance of much younger animals. In reality, though, as the investigators were careful to point out in the original scientific paper, while their treated animals' muscle cells exhibited biochemical evidence of improved ("rejuvenated") metabolism and insulin-stimulated glucose uptake, "we did not observe an improvement in muscle strength." This important detail was missing from almost all of the reporting in the popular press. While it's possible, as the scientists speculate, that longer-term treatment would have led to some recovery of muscle function, the lack of any observed improvement in actual muscle strength calls into question the functional significance of the biochemical "rejuvenation" they report.

Link: http://sens.org/research/research-blog/question-month-12-energy-carrying-molecules-boost-aging-mitochondria

Comments

Sinclair is shortly launching a crowdfunder on lifespan.io, I have been asked if I would support a drive to fund it and had to be honest and say that I would not. Firstly for the reasons you state above Reason and secondly because a high profile lab at a big university like this already has a great fundraising PR machine, from my POV this is siphoning off much needed funding that would be spent on more important key basic research is a big reason against me supporting it too.

Please SENS can you launch a fundraiser to back the Yale efforts to break crosslinks? The Major Mouse Project would also be willing and able to test compounds that may cleave AGE, we are looking at Alagebrium aka ALT-711 and N-Phenacylthiazolium bromide for example.

Posted by: Steve H at November 25th, 2015 12:17 PM

ah found this from last year about PTB :(

"PTB is the parent compound of Alagebrium/ALT-711, with less catalytic activity. Alagebrium went all the way to clinical trials and then promptly failed. It's quite clear that these compounds don't work to reduce in any clinically-meaningful way in humans, for reasons that are debated, but that may be chalked down to an interspecies difference in the species of AGE crosslink: ie, the class of AGE that Alagebrium putatively breaks is common in rodents, but rare in humans (in whom the most quantitatively important AGE crosslink in collagen appears to be glucosepane). See Ending Aging for more on the history of this compound.

This is why SENS Research Foundation is now sponsoring research aimed at the eventual development of glucosepane crosslink breakers.

Posted by: Michael at August 6, 2014 4:40 PM"

That#s a real shame about PTB if it went the same way as Alagebrium.

Posted by: Steve H at November 25th, 2015 12:37 PM

Steve, I'm not clear on what you think the shame is about PTB potentially "[going] the same way as Alagebrium," or why you want to test the latter: we already know it's of no relevance to tissue AGEing within the current limits of human lifespan, and it's unlikely to do anything to rodent lifespan when used alone, because it only addresses one of the many kinds of cellular and molecular lesions driving degenerative aging: this is the root of the fallacy of critics of SENS who raise the canard

that no SENS intervention—in isolation—has ever been shown to extend any organism's lifespan. I do not recall Henry Ford alerting potential customers that the components of a car—in isolation—remain obstinately stationary when burning petrol is poured on them, nor do I recall his being castigated for this omission.

Posted by: Michael at November 25th, 2015 1:11 PM

@Michael I meant it's a shame because it does not work. So there is no point us testing that if it does nothing. It is my hope that we might perhaps find something useful to test that could provide helpful data.

I also get the idea that nothing works in isolation but we are too small to test all your SENS methods at once so we are looking at what we can do to potentially help move things forward. We have the researchers and the labs we just need to know what to aim at.

Senescent cell removal is likely to be on our test list but we are looking at what else we can do.

Posted by: Steve H at November 26th, 2015 12:25 PM

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.