This new paper from Sinclair finally settles the dispute. NMN needs to convert to NR before entering cells.
https://www.biorxiv....9561v1.full.pdf
Posted 11 September 2020 - 08:48 PM
Posted 11 September 2020 - 08:54 PM
Posted 12 September 2020 - 09:33 PM
Posted 13 September 2020 - 01:45 PM
Posted 14 September 2020 - 01:59 AM
It is unfortunate that the moderators here allow you to try and pump up your failing stock price by making such false threads.
The title of this thread is not supported at all by the research.
They did not find that NMN has to be converted to NR to enter cells. In their experiments, they did find that most NMN and NR are broken down to NAM. But they also found NMN absolutely intact in tissues:
"Our results were in close alignment with those findings (Liu et al., 2018), where the ratio of intact M+7 or M+6 to M+0 unlabelled NAD+ was around 2%, whereas the ratio of M+2 labelled to M+0 unlabelled NAD , presumably as a result of incorporation of free Nam, was over 10% (Fig. 5c, j, 6c, j). "
Meaning, about 15% of the labelled NMN they found was intact, with the rest metabolized to NAM first.
They also noted that the extensive isotope labelling applied to the NMN severely limited the time points they could test, and would not capture the fast absoption by the dedicated NMN transporter, SLC12A8.
limited availability of isotope labelled material meant that this study used a single time point, rather than a time course which also encompassed very early timepoints, possibly missing the minute-order kinetics of direct NMN transport, as previously reported (Mills et al., 2016; Yoshino et al., 2011).
The real findings of this research are that
1. the gut microbiota play a role in metabolizing NMN and NR.
2. direct incorporation of NMN and NR to NAD+ is not the only method, and they may play a signaling role in triggering endogenous NAD+ production
They believe this may be why NMN and NR have such different effect than NAM. Clearly, its not as straightforward as A + B = C
In the first quote below, they note the increase in unlabeled NAD metabolites is much greater than the labelled NMN supplied, in addition to some labelled NAD+ found in tissues.
A surprising aspect of these results was that treatment with 100% labelled NMN led to a striking increase in unlabelled NAD metabolites.
In contrast to that study, we argue that these counter-intuitive findings run against the classic mass-balance model, whereby it is assumed that exogenous NAD+ precursors raise NAD+ levels through their direct incorporation into the NAD metabolome. Instead, these results raise the idea that treatment with these exogenous precursors could indirectly trigger endogenous NAD+ biosynthesis. The mechanism for this is not yet clear, though given the profound effect of antibiotic treatment, in particular for the overwhelming abundance of NR in the gut (Fig. 5b, 6b, Supp. Fig. 4b, 6b), are likely to involve interplay with the gut microbiome.
Importantly, the increased production of endogenous NAD+ metabolites following exogenous NMN/NR treatment suggests that the benefits of exogenous treatment with NMN or NR could be from indirect signalling, rather than direct incorporation – a finding that has profound importance for therapeutic strategies, in particular the choice of dosing.
Edited by able, 14 September 2020 - 02:25 AM.
Posted 14 September 2020 - 11:13 AM
Posted 14 September 2020 - 11:19 AM
Posted 14 September 2020 - 11:32 AM
Posted 15 September 2020 - 03:35 PM
“as even when M+6 or M+7 labelling of NMN was observed at low levels, this only occurred in antibiotic treated animals (Fig. 5b, 6b).”
Unless you take antibiotics when you take NMN, direct absorption of NMN through gut can not be detected.
They did not detect direct NMN-> NAD+ in the gut except in mice given antibiotics in THIS research. That is not proof it doesn't happen anywhere in the body in any instance, as you claim in the title.
SLC12a8 was shown to transport it directly in other research, as did the Mills research in 2016.
Imagine you get up early for breakfast and see some deer in your backyard. Your wife gets up an hour later, and they are gone.
You tell her about the deer. She tells you it didn't happen because she didn't see them when she got up for breakfast.
Then, she goes on facebook to tell everyone you are crazy, and she has proof there were no deer because she took a picture of the backyard when she woke up.
To me, that is a good analogy of how you misinterpret research and make statements of fact that are not in the research.
Edited by able, 15 September 2020 - 03:36 PM.
Posted 15 September 2020 - 08:56 PM
Posted 15 September 2020 - 09:07 PM
This study didn’t observe direct NMN absorption. Liu’s paper also showed near zero direct NMN absorption. The NMN transporter study was debunked by Brenner as manipulation of noise.
Sinclair has spoken. NMN doesn’t get absorbed directly in any meaningful way.
Debunked by Brenner??? Thats funny, and about as meaningful as you interpreting research here. He is extremely biased, and other researchers don't agree with him about slc12a8. It is unclear how much - it does seem likely it is small quantities. But it does transport some NMN direct to NAD+. For you to claim the opposite, is dishonest.
As you know the Mills research in 2016 clearly shows labelled, intact NMN in the blood within 15 minutes and in soleus muscle within 30 minutes.
Edited by able, 15 September 2020 - 09:07 PM.
Posted 15 September 2020 - 11:35 PM
Posted 15 September 2020 - 11:43 PM
Posted 16 September 2020 - 12:29 AM
Brenner has made excuses for years on various changing reasons why NR is NEVER found in blood plasma.
So, your theory is that NMN given to mice shows up in blood plasma in minutes, due to some broken cells? But these broken cells never yield NR? And they have a big spike in NMN and NAD+ from these "broken cells" only after NMN dosage, but not before?
Very strange.
Edited by able, 16 September 2020 - 12:34 AM.
Posted 16 September 2020 - 11:06 AM
Brenner has made excuses for years on various changing reasons why NR is NEVER found in blood plasma.
So, your theory is that NMN given to mice shows up in blood plasma in minutes, due to some broken cells? But these broken cells never yield NR? And they have a big spike in NMN and NAD+ from these "broken cells" only after NMN dosage, but not before?
Very strange.
Posted 15 October 2020 - 01:17 PM
Washington Post: Do NAD-boosting supplements fight aging? Not according to current research. https://www.washingt...e8c2_story.html
Edited by longévité, 15 October 2020 - 01:34 PM.
Posted 15 October 2020 - 01:47 PM
Washington Post: Do NAD-boosting supplements fight aging? Not according to current research. https://www.washingt...e8c2_story.html
"Imai said there’s evidence that supplemental NMN behaves differently from NR in the human body, including absorbing in to our tissues faster, which may make NMN more promising. "
Posted 15 October 2020 - 06:36 PM
Quoting his own trash study. The new and better studies from Sinclair says otherwise."Imai said there’s evidence that supplemental NMN behaves differently from NR in the human body, including absorbing in to our tissues faster, which may make NMN more promising. "
Edited by MikeDC, 15 October 2020 - 06:37 PM.
Posted 25 October 2020 - 05:06 AM
Does anyone even consider this an issue using liposomal NMN or NAD+?
Posted 31 October 2020 - 12:21 PM
Does anyone even consider this an issue using liposomal NMN or NAD+?
Posted 04 January 2021 - 03:33 PM
Posted 04 January 2021 - 06:57 PM
Another new paper shows NMN converts to NR before entering cells.
https://www.nmn.com/...ion-dysfunction
My understanding is liposomes are carried directly into the cell, so if you are using alivebyscience's liposomal NMN or NAD+, conversion to NR wouldnt be an issue anymore
From Thomas Levy
Liposomes can be filled with a drug or a nutrient, and these encapsulated ingredients are then ferried and delivered to targeted cells within the body. Liposomes are doing a lot of things while carrying and delivering their payloads to the desired site. They protect the nutrients from degradation that inevitably happens in the gastrointestinal tract. As a result, the enclosed content is directly delivered to the bloodstream and into the cells.
Since liposomes are basically made of the same fat that your cell membranes are composed of, this helps liposomes to quickly and easily cross the membrane-barrier without much resistance and without consuming high amounts of energy.
Edited by Gal220, 04 January 2021 - 06:59 PM.
Posted 05 January 2021 - 02:33 AM
Posted 07 January 2021 - 03:27 AM
Another new paper shows NMN converts to NR before entering cells.
https://www.nmn.com/...ion-dysfunction
I guess it depends on your NAD politics.
ABS put out an article on this that makes it sound like this research is bad for NR, as it shows cells increase CD73 to bring in more NMN when stressed, because NR is not present.
Obviously, they are biased against NR, so there's that. But the logic seems sound to me.
Why would cells increase CD73 if they could get NR more easily? Because NR is not found in blood, but NMN is. So cells have a mechanism (CD73) that is upregulated when needed to get NMN from the blood.
https://alivebyscien...to-restore-nad/
Findings covered below are:
- CD73 is required to transport NMN in endothelial cells
- NMN is not impeded on entering cells
- NMN crosses cell membrane as readily as NR
- CD73 increased when NAD+ levels low
- Increased CD73 indicates importance of NMN for restoring vascular function
- NMN is available in blood and can be increased with supplementation
- NR is not available in blood
- NR Supplements do not increase NR level in the bloodstream
- Increased CD73 is necessary because NR is not available in bloodstream
Some researchers who favor Nicotinamide Riboside (NR) for restoring NAD+ claim that the need for CD73 to transport NMN inside cells means NR is more effective, as it can enter cells without CD73. Our takeaway from this research is actually very different. If NR was available, there would be no need to increase CD73.
The increased CD73 found in this study is because NR is not available, so is not sufficient to restore NAD+. NMN is available, can be increased with supplementation, is readily used by cells, and actively sought by cells to restore NAD+.
Edited by able, 07 January 2021 - 03:35 AM.
Posted 07 January 2021 - 12:26 PM
Posted 07 January 2021 - 03:14 PM
You can keep your head in the sand if you want, but you might want to go check that article by ABS.
They show this chart from research by Dr. Brenner, that shows taking 1,000 mg of NR does not increase blood NR, which he found at trace levels.
It does increase NMN quite a lot. So I guess you could take NR as some of it does travel in blood as NMN and NAD, but certainly not as NR.
This chart is derived from the Brenner study published in August 2019. NR is found only at trace levels in the bloodstream, and is not increased after supplementation of 1,000 mg of NR per day for 3 weeks.
- NR was found at trace levels in the blood
- NR levels were unchanged after supplementation
- MeNAM and Me2PY are the primary result of NR supplementation, not NR
Edited by able, 07 January 2021 - 03:25 PM.
Posted 07 January 2021 - 03:31 PM
Actually, this makes me mad that I never noticed this before.
Dr Brenner runs around saying that NMN makes no sense because it has to convert to NR to enter cells.
And that others don't find NR the bloodstream due to poor techniques.
But he clearly knows NR is just barely detectable, even by himself. And that NR supplements do not increase NR in the blood. Isn't that the very definition of bioavailable, which NR is not?
And he knows NR turns to NMN in the bloodstream, and is brought into cells by CD73 without problem. In fact, cells increase CD73 to find more NMN because NR is not available in blood.
It seems NMN (and NAD+) are the forms carried in the blood, then transformed to NR as it goes through the cell membrane. But taking NR does not result in NR being carried in the blood to other tissues.
Edited by able, 07 January 2021 - 03:35 PM.
Posted 07 January 2021 - 05:36 PM
Posted 07 January 2021 - 11:17 PM
I guess it depends on your NAD politics.
ABS put out an article on this that makes it sound like this research is bad for NR, as it shows cells increase CD73 to bring in more NMN when stressed, because NR is not present.
Obviously, they are biased against NR, so there's that. But the logic seems sound to me.
Why would cells increase CD73 if they could get NR more easily? Because NR is not found in blood, but NMN is. So cells have a mechanism (CD73) that is upregulated when needed to get NMN from the blood.
BRILLIANT. Finally, someone knows what they are talking about on this thread.
Posted 08 January 2021 - 07:29 PM
The fact that NR is under patent has created a one-sided holy war waged by NR proponents to prove that NR is better.
Luckily we only have about 3-4 more years until the NR patents start expiring and we can have sensible discussions about this.
Science & Health →
Supplements →
NAD+ →
NMN Extends Fast-Aging Mouse Life and Prevents a Leaky GutStarted by theone , 15 Mar 2024 nmn |
|
|
||
Round Table Discussion →
Business →
Retailer/Product Discussion →
NMN Has Disappeared - Where can you find it?Started by Freebytes , 07 Dec 2023 nmn, nicotinamide mononucleotide and 1 more... |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Supplements →
NAD+ →
NA is a more direct NAD precursor than NMN and NR, and far cheaperStarted by osris , 09 Jul 2023 nad, niacin, nmn |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
Supplements →
NAD+ →
Poll
NAD+ Booster Subjective ComparisonsStarted by ta5 , 29 Apr 2023 nmn, nad, nad+ |
|
|
||
Science & Health →
AgingResearch →
Biomarkers & Genes →
Epigenetic Test #5: Impact of NMN?Started by Michael Lustgarten , 23 Apr 2023 nmn, blood testing |
|
|
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users