←  Supplements

LONGECITY


The above is an ad! Advertisements help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.
»

Methylene Blue vs. Nicotinamide Riboside

tunt01's Photo tunt01 30 Aug 2016

I'm trying to understand the point of taking methylene blue over nicotinamide riboside.  

 

If they both improve the NAD+/NADH ratio and effectively improve mitochondrial electron flux, why would anyone supplement methylene blue over nicotinamide riboside?  What is the difference in their effect on the mitochondria?  Aren't they both just providing increased capacity for shuttling H+ and electrons into the various complexes (albeit Methylene does it exclusively at complex IV, whereas NR probably does it at I, II, etc.)

 

 

Quote

tunt01's Photo tunt01 31 Aug 2016

2ueafcw.png

 

Methylene blue acts as an artificial electron carrier, promoting mitochondrial respiration.  The net outcome is more energy available as ATP for cellular processes.[4]

 

Methylene blue supports mitochondrial respiration by functioning as an additional electron carrier[5]. MB receives electrons from NADH through mitochondrial complex I, itself being reduced to leuco-MB (MBH2). Leuco-MB then donates the electrons to cytochrome C, upon which it is recycled back to MB. These reactions serve to create a high proton (H+) concentration in the space between the inner & outer mitochondrial membranes. This leads to the passage of H+ down the concentration gradient, through mitochondrial complex V. In doing so, ADP & a phosphate (Pi) are joined to form ATP. Leuco-MB can also act as a free radical scavenger, neutralising superoxides by accepting electrons & itself becoming oxidized back to MB[6]. In this way, leuco-MB acts to prevent direct oxidative damage caused by free radicals.

 

 

 

 

 

9yUlV3s.png

 

Conversely, NR+ is ultimately cleaved to NAD+ and improves the NAD+/NADH ratio and is strictly adding to the availability of the pool of NAD+. 

 

 

 

Obviously this says nothing about tissue specific preference of methylene blue vs. nicotinamide riboside, as enzymatic conversion of NR seems to be far greater in muscle tissue than perhaps the brain/nervous system while MB is lipophilic (for CNS preference).  In other words, MB pretty much prefers nervous system tissue while NR prefers muscle tissue.  Let's put that major issue aside for the moment.

 

 

 

I'm just wondering about the mechanism of action here and why methylene blue might be preferred over NR/NAM as a mitochondrial supporting supplement and what the trade-offs are.  

 

Are we losing RNS/ROS signaling via methylene blue by shuttling activity strictly to complex IV and skipping I and III?  Do we have data that show mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPRmt) in methylene blue, levels of mnSOD, catalase, etc. ?  such that we can see the difference with NR? 

 

 

 

 


Edited by prophets, 31 August 2016 - 01:15 AM.
Quote

tommix's Photo tommix 20 Sep 2016

MB costs like 10$ for 10 year supply. That's why MB is and always will be superior to any other supplement. :)

Even ignoring tha cost -why would you write like MB is bad in some way??? I would ask who would use other than MB? MB is natural. Cheap, i dont know any side effects (just pls dont cry about green,blue pee, cause only you see it :) ) MB is the way to go. Also i think MB have most studies and proofs.


Edited by tommix, 20 September 2016 - 06:56 AM.
Quote

Conzed92's Photo Conzed92 13 Oct 2016

By skipping certain complexes in the mitochondria, we skip OXPHOS generating processes, decrease oxidative stress upon the cell and at the same time we increase the efficiency of ATP synthesis - Is this a reasonable summation of the effect of MB ingestion? 

Quote

iBeta's Photo iBeta 27 Jul 2022

 

 

Obviously this says nothing about tissue specific preference of methylene blue vs. nicotinamide riboside, as enzymatic conversion of NR seems to be far greater in muscle tissue than perhaps the brain/nervous system while MB is lipophilic (for CNS preference).  In other words, MB pretty much prefers nervous system tissue while NR prefers muscle tissue.  Let's put that major issue aside for the moment.

 

 

 

If taken orally the intestinal wall has around 20 times, and the liver 10 times that of the brain. For iv the liver takes around 8 times more. This could potentially be a problem, in that to get physiological concentrations (nmol) in the brain, other tissues may just reach pathological doses (µmol). Though a 6 hr half-life should ensure any damage done will be rectified once the concentration drops.   

 

Pharmacokinetics and organ distribution of intravenous and oral methylene blue
Eur J Clin Pharmacol (2000) 56: 247±250
Quote