To follow up topics of Part 1‘s interview:
1. “We each have a unique microbial signature in the gut. Metabolites that you produce might not be the same ones that I produce. This makes clinical studies very difficult because you don’t have a level playing field.”
This description of inter-individual variability could inform researchers’ investigations prior to receiving experimental results such as:
- Part 2 of Eat broccoli sprouts for DIM finding that 10 people eating 200 μmol glucobrassicin produced responses thousands of percent different for the highest and lowest individuals;
- Microwave broccoli seeds to create sulforaphane finding that 10 people ingesting a 200 μmol sulforaphane dose produced sulforaphane and its metabolites in blood plasma for the highest and lowest individuals that were > 500% (2.032 / 0.359 μmol) apart;
- Does sulforaphane reach the colon? finding that of 11 people ingesting a 102 μmol sulforaphane dose, 1 had no response, and responses of 2 were more than ten times greater than 2 others; and
- Rub some broccoli sprouts on it finding that of 7 people receiving a topical 5 nM sulforaphane dose, 2 had no response at all.
Post-experimental analysis with statistical packages of these types of results is apparently required. But it doesn’t produce meaningful explanations for such individual effects.
Analysis of individual differences in metabolism can better inform explanations, because it would investigate causes for widely-variable effects. Better predictive hypotheses could be a result.
2. Today I’m starting my 40th week of eating a clinically-relevant amount of microwaved 3-day-old broccoli sprouts every day. To encourage sulforaphane’s main effect of Nrf2 signaling pathway activation, I won’t combine broccoli sprouts with anything else either during or an hour before or after.
I had been taking supplements at the same time. This interview got me thinking about the 616,645 possible combinations of my 19 supplements and broccoli sprouts.
That’s way too many to be adequately investigated by humans. Especially because contexts for each combination’s synergistic, antagonistic, or additive activities may be influenced by other combinations’ results.
I’ll just eat food and take supplements outside of this sulforaphane window.
I’ve taken 750 mg fructo-oligosaccharides (FOS) twice a day for sixteen years. I’ve considered it as my only prebiotic. Hadn’t thought of either of these points:
- “Polyphenols are now considered to be a prebiotic food for microflora in the gut. They tend to focus on producing additional amounts of lesser known species like Akkermansia muciniphila, and have a direct prebiotic effect. Microbiota break these big, bulky molecules down into smaller metabolites, which clearly are absorbed. Some beneficial effects that come from polyphenols are not from the original molecule itself, but from a variety of metabolites produced in the gut.
- We use a prebiotic, actually called an immunobiotic, which is a dead lactobacillus plantarum cell optimised for its cell wall content of lipoteichoic acid. Lipoteichoic acid attaches to toll-like receptor 2, and that sets off a whole host of immune-modulating processes, which tend to enhance infection control and downregulate inflammation and downregulate allergenicity.”
3. “Quinone reductase is critical because it is the final enzyme in the phase two detox pathway that stops DNA being mutated or prevents deformation of DNA adducts which are mutagenic. I want to look at genes that govern redox balance, inflammation, detoxification processes, cellular energetics, and methylation.”
Gene functional group classifications are apparently required in studies, to accompany meaningless statistics. When I’ve read papers attaching significance to gene functional groups, it often seemed like hypothesis-seeking efforts to overcome limited findings.
I’ll start looking closer when study findings include Nrf2 signaling pathway targets quinone reductase, DNA damage marker 8-hydroxydeoxyguanosine, and enzymes glutathione peroxidase and glutathione S-transferase.
4. I bolded “unregulated inflammation” in Part 1 because it’s a phrase I’d ask to be defined if that site enabled comments. Thinking on inflammation seems to come from:
“We focus on the intestinal epithelial cell as a key player because if you enhance function of that cell, and Nrf2 is part of that story, once you get those cells working as they should, they are modulating this whole underlying immune network.”
“A link between inflammation and aging is the finding that inflammatory and stress responses activate NF-κB in the hypothalamus and induce a signaling pathway that reduces production of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) by neurons.
The case is particularly interesting when we realize that the aging phenotype can only be maintained by continuous activation of NF-κB. So here we have a multi-level interaction:
- Activation of NF-κB leads to
- Cellular aging, leading to
- Diminished production of GnRH, which then
- Acts (through cells with a receptor for it, or indirectly as a result of changes to GnRH-receptor-possessing cells) to decrease lifespan.
Cell energetics is not the solution, and will never lead to a solution because it makes the assumption that cells age. Cells take on the age-phenotype the body gives them.
Aging is not a defect – it’s a programmed progressive process, a continuation of development with the body doing more to kill itself with advancing years. Progressive life-states where each succeeding life-stage has a higher mortality (there are rare exceptions).
Cellular aging is externally controlled (cell non-autonomous). None of those remedies that slow ‘cell aging’ (basically all anti-aging medicines) can significantly extend anything but old age.
For change at the epigenomic/cellular level to travel up the biological hierarchy from cells to organ systems seems to take time. But the process can be repeated indefinitely (so far as we know).”