Would you return a lost wallet?

The researchers in this 2019 Swiss/US study intentionally “lost” > 17,000 wallets under experimental conditions:

“We conducted field experiments in 40 countries to examine whether people act more dishonestly when they have a greater economic incentive to do so, and we found the opposite to be true. Citizens were more likely to return wallets that contained relatively larger amounts of money. Neither nonexperts nor professional economists were able to predict this result.

When people stand to heavily profit from engaging in dishonest behavior, the desire to cheat increases but so do the psychological costs of viewing oneself as a thief.”


The study did well in some aspects, including publicity. However:

1. The researchers admitted in the final paragraph:

“Using average reporting rates across countries, we find substantial variation in rates of civic honesty, ranging from 14 to 76%. This variation largely persists even when controlling for a country’s gross domestic product, suggesting that other factors besides a country’s wealth are also at play.”

Yet the paper’s first page contained the above graphic, which used each country’s GDP as a dependent variable! Wasn’t a behavioral economics study of honesty required to present their data honestly, and use factors that were experimentally significant?

2. “Other factors..at play” were relegated to the supplementary materials. The paper was only three-and-a-half pages long, so there was room for further explanations.

Here’s one comment on cultural differences from a Chinese PhD student:

“Biased design. In China (and Asian countries), people seldom use email, and our merit is to leave things untouched (“路不拾遗“:no one picks up lost articles in the street (idiom)).”

3. The study design had nothing to do with avoiding taxes, but three of the four sentences in the paper’s first paragraph did. This impressed as pointless.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6448/70 “Civic honesty around the globe” (not freely available)

Advertisements

Caloric restriction’s epigenetic effects

This 2019 US review subject was caloric restriction (CR) without malnutrition:

“Cellular adaptation that occurs in response to dietary patterns can be explained by alterations in epigenetic mechanisms such as DNA methylation, histone modifications, and microRNA. Epigenetic reprogramming of the underlying chronic low-grade inflammation by CR can lead to immuno-metabolic adaptations that enhance quality of life, extend lifespan, and delay chronic disease onset.

Short- and long-term CRs produce significant changes in different tissues and across species, in some animal models even with sex-specific effects. Early CR onset may cause a different and even an opposite effect on physiological outcomes in animal models such as body weight.”

 


Charts usually don’t have two different values plotted on the same axis. There wasn’t evidence that equated survival with methylation drift per the above graphic. Methylation drift should point in the opposite direction of survival, if anything.

No mention was made of the epigenetic clock method of measuring age acceleration, although recent diet studies have used it. The sole citation of an age acceleration study was from 2001, which was unacceptable for a review published in 2019.

The review provided many cellular-level details about the subject. However, organism-level areas weren’t sufficiently evidenced:

1. Arguments for an effect usually include explanations for no effect as well as opposite effects. The reviewers didn’t provide direct evidence for why, if caloric restriction extended lifespan, caloric overabundance produced shorter lifespans.

2. Caloric restriction evidence was presented as if only it was responsible for organism-level effects. Other mechanisms may have been involved.

An example of such a mechanism was demonstrated in a 2007 rodent study Reduced Oxidant Stress and Extended Lifespan in Mice Exposed to a Low Glycotoxin Diet which compared two 40%-calorie-restricted diets.

The calories and composition of both diets were identical. However, advanced glycation end product (AGE) levels were doubled in standard chow because heating temperatures were “sufficiently high to inadvertently cause standard mouse chow to be rich in oxidant AGEs.”

The study found that a diet with lower chow heating temperatures increased lifespan and health span irrespective of caloric restriction!

  • The low-AGE calorie-restricted diet group lived an average of 15% longer (>20 human equivalent years) than the standard calorie-restricted diet group. 40% of the low-AGE calorie-restricted diet group were still alive when the last standard calorie-restricted diet group member died.
  • The standard calorie-restricted diet group also had significantly more: 1) oxidative stress damage; 2) glucose and insulin metabolism problems; and 3) kidney, spleen, and liver injuries.

https://academic.oup.com/advances/article-abstract/10/3/520/5420411 “Epigenetic Regulation of Metabolism and Inflammation by Calorie Restriction” (not freely available)

A drug that countered effects of a traumatizing mother

This 2019 US rodent study concerned transmitting poor maternal care to the next generation:

“The quality of parental care received during development profoundly influences an individual’s phenotype, including that of maternal behavior. Infant experiences with a caregiver have lifelong behavioral consequences.

Maternal behavior is a complex behavior requiring the recruitment of multiple brain regions including the nucleus accumbens, bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, ventral tegmental area, prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and medial preoptic area. Dysregulation within this circuitry can lead to altered or impaired maternal responsiveness.

We administered zebularine, a drug known to alter DNA methylation, to dams exposed during infancy to the scarcity-adversity model of low nesting resources, and then characterized the quality of their care towards their offspring.

  1. We replicate that dams with a history of maltreatment mistreat their own offspring.
  2. We show that maltreated-dams treated with zebularine exhibit lower levels of adverse care toward their offspring.
  3. We show that administration of zebularine in control dams (history of nurturing care) enhances levels of adverse care.
  4. We show altered methylation and gene expression in maltreated dams normalized by zebularine.

These findings lend support to the hypothesis that epigenetic alterations resulting from maltreatment causally relate to behavioral outcomes.”


“Maternal behavior is an intergenerational behavior. It is important to establish the neurobiological underpinnings of aberrant maternal behavior and explore treatments that can improve maternal behavior to prevent the perpetuation of poor maternal care across generations.”

The study authors demonstrated intergenerational epigenetic effects, and missed an opportunity to also investigate transgenerational epigenetically inherited effects. They cited reference 60 for the first part of the above quotation, but that reviewer misused the transgenerational term by applying it to grand-offspring instead of the great-grand-offspring.

There were resources available to replicate the study authors’ previous findings, which didn’t show anything new. Why not use such resources to uncover evidence even more applicable to humans by extending experiments to great-grand-offspring that have no potential germline exposure to the initial damaging cause?

Could a study design similar to A limited study of parental transmission of anxiety/stress-reactive traits have been integrated? That study’s thorough removal of parental behavior would be an outstanding methodology to confirm by falsifiability whether parental behavior is both an intergenerational and a transgenerational epigenetic inheritance mechanism.

Rodent great-grand-offspring can be studied in < 9 months. It takes > 50 years for human studies to reach the transgenerational generation. Why not attempt to “prevent the perpetuation of poor maternal care across generations?”

Isn’t it a plausible hypothesis that humans “with a history of maltreatment mistreat their own offspring?” Isn’t it worth the extra effort to extend animal research to investigate this unfortunate chain?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-46539-4 “Pharmacological manipulation of DNA methylation normalizes maternal behavior, DNA methylation, and gene expression in dams with a history of maltreatment”

Wikipedia is a poor source of information on advanced glycation end products (AGEs)

A link to Wikipedia is usually on the first page of search results. The Wikipedia post on AGEs lacks the evidence that a reader may infer from its text.

For example, the second paragraph of the AGEs post, Dietary Sources, contained the following text and references:

  1. “However, only low molecular weight AGEs are absorbed through diet, and vegetarians have been found to have higher concentrations of overall AGEs compared to non-vegetarians. [4]
  2. Therefore it is unclear whether dietary AGEs contribute to disease and aging, or whether only endogenous AGEs (those produced in the body) matter. [5]
  3. This does not free diet from potentially negatively influencing AGE, but implicates dietary AGE may be less important than other aspects of diet that lead to elevated blood sugar levels and formation of AGEs. [4] [5]”

[4] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691513004444 “Advanced glycation end products in food and their effects on health” (not freely available) 2013 Denmark.

Please note on this linked page that a German researcher took the time to correct one bias of the Danish reviewers, citing evidence from his studies that:

“The deleterious effects of food-derived AGEs in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus are proven.”

[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257625 “Dietary Advanced Glycation End Products and Aging” 2010 US.


Both of these references were reviews.

Unlike study researchers, reviewers aren’t bound to demonstrate evidence from tested hypotheses. Reviewers are free to:

  • Express their beliefs as facts;
  • Over/under emphasize study limitations; and
  • Disregard and misrepresent evidence as they see fit.

Reviewers also aren’t obligated to make post-publication corrections for their errors and distortions. For example, the Danes didn’t correct their review with any findings the German researcher presented.

As such, reviews can’t be cited for reliable evidence.


A sample of other problems with each of the Wikipedia sentences:

1. “However, only low molecular weight AGEs are absorbed through diet, and vegetarians have been found to have higher concentrations of overall AGEs compared to non-vegetarians. [4]”

The first part of sentence 1 came from the review’s abstract:

“Only LMW AGEs..may be absorbed from the gut and contribute to the body burden of AGEs.”

But the reviewers didn’t support their abstract’s statement with direct evidence from any study!

2. “Therefore it is unclear whether dietary AGEs contribute to disease and aging, or whether only endogenous AGEs (those produced in the body) matter. [5]”

The “therefore” of sentence 2 was misplaced. Sentence 1 didn’t attempt to explain whether “dietary AGEs contribute to disease and aging” or “only endogenous AGEs matter.”

Since sentence 2 wasn’t a consequence of sentence 1, the Wikipedia contributor(s) needed to support sentence 2 with evidence. Citing an “unclear” 2010 reference [5] ignored dozens of studies that provided better clarity.

3. “This does not free diet from potentially negatively influencing AGE, but implicates dietary AGE may be less important than other aspects of diet that lead to elevated blood sugar levels and formation of AGEs. [4] [5]”

Wikipedia contributors tend to cite irrelevant references rather than get flagged with “citation needed.” The value judgment of sentence 3 was an example of this intentionally misleading masquerade.

“Dietary AGE may be less important..” wasn’t unequivocally supported by studies referenced in either review, and didn’t represent an authoritative body of evidence. Contrast those weasel words with:

“The deleterious effects of food-derived AGEs in subjects with type 2 diabetes mellitus are proven.”

Good job, Wikipedia contributors! You used lower-quality reviews to promote misunderstandings that DETRACTED from science.


Wikipedia’s premise is that since the group knows more about any subject than does any individual, everyone is entitled to contribute. The results are usually incoherent narratives that often substitute opinions for evidence.

The second paragraph of the Exogenous section of the Wikipedia glycation post provided an example:

  • Assertions of the first and third sentences needed citations. Did the contributor(s) think these would be unexamined?
  • Someone contributed a cancer reference as the fourth sentence, although it had little to do with the preceding sentences.
  • The fifth sentence was informative on exogenous glycations and AGEs. An editor would have removed “recently” and “recent” though, because the cited source was dated 2005.

Disease and advanced glycation end products (AGEs)

This 2015 French/US review focused on chronic kidney disease, appropriate for its publication in the Journal of the American Society of Nephrology:

“Advanced glycation end products (AGEs) are formed not only in the presence of hyperglycemia, but also in diseases associated with high levels of oxidative stress, such as CKD. Humans are exposed to exogenous sources of AGE (diet and cigarette smoke) and endogenous sources of AGE when the organism is exposed to high levels of glucose, such as in diabetes.

Accumulation of AGEs in patients with CKD has been shown to result from inflammation, oxidative stress, and diet. AGEs are proinflammatory and pro-oxidative compounds that play a role in the high prevalence of endothelial dysfunction and subsequent cardiovascular disease in patients with CKD.

In view of the many harmful effects of AGEs on cell function, it is essential to develop strategies designed to counteract their effects. AGEs are generated during the thermal processing and storage of foods. Dietary restriction is an effective, feasible, and economic method to reduce the levels of toxic AGEs and possibly, the associated cardiovascular mortality.”


I came across the AGE subject in the usual Internet way. 🙂 While reading the comments on Josh Mitteldorf’s blog post Money in Aging Research, Part I, Dr. Alan Green mentioned Dr. Helen Vlassara’s work on the subject. A DuckDuckGo search led to her 31,708 citations the first day I checked. That number increases every day.

Another read on the subject is her 2016 book Dr. Vlassara’s AGE-Less Diet: How a Chemical in the Foods We Eat Promotes Disease, Obesity, and Aging and the Steps We Can Take to Stop It. A practical guide is her 2017 book The AGE Food Guide: A Quick Reference to Foods and the AGEs They Contain.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281281887_Uremic_Toxicity_of_Advanced_Glycation_End_Products_in_CKD “Uremic Toxicity of Advanced Glycation End Products in CKD” (registration required)

A better method of measuring neurogenesis

One of the references cited in Linking adult neurogenesis to Alzheimer’s disease was https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-019-0375-9 “Adult hippocampal neurogenesis is abundant in neurologically healthy subjects and drops sharply in patients with Alzheimer’s disease” (not freely available).

This 2019 Spanish human study used improved techniques to find:

“Adult hippocampal neurogenesis (AHN), confers an unparalleled degree of plasticity to the entire hippocampal circuitry. Direct evidence of AHN in humans has remained elusive. Determining whether new neurons are continuously incorporated into the human dentate gyrus (DG) during physiological and pathological aging is a crucial question with outstanding therapeutic potential.

By combining human brain samples obtained under tightly controlled conditions and state-of-the-art tissue processing methods, we identified thousands of immature neurons in the DG of neurologically healthy human subjects up to the ninth decade of life. These neurons exhibited variable degrees of maturation along differentiation stages of AHN. In sharp contrast, the number and maturation of these neurons progressively declined as AD advanced.

These results demonstrate the persistence of AHN during both physiological and pathological aging in humans and provide evidence for impaired neurogenesis as a potentially relevant mechanism underlying memory deficits in AD that might be amenable to novel therapeutic strategies.”


The control group was 13 neurologically healthy deceased people aged 43 to 87. The AD group was 45 deceased people, distributed among the six Braak stages of the pathology, aged 52 to 97.

Linking adult neurogenesis to Alzheimer’s disease

This 2019 Spanish human study compared DNA methylation, chromatin and histone modifications in the hippocampus of deceased Alzheimer’s disease patients with controls:

“A significant percentage of the differentially methylated genes were related to neural development and neurogenesis. It was astounding that other biological, cellular, and molecular processes generally associated with neurodegeneration such as apoptosis, autophagy, inflammation, oxidative stress, and mitochondrial or lysosomal dysfunction were not overrepresented.

The results of the present study point to neurogenesis-related genes as targets of epigenetic changes in the hippocampus affected by AD. These methylation changes might be built throughout life due to external and internal cues and would represent an example of epigenetic interaction between environmental and genetic factors in developing AD.

As an alternative explanation, these epigenetic marks might also represent the trace of DNA methylation alterations induced during early developmental stages of the hippocampus, which would remain as a fingerprint in the larger proportion of hippocampal neurons that are not exchanged. This second hypothesis would link AD to early life stages, in concordance with recent studies that revealed abnormal p-tau deposits (pre-tangles) in brains of young individuals under 30, suggesting AD pathology would start earlier in life than it was previously thought. The influence of the genetic risk for AD has also been postulated to begin in early life, and other AD risk factors may be influenced by in utero environment.”


The study cited references to adult neurogenesis:

“Though strongly related to brain development, neurogenesis is also maintained in the adult human brain, mainly in two distinct areas, i.e., the subventricular zone and the subgranular zone of the dentate gyrus in the hippocampus. There is substantial neurogenesis throughout life in the human hippocampus as it is estimated that up to one third of human hippocampal neurons are subject to constant turnover.

Adult neurogenesis is linked to hippocampal-dependent learning and memory tasks and is reduced during aging. Recent evidence suggests that adult neurogenesis is altered in the neurodegenerative process of AD, but it is still controversial with some authors reporting increased neurogenesis, whereas others show reduced neurogenesis. In the human hippocampus, a sharp drop in adult neurogenesis has been observed in subjects with AD.”

One of the study’s limitations was its control group:

“There was a significant difference in age between controls [12, ages 50.7 ± 21.5] and AD patients [26, ages 81.2 ± 12.1], being the latter group older than the former group. Although we adjusted for age in the statistical differential methylation analysis, the accuracy of this correction may be limited as there is little overlap in the age ranges of both groups.”

https://clinicalepigeneticsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13148-019-0672-7 “DNA methylation signature of human hippocampus in Alzheimer’s disease is linked to neurogenesis”