Did you know that NAD, NMN and NR were described in the 1940s as factor V, an essential growth factor to grow Haemophilus influenza? H influenza is a flu-causing bacterium that only a few microbiologists ever wanted to grow. NR worked better than NMN and NAD because /1
Phosphorylated compounds can't get into cells. H influenza needs NR because it doesn't have the genes to make NAD from amino acids, nicotinamide or nicotinic acid. There was no market for NR because who wants to grow H influenza? /2
In 2004, I was working on glutamine-dependent NAD synthetase in yeast. This enzyme performs the final step in making NAD from tryptophan, nicotinamide and nicotinic acid (all the then-known NAD precursors in eukaryotic cells). /3
I questioned whether there was another way to make NAD in yeast & showed that NR is a precursor--this showed the vitamin activity of NR. Pawel Bieganowski & I then found the yeast NRK1 enzyme plus the mouse and human NR kinase genes, establishing the identity of the NR pathway./4
These are important genes that get turned up when NAD is under attack. The @dartmouth patents on uses of NR as a food/nutritional supplement and a potential drug came of this discovery doi.org/10.1016/S0092-…#metabolism#NAD#NR
Discovered to be a vitamin as opposed to a growth factor for Haemophilus influenza
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
today @davidasinclair is telling the world that he has achieved age reversal with chemical cocktails
he submitted the paper on June 30 & it was accepted on July 4 by a journal of which he is coeditor-in-chief
paper was sent to me 3 days ago by a reporter for comment
reporter was told it is a "groundbreaking study" & "the first chemical approach to reprogram cells to a younger state"
reason WSJ didn't cover that paper is that ppl have been reporting chemical compounds that drive conversion of cells to induced pluripotency for the last 10-15 years
all of the compounds in today's paper were previously reported by others, mostly in 2013
there's a peer review failure today doi.org/10.1016/j.cell… in which an individual with 59 collaborators claims to have tested the information theory of aging
he did not test the information theory of aging
the claim is that he induced dsDNA breaks that are easily repaired, don't cause a DNA damage response or mutagenesis or cell death--only an epigenetic change
he knows this is not true because his co-first author & he published this paper in dec '21
there are a few issues being addressed here. let’s start w safety
human placebo controlled trials have never shown adverse events attributable to Niagen. note that LDL-C is raised in humans w Basis & pterostilbene alone
the class of compounds to which NR belongs is vitamin B3
there are decades of human data on these molecules showing human safety. niacin is unique in causing flushing but nicotinamide was tested in large Australian skin cancer and was shown to be cancer-preventative in ppl
there’s a hierarchy of evidence w human RCTs (and meta-analysis of RCTs) on the top. human case reports & good quality rodent studies are lower. cell studies are lower. poorly conducted rodent and/or poorly conducted cell studies are garbage in/garbage out