There is so much disinformation going around about NMN, it's time for a tweetorial /1
Before you dismiss me as biased because I developed the NR patents @Dartmouth, consider that I've been working on nucleosides and nucleotides since 1993 when I began my postdoc @BrandeisU -- I've continued on the forefront of nucleoside/nucleotide research to this day /2
My primary motivation is for people not to be harmed. I also think it is horrible for people to be fooled or hoodwinked /3
We don't how many people have been harmed by taking NMN because we don't know what's in the bottles produced by so many suppliers. It is certain that everyone buying the NMN story is being hoodwinked. If they are buying NMN, their cells are getting either NR or nicotinamide /4
I will explain all, starting with the basic chemistry /5
What are nucleosides and nucleotides? Let's start with examples and then I will teach you the general principles. NR and adenosine are nucleosides. NMN, NAD and ATP are nucleotides. Nucleosides don't have phosphates. Nucleotides have one or more phosphates /6
Nucleosides are molecules with a base linked to a sugar. When the base is adenine (abbreviated A) and the sugar is ribose, you have adenosine. When the base is nicotinamide and the sugar is ribose, you have NR /7
Nucleosides circulate in the body and are taken up by cells through nucleoside transporters. Inside cells, nucleoside kinases add a phosphate to turn nucleosides into nucleotides. Adenosine kinase converts adenosine into AMP, which can then be converted to ADP and ATP /8
NR also circulates, though it is difficult to detect. When we draw blood, an enzyme that is normally inside cells spills out and breaks the NR into nicotinamide plus ribose. We know NR circulates because every cell has NR kinase (some cells have NR kinase 1 and 2) /9
Moreover, cells with NAD problems, such as those in a failing heart, turn up expression of their NR kinases so that when NR becomes available, NR kinases convert the NR to NMN. In a healthy cell, the NMN is then converted to NAD+, NADH, NADP+ and NADPH. That's how NR works /10
What NMN advocates are saying is that NMN is closer to NAD+ than NR is. They are saying that NR has to be converted to NMN and then to NAD+ and this makes NMN more powerful than NR because it is already has one of the phosphates on it toward rebuilding cellular NAD+ /11
If NMN were to get into cells, this would be true but NMN does not get into cells. In fact, no nucleotide has ever been shown to get into cells. NAD+ can be exported from cells through Cx43 and NMN was proposed to enter cells through Slc12a8 but NMN does not enter cells /12
If NMN entered cells as NMN, then it would not need NR kinase to elevate NAD+. We knocked out NR kinase. As expected, NR could not be used by cells from these mice to make NAD+. We and others showed that NMN loses its phosphate outside cells, becoming NR /13
The NMN proponents predicted that NMN would still work as NMN in cells that don't have NR kinase but we and others showed that when NR kinase is knocked out, NMN can only raise NAD+ by acting as nicotinamide. That's because NMN works by conversion to NR and needs NR kinase /14
NMN proponents further claimed that sodium channel Slc12a8 is an NMN transporter. Their data did not show this. Their data showed that there is no cellular increase in NMN after extensive incubation with NMN. Remarkably, their false paper has been cited more than 20 times /15
The fact that NMN is not transported and that NMN and NAD+ have to be made inside cells is not surprising. The 1988 Nobel Prize to Elion, Hitchings and Black for work done since the 1960s showed that you can't deliver nucleotides to cells, only bases or nucleosides /16
@davidasinclair also knows this. That's why his company modified the phosphate on NMN to make it cellularly available. Everything in this thread is supported by public data /17
But guess what happens when the NMN phosphate is modified so that you can load cells up with NMN? doi.org/10.1016/j.isci… Eternal life? /18
No. SARM1 protein is turned on by NMN to produce cADPribose that leads to cell death. Remember when I said that in a healthy cell, NMN is converted to NAD+, NADH, NADP+ and NADPH? In a damaged neuron, NMN cannot be converted to NAD+ and is a death signal /19
Modified NMN will not be a drug for health or longevity. Mark my words. It will be unethical to test it in people because it will produce SARM1-dependent damage in animals /20
Is this why I think that NMN is potentially dangerous as a supplement? No /21
Pure NMN can only deliver NR or nicotinamide to cells (just as NR can only deliver NR or nicotinamide to cells). So NMN itself cannot load up any damaged cell with hazardous levels of NMN /22
The problem is you literally have no idea what you are getting when you buy NMN. I would bet that there's caffeine in most NMN supplements. There is likely a large amount of nicotinamide and residual solvents. There's been no NDI on any NMN source. There are no safety data /23
With NR, if you buy from the company holding the patents, you know you are getting material that has been safety reviewed. There's public information about another seller of NR showing acetamide and toluene in their material /24
What keeps me up at night is the idea that someone will be hurt by taking NR. Safety first. People taking NMN are not been safe. And they've also been hoodwinked by the people asserting that it's closer to NAD+ than NR /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
in 1997 David was a postdoc with Lenny Guarente & published a very nice paper showing that SIR2 extends the number of times a yeast mother cell can produce daughter cells by controlling formation of ribosomal DNA circles doi.org/10.1016/S0092-…
David knew then that rDNA circles don't exist in other organisms & he knew that there are extremely few old mothers in a culture. Here's a quote from the paper "50% have no bud scars, 25% have 1, 12.5% have 2, etc. Among 100 cells counted, no cells had greater than 6 bud scars."
The longevity phenotype David was explaining is how a yeast mother cell, who has already produced daughters 20 times, can produce daughters another 10 times or more. By David's own calculation, this old mother is an extremely rare cell: 1 in 2 to the 21st power!
in the 2nd paragraph, he claims that the possibility that ageing is simply caused by genetic factors can be ruled out, citing ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P… the article shows that human lifespan was extended in the 20th century by public health measures (we all know this)
the same article cites Rose on _genetic factors that extend lifespan_ (note: they are not single genes & they were obtained by selecting for old flies to mate) pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28555803/
orthorexia nervosa is a disorder of the worried well. such ppl are trying to eat clean or eat healthy bc of something they read on the internet
they may have been told that they need to do intermittent fasting, keto, all plants, no plants, etc etc in order to be healthy
most of these practices are not sustainable for most ppl
developing an obsessive relationship with food is not healthy
coming to believe that a health influencer has discovered a protocol to reverse their age is not healthy
when you find ppl who claim that their highly specific dietary or health practices are best for you or that by following their practice, they have not only improved their health (entirely possible) but have reversed their age, you've identified a guru & quack
i learned today that quite a few ppl think that new research has _solved aging_. they don’t think the comparisons to old fountain-of-youth claims are fair. i could be wrong but i don’t think most of the believers know as much as i do
about model bias, confirmation bias, replicability, what single genes can & cannot do, & how hard it is to put the genie back in the bottle when great stories are told. some think i’m a downer but i’m telling you what biologists have understood for decades:
animals have evolved gene sets to pass on their gene sets. life is _amazing_. my life work is understanding metabolism, especially through the lens of 4 NAD coenzymes. our gene sets confer the ability to reproduce multiple times but haven’t been selected for longevity per se.
we’ve entered the 3rd decade of the sirt saga. these data show longer mean lifespan of flies w more sirt6 but note that yeast w sir2 deletion have a longer chronological lifespan & that the fly sirt1 lifespan result doesn’t replicate. but david will never stop selling this story
the SIRTs as longevity genes in animals story was debunked 10 yrs ago by researchers from 9 institutions ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
guarente & sinclair had already told us that sirt1 is the human longevity gene but they pivoted & started nominating other sirt genes. there was also a ton of $, effort & careers tied to this dominant longevity gene hypothesis
so they keep on repeating the longevity falsehoods even though SIR2 deletion strains live longer in yeast pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16286010/