2189 replies to this topic

[niner]

Hi Niner
I understand your complaint, especially being this is a site that sells hormones.
But in spite of that, is the following statement from the article true?

What activates telomerase ? The answer to this question can be found in an excellent 2002 review article by Cong entitled Human Telomerase and Its Regulation . Among other things, the bioidentical hormones, 17 beta estadiol (estrogen) and testosterone activate telomerase. The major mechanism for control and activation of telomorase is the hTERT promoter gene which stands for the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene. When the hTERT gene is sequenced, and the code reviewed, it turns out there are two estrogen receptor elements in this gene. This explains why 17-beta estradiol activates telomerase. Simply out, there are estrogen receptors in the gene that makes telomerase. Estrogen blockers such as tomoxifen block these receptors and turn off telomerase. Androgens were also found to turn on the hTERT gene and activate telomerase, and as expected, androgen blocker drugs inhibit telomerase.

Hi Missminni! It's true in certain tissues, but I have a feeling that it's not a general phenomenon. There's evidence that this comes into play in hormone-sensitive cancers, (all the work seems to be done with ovary, endometrial, and breast cells) but I don't know if it would be active in, say, skin or cardiac cells. There's some epidemiological evidence that mens' peripheral blood telomeres shorten more rapidly than womens', but it's not clear that that isn't just due to lifestyle or other factors, although the estrogen angle is at least a plausible hypothesis. My position on this at the moment would be to continue to base HRT on all the usual factors; I don't know of any good evidence that it would increase telomere length in general.

[missminni]

Hi Niner
I understand your complaint, especially being this is a site that sells hormones.
But in spite of that, is the following statement from the article true?

What activates telomerase ? The answer to this question can be found in an excellent 2002 review article by Cong entitled Human Telomerase and Its Regulation . Among other things, the bioidentical hormones, 17 beta estadiol (estrogen) and testosterone activate telomerase. The major mechanism for control and activation of telomorase is the hTERT promoter gene which stands for the human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT) gene. When the hTERT gene is sequenced, and the code reviewed, it turns out there are two estrogen receptor elements in this gene. This explains why 17-beta estradiol activates telomerase. Simply out, there are estrogen receptors in the gene that makes telomerase. Estrogen blockers such as tomoxifen block these receptors and turn off telomerase. Androgens were also found to turn on the hTERT gene and activate telomerase, and as expected, androgen blocker drugs inhibit telomerase.

Hi Missminni! It's true in certain tissues, but I have a feeling that it's not a general phenomenon. There's evidence that this comes into play in hormone-sensitive cancers, (all the work seems to be done with ovary, endometrial, and breast cells) but I don't know if it would be active in, say, skin or cardiac cells. There's some epidemiological evidence that mens' peripheral blood telomeres shorten more rapidly than womens', but it's not clear that that isn't just due to lifestyle or other factors, although the estrogen angle is at least a plausible hypothesis. My position on this at the moment would be to continue to base HRT on all the usual factors; I don't know of any good evidence that it would increase telomere length in general.

Thanks Niner. This is such a fascinating subject. The fact that women in general have a longer life expectancy then men, although men have been catching up in recent years, might support the estrogen angle.
I'm wondering (this is a totally uneducated wonder) if including a small amount of estrogen in a product that has the astragalus molecule that targets telomeres might help bioavailability.
Sorry if that sounds really dumb. My wondering has no basis in reality.

[stephen_b]

Interesting. It looks like TA-65 is now available retail (anti-aging systems), pricey though at $6.67 or $7.50 a capsule, depending on whether you order 30 or 90 caps.

[missminni]

Interesting. It looks like TA-65 is now available retail (anti-aging systems), pricey though at $6.67 or $7.50 a capsule, depending on whether you order 30 or 90 caps.

That's pretty much the same price T.A.Sciences is charging....but they make you buy 3 months supply in advance.
That's 3 month of one capsule a day for $600. That's $6.60 a pop. Ridiculous. That's $600 in advance without
even knowing if it agrees with you as well as knowing from Anthony that it is not as bio-available in this form as hoped.

I'm waiting for RevGenetics to have their new version available. Hopefully it will be more affordable and more effective.

Edited by missminni, 08 July 2011 - 05:00 PM.

[MarcD]

if testosterone activates telomerase, why not take testosterone at low dosage? it's much cheaper than TA-65 and there are many more studies about it.

[hamishm00]

Hurry up Anthony!! we are waiting !

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi everyone,

we are working diligently to help offer a great product by the end of August.
It just takes a little time.

A

[McQueen]

I know this is old territory but would anyone care to comment on ta-65 and state whether we know for absolute certain that it is cycloastragenol? When I call them they act like they have never heard of it. Is this just a ruse on their part or could ta-65 possibly be something else. This week, Popular Science magazine published an 11-page article entitled, "The Man Who Would Stop Time," featuring Dr. William H. Andrews and his quest to "Cure Aging".  Dr. Andrews is one of the pioneers in telomere biology and one of the very first people to take TA-65®MD for his personal use. TA Sciences seems to be getting results that no on else is. Any thoughts?

[Moonlitnight]

I know this is old territory but would anyone care to comment on ta-65 and state whether we know for absolute certain that it is cycloastragenol? When I call them they act like they have never heard of it. Is this just a ruse on their part or could ta-65 possibly be something else. This week, Popular Science magazine published an 11-page article entitled, "The Man Who Would Stop Time," featuring Dr. William H. Andrews and his quest to "Cure Aging".  Dr. Andrews is one of the pioneers in telomere biology and one of the very first people to take TA-65®MD for his personal use. TA Sciences seems to be getting results that no on else is. Any thoughts?

I have always assumed it is cyclo with astragaloside IV perhaps. It would also be interesting to know if it's the same as TAT2. The only way is to get hold of a capsule and get it analysed. Easy to do but costs a little. Thanks for the ref. re Popular Science.

[GreenPower]

I know this is old territory but would anyone care to comment on ta-65 and state whether we know for absolute certain that it is cycloastragenol? When I call them they act like they have never heard of it. Is this just a ruse on their part or could ta-65 possibly be something else. This week, Popular Science magazine published an 11-page article entitled, "The Man Who Would Stop Time," featuring Dr. William H. Andrews and his quest to "Cure Aging". Dr. Andrews is one of the pioneers in telomere biology and one of the very first people to take TA-65®MD for his personal use. TA Sciences seems to be getting results that no on else is. Any thoughts?

My comments in #972 (http://www.longecity...post__p__436316)

I would like to add that I still trust the reports from Rita Effros lab, but I'm no longer sure about the reports from Maria Blasco's lab. I would say that the content of the reports from the latter lab sometimes seem to draw conclusions which are not always backed up by data from their own reports.

[McQueen]

Well, from reading those reports it sounds like ta65 is not exactly cycloastragenol.

[hav]

I just reread that other thread and the sections quoted from the reports and I don't see were either report states that they analyzed TA65. But a few comments earlier in that same thread Anthony Lorea posted the independent analysis of TA565 that he commissioned:

http://www.longecity...&attach_id=8827

It shows TA65 is: Cycloastraganol 5.44 mg/serving and Astragaloside IV .27 mg/serving. Looks pretty authoritative to me.

Guess what we don't know is if they've been tinkering with their formula or regimen since then. If so, the older study may no longer apply.

Howard

Edited by hav, 15 July 2011 - 01:59 PM.

[McQueen]

I don't know, seems like tat2 is cycloastragenol and ta65 is a related molecule. And, as Greenpower says these findings don't seem to match Anthony's findings.

[Anthony_Loera]

To clarify:

Any findings regarding accuracy, purity, and safety regarding materials are not mine.
We use an independent lab that is recognized as a top lab in the world, to verify materials for us.

This is the lab we use to verify purity and safety of all our materials:
http://www.aaclabs.com/

It is called American Analytical Chemistry Laboratories, and is an independent laboratory that doesn't have a horse in the race (so to speak). It is ISO 17025 Certified, which is internationally recognized, and was recently purchased by Intertek: http://www.intertek....cl-acquisition/ . I truly believe Intertek would not invest money in a lab that would not be considered a top laboratory in the world. To suggest this lab is somehow at fault or inaccurate of it's findings seems quite unreasonable to say the least.

From Intertek's site:

Intertek has the expertise, resources and global reach to support its customers through its network of more than 1,000 laboratories and offices and over 26,000 people in more than 100 countries around the world.

So if there was ever a question as to the accuracy and professionalism offered by the lab we use regularly for our own product testing, I hope the question is now dead and buried.

A

[McQueen]

I dont think anyone was necessarily impuning you Anthony, it's just the fog of trying to figure all of this out. As just a matter of fact it seems as if there is a discrepancy between the different lab's testing. That's all I really meant.

[Anthony_Loera]

Well,

if the telomerase activation material is the same, and the labs are doing there job properly... what then could be different?

I postulate that the better results are from subjects/samples of donor cells with a higher percentage of critically short telomeres, which would produce more measurable telomerase activity when the material is introduced than subjects/samples with non-critically short telomeres.

That's how I personally see it, what do you think?

Cheers
A

[McQueen]

Sounds logical to me but I'm just a civilian with much less background in these areas than many on this forum. My original point and continuing focus is whether ta65 is cyloastragenol or not. That would seem to be the starting point for comparison before other considerations.

[niner]

Sounds logical to me but I'm just a civilian with much less background in these areas than many on this forum. My original point and continuing focus is whether ta65 is cyloastragenol or not. That would seem to be the starting point for comparison before other considerations.

We have two pieces of information; a recent analysis of a capsule of TA-65 that shows it's predominantly cycloastragenol, assuming the lab had a good standard, which seems reasonable, and assuming that there isn't a "related compound" that is indistinguishable by the method that the lab used, which also seems reasonable, though not guaranteed. The other piece of information is a statement in an '08 paper from the Effros lab saying that TA-65 is a related compound. The identity of TA-65 could have changed in the intervening time period; we just don't know about that. It might be possible to get someone in the Effros lab to comment on our dilemma. It's a pretty straightforward question.

[McQueen]

Excellent Niner. Now, if someone knows how to go about this? For me though, when I see "related compound " I see "different".

[Anthony_Loera]

Niner,

can you provide a link for that quote from Rita?

Here's the issue:
Hector our CSO, was in the process of finishing his thesis at UCLA in Rita's lab during the time TAT2 was being tested at UCLA. He was trained by Geron and went ahead to complete his Doctorates. He has always maintained contact with Rita and her lab, and was given the title by UCLA as visiting scholar at UCLA at Rita's suggestion... and he currently works in Rita's lab as well as his own, since he is a professor at another collage.

I had asked him about TA-65, and he told me that as far as he knew, TA-65 was never provided by TA Sciences to the lab while he had been working there, and he would have known since he had helped the graduate students with their experiments for decent part of his time.

It is possible Rita mentioned it as a related compound, because she did not know what it really was at the time, however she made the assumption because the compound presented very similar characteristics of TAT2 (Cycloastragenol). I would still like the link to her quote so that I can inquire with our CSO who happens to work at Rita's lab.

A

[Anthony_Loera]

McQueen,

Just to clarify my stance on TA-65:

I believe it is a terribly great product, so much so that we will probably start providing it ourselves along with a few surprises in the near future.

I am not knocking TA-65, I am merely asserting the accuracy and history of our findings. Now, to sum it up:
1- The first lab we went to was Dalton labs in Canada who had tested Astragalus for TA-65 and made this document: http://tasciences.co...n_pharma_01.pdf
2- Dalton lab tested our initial material for Cycloastragenol, and provided us the full method and data used for this process.
3- We then went to Chromadex and AACL, and provided this data so that they can reproduce the methods for this, as they initially did not have them.
4- We sent both labs cycloastrgenol samples, and both labs tested the samples accurately.
5- Our work then started in earnest to find adequate materials for our product.
6- After a lot of headaches (and way too much time), we succeeded.
7- We ordered TA-65 from Al Sears, and promptly sent it out for testing for various things (not just cycloastragenol) because a lot of folks wanted to know what was in it.

The tests came back with the majority of the material being Cycloastragenol. The results were then made public here on this thread.

What will protect TA Sciences here, will be the Geron patent.
So I believe the knowledge of what the material is, should be a non-issue at this point.

The fact that it works on human cells very well, compared to other compounds, makes this a really great product.

Cheers
A

PS: We will be testing Sierra Sciences / Isegenix product as well, to make sure it is comparable with TA-65 on human blood cells as soon as it is publicly available. If the material is comparable, and cheaper... we will reproduce it ourselves. However, if the proprietary blend shows telomarase inhibition because the main component of the blend is paired up with telomerase inhibitors (like resveratrol).. we will make sure we let you all know. If this happens, I will not find fault with Sierra Sciences as they test materials... one at a time, for telomerase activation. In this situation, I would find fault with the Isegenix formulator who may not know about telomerase inhibitors. Of course, we cannot cross that bridge until the formulation is tested.

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 17 July 2011 - 04:56 AM.

[sunshinefrost]

I love this whole topic but can't read it all... I did not take enough noots to absorb info as fast as Will Hunting does

Can someone tell me, while i'm waiting for a tA product to be cheaper, if taking an astragalus tincture is worth it ? am i just waisting money ? how much cycloatragenol is there in 471 mg 1:2 of astragalus membranaceus ?

thanks !

[Anthony_Loera]

Hi Sunshinefrost,

That is a great question.

To help you out, and the rest of the community I am making public the following lab results.
I believe using these two tests results, will allow you to make a decent estimate in calculations for what is in natural extracts of astragalus:

The first one is a 25:1 Astragalus sample, tested by AACL.
The second one is a 50:1 Astragalus sample, tested by AACL.

Remember, some astragalus plants may have a little more, or a little less.... However these lab tests below should help folks looking to the most common astragalus plants that are widely available everywhere and thus can provide a good common estimate for you and the rest of the community.

Folks, I hope this information on natural Astragalus content is something that can help others that simply cannot afford some of the new products coming out on the market.
Consider it a thank you to the community that has helped RevGenetics grow, by offering some of the best tested supplements available.

Cheers!
A

Attached Files

•  Astragalus-Cycloastragenol-25to1-04132011.pdf   15.72KB   395 downloads
•  Astragalus-Cycloastragenol-50to1-04132011.pdf   15.77KB   541 downloads

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 18 July 2011 - 07:59 PM.

[sunshinefrost]

Jesus ! thanks Anthony!


1st question: i'm sure this has been asked before: how much do i need to activate telomerase.
2nd question: when will Revgen's product be available ?

[niner]

can you provide a link for that quote from Rita?

I had asked him about TA-65, and he told me that as far as he knew, TA-65 was never provided by TA Sciences to the lab while he had been working there, and he would have known since he had helped the graduate students with their experiments for decent part of his time.

It is possible Rita mentioned it as a related compound, because she did not know what it really was at the time, however she made the assumption because the compound presented very similar characteristics of TAT2 (Cycloastragenol). I would still like the link to her quote so that I can inquire with our CSO who happens to work at Rita's lab.

Hi Anthony, I'm sorry, I confused two papers that GreenPower posted excerpts from a while back. The claim that TAT2 was 'related' to TA-65 came from Harley et al.'s Rejuvenation Research paper:

Here we report initial findings from a dietary supplement
program which includes TA-65®, a purified smallmolecule
telomerase activator derived from an extract of a
plant commonly used in traditional Chinese medicine.
Telomerase activation and functional studies on a related
molecule (TAT2) from the same plant have been previously
reported for human skin keratinocytes and immune cells in
culture. 36

Their reference 36 is this paper from the Effros lab. The Effros paper (Fauce et al.) is all about TAT2, although they don't actually say what it is in the paper. I would imagine that Dr. Effros could straighten out the difference, if any, between TAT2 and TA-65, or if not her, then Calvin Harley would know.

[Anthony_Loera]

Thanks Niner,
that clarification helps, as I didn't believe Dr. Effros would have stated that unless her lab would have studied it in the past.

sunshinefrost,
we are aiming for a few announcements in late august, and dosage is unknown for cycloastragenol, however 5mg was a solid consideration for a long time now... although we believe any new telomerase product would be best tested to make sure it actually activates telomerase.


I hope this helps

A

Edited by Anthony_Loera, 19 July 2011 - 12:34 AM.

[niner]

A fairly new paper from the Blasco group. Anyone have the full text?

Aging Cell. 2011 Aug;10(4):604-21. doi: 10.1111/j.1474-9726.2011.00700.x. Epub 2011 Apr 14.
The telomerase activator TA-65 elongates short telomeres and increases health span of adult/old mice without increasing cancer incidence.
de Jesus BB, Schneeberger K, Vera E, Tejera A, Harley CB, Blasco MA.

Telomeres and Telomerase Group, Molecular Oncology Program, Spanish National Cancer Centre, Melchor Fernández Almagro 3, Madrid E-28029, Spain Life Length, Agustín de Betancourt 21, Madrid E-28003, Spain Telome Health, Menlo Park, CA 94025, USA.

Here, we show that a small-molecule activator of telomerase (TA-65) purified from the root of Astragalus membranaceus is capable of increasing average telomere length and decreasing the percentage of critically short telomeres and of DNA damage in haploinsufficient mouse embryonic fibroblasts (MEFs) that harbor critically short telomeres and a single copy of the telomerase RNA Terc gene (G3 Terc(+/-) MEFs). Importantly, TA-65 does not cause telomere elongation or rescue DNA damage in similarly treated telomerase-deficient G3 Terc(-/-) littermate MEFs. These results indicate that TA-65 treatment results in telomerase-dependent elongation of short telomeres and rescue of associated DNA damage, thus demonstrating that TA-65 mechanism of action is through the telomerase pathway. In addition, we demonstrate that TA-65 is capable of increasing mouse telomerase reverse transcriptase levels in some mouse tissues and elongating critically short telomeres when supplemented as part of a standard diet in mice. Finally, TA-65 dietary supplementation in female mice leads to an improvement of certain health-span indicators including glucose tolerance, osteoporosis and skin fitness, without significantly increasing global cancer incidence.

PMID: 21426483

[stephen_b]

without significantly increasing global cancer incidence

I'd like to find out what the p value on that was. Nice to see some more in vivo work, at least for the second part of the abstract.

[GreenPower]

A fairly new paper from the Blasco group. Anyone have the full text?

No, but I found this comment on "sageweb".

Buck on 25 April 2011, 8:55am: They forgot to mention in the abstract and press release that TA-65 didn't do anything to lifespan.

"Analysis of the Kaplan–Meier survival curves of control vs. TA-65-treated female mice demonstrated no significant effects of TA-65 intake on survival (Fig. 6A,B). Accordingly, TA-65 administration for 4 months did not change statistically the mean or maximal lifespan of female mice under our experimental conditions."

[niner]

A fairly new paper from the Blasco group. Anyone have the full text?

No, but I found this comment on "sageweb".

Buck on 25 April 2011, 8:55am:
They forgot to mention in the abstract and press release that TA-65 didn't do anything to lifespan.

"Analysis of the Kaplan–Meier survival curves of control vs. TA-65-treated female mice demonstrated no significant effects of TA-65 intake on survival (Fig. 6A,B). Accordingly, TA-65 administration for 4 months did not change statistically the mean or maximal lifespan of female mice under our experimental conditions."

Yeah. And another tidbit from this paper, which I recently obtained from SWIM:

TA-65 treatment increases proliferation and
mobilization potential of mouse keratinocytes in vitro, a situation
mimicking telomerase overexpression (Greider, 1998; Cerezo
et al., 2003). Recently, Fauce et al. (2008)demonstrated
that TAT2, a similar molecule, has beneficial effects in the activation
of CD8+ T lymphocytes from HIV-infected patients...

Once again, a claim in a Blasco paper that TA-65 is not identical to TAT2. Is this some sort of technicality having to do with there being a little A-IV in TA-65, an obfuscation in order to protect the TA-65 market? A lot of telomere players seem to be interested in cashing in on it, not that I blame them. It makes it harder to sort things out.