5 replies to this topic

[ta5]

Science. 2017 Feb 17;355(6326):756-760. 
Vitamin B3 modulates mitochondrial vulnerability and prevents glaucoma in aged mice.

Williams PA1, Harder JM1, Foxworth NE1, Cochran KE1, Philip VM1, Porciatti V2, Smithies O3, John SW4,5,6.

Glaucomas are neurodegenerative diseases that cause vision loss, especially in the elderly. The mechanisms initiating glaucoma and driving neuronal vulnerability during normal aging are unknown. Studying glaucoma-prone mice, we show that mitochondrial abnormalities are an early driver of neuronal dysfunction, occurring before detectable degeneration. Retinal levels of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+, a key molecule in energy and redox metabolism) decrease with age and render aging neurons vulnerable to disease-related insults. Oral administration of the NAD+ precursor nicotinamide (vitamin B3), and/or gene therapy (driving expression of Nmnat1, a key NAD+-producing enzyme), was protective both prophylactically and as an intervention. At the highest dose tested, 93% of eyes did not develop glaucoma. This supports therapeutic use of vitamin B3 in glaucoma and potentially other age-related neurodegenerations.

PMID: 28209901

 

 

I wonder if this adds anything to the NA/NAM/NR debate for raising NAD+.

 

 

[soulprogrammer]

"I wonder if this adds anything to the NA/NAM/NR debate for raising NAD+."

 

There is no debate for that because NR is effective for almost all cells while NAM is effective for certain cells only.

[Turnbuckle]

"I wonder if this adds anything to the NA/NAM/NR debate for raising NAD+."

 

There is no debate for that because NR is effective for almost all cells while NAM is effective for certain cells only.

 

 

Can you provide evidence for that claim? And can you provide any evidence that NR is better than taking NAM (nicotinamide) plus ribose?

Edited by Turnbuckle, 03 March 2017 - 12:35 PM.

[rarefried]

 And can you provide any evidence that NR is better than taking NAM (nicotinamide) plus ribose?

 

 

Relevant to that question, in this thread -- http://www.longecity...absorbed/page-3 -- in post #69, Logic mentions that "Riboside spikes are known to cause glycation issues even worse than those of Fructose." Don't think he posted studies supporting the observation.  He further speculates that sipping NA (as opposed to NAM) and d-ribose dissolved in water and sipped through the day might achieve similar effects to consuming NR (if I'm reading him correctly), for reasons indicated in the same post.  Further interesting related speculation (as well as discussion of evidence) down the page in this same thread.

[Turnbuckle]

 

 And can you provide any evidence that NR is better than taking NAM (nicotinamide) plus ribose?

 

 

Relevant to that question, in this thread -- http://www.longecity...absorbed/page-3 -- in post #69, Logic mentions that "Riboside spikes are known to cause glycation issues even worse than those of Fructose." Don't think he posted studies supporting the observation.  He further speculates that sipping NA (as opposed to NAM) and d-ribose dissolved in water and sipped through the day might achieve similar effects to consuming NR (if I'm reading him correctly), for reasons indicated in the same post.  Further interesting related speculation (as well as discussion of evidence) down the page in this same thread.

 

 

Considering how much fructose the average American consumes (>50 grams/day), a few grams of ribose once in a while seems small potatoes. Especially as ribose appears to be less of a glycation problem than fructose. See Fig. 5 of this paper.

 

As for niacin, it's not as attractive as niacinamide for this purpose as its half-life is around 20% that of niacinamide. You'd have to take rather more of it to achieve the same area under the blood-concentration vs time curve.

 

The mean plasma terminal half-life for niacin (0.9 h) and NUA (1.3 h) was shorter as compared to NAM (4.3 h).

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm...cin niacinamide

 

[Harkijn]

I wonder if this adds anything to the NA/NAM/NR debate for raising NAD+.

 

Ta5, it is a very interesting study but no there is no such debate, because all B3s have a value of their own. So, if someone wants to take NAM plus riboside, everyone is okay with that.

A nice write-up of the pros and cons of the B3s can be found here:

http://aboutnr.com/