Saturday, November 04, 2017

Metformin (04) Pre and Post Prandial

The next metformin paper to look at is this one:

Beneficial effects of metformin on energy metabolism and visceral fat volume through a possible mechanism of fatty acid oxidation in human subjects and rats

Here are the RQ data from 16 healthy humans after an overnight fast and for the three hours following a mixed carbohydrate/fat meal tolerance test (type of carbohydrate and fat not specified).

Aside: Here is the test "food" description: "meal tolerance tests (592 kcal, 75g of carbohydrate, 28.5g of fat; Saraya Co., Osaka, Japan)". It's great to know that there is a company called Saraya and that they have headquarters in Osaka. But I can't even find out what sort of "meals" Saraya make. Quite how anyone might replicate this study using the methods section is beyond me. In addition to these omissions the test "meal" is repeatedly described as "cookies". Go figure. Still, let's assume the measurements of RQ is numerically accurate, fingers crossed. End aside.



















These healthy people, who haven't eaten overnight, have an RQ of 0.8 and the test meal produced a downward trend in RQ indicating that the "cookies", providing roughly 50% of calories as fat, tended to increase fatty acid oxidation or decrease carbohydrate oxidation. I can't be arsed to criticise their stats methods. Let's stick with the gross changes.

After two weeks on metformin at an eventual dose rate of 500mg three times daily there is a significant fall in fasting RQ indicating an increase in non-fed fat oxidation compared to the control state.

Under metformin the "cookies" produce a rising RQ, suggesting preferential metabolism of glucose in the immediate post prandial period.

So metformin promotes fat oxidation during fasting but promotes glucose oxidation during the first three hours after a plate of "cookies".

Interesting.

We should see if we can explain these effects on RQ in terms of mitochondrial glycerol-3-phosphate dehydrogenase (mtG3Pdh), electron transporting flavoprotein dehydrogenase (ETFdh) and the redox state of the CoQ couple driving reverse electron transport (RET) through complex I.

Peter

Succinate doesn't drive reverse electron transport. Maybe.

Mike Eades sent me this paper:

Reactive oxygen species are generated by the respiratory complex II – evidence for lack of contribution of the reverse electron flow in 
complex I

suggesting that RET through complex I, when driven by succinate oxidation at complex II, is a pure artefact of the pathologically high level of succinate used in the mitochondrial preparations involved. Bearing in mind that trying to work out exactly what the physiological concentration of succinate might be, in the region of the active site of a complex II in a working, oscillating, in-situ mitochondrion, involves an awful lot of guesswork.

However, the paper might well to be correct, within the limitations of the mitochondrial preparations they are using.

If you feed mitochondria with 5.0mmol/l succinate there is profuse ROS generation, 85% of which can be blocked by rotenone, ie this 85% is RET generated. The other 15% comes from other places, including complexes II and III, at least. But if you feed mitochondria with 0.5mmol/l succinate, or even 1.0mmol/l, there is no ROS generation at all. The case is made that ROS from RET are not a feature of "normal" levels of succinate driving the reduction of the CoQ couple.

Fine.

But this is a mitochondrial preparation. It has no cytoplasm, no glycolytic enzymes, no source of glycerol-3-phosphate, no FFAs, no carnitine. You can't buy a vial of FADH2 bound to electron transferring flavoprotein to feed in at ETFdh. This makes manipulating the CoQ couple in a way which is physiologically significant very difficult. In the current study we have no input to the CoQ couple other than complex II using succinate.

Those folks like myself, who feel that the redox state of the CoQ couple is the main sensor of the energy status of the cell, would never expect a single input in to the CoQ couple to be the sole representative of energy status. Even during glycolysis there is some fatty acid oxidation providing electron transferring flavoprotein to ETFdh. And succinate from FFA derived acetyl-CoA will also supply to complex II during lipid oxidation. And conversely some glycolysis will occur, even when FFA oxidation predominates, supplying glycerol-3-phosphate to mtG3Pdh.

Until we can set preparations up in which these inputs can be adjusted we are not able to say much about what might be happening in-vivo to RET. And once you start smashing the mitochondria to pieces and reassembling them as inside-out vesicles (so you can supply metabolites to the intra-mitochondria binding sites that would normally be hidden away from your extra-mitochondrial culture fluid) you are a very, very long way from in-vivo indeed.

Just saying...

Peter

Metformin (03) In-vivo experiments require non-lethal dose rates!

Just before I move on to metformin-induced substrate oxidation changes in healthy volunteers, I think it's worth looking at this neoplasia paper in a little detail. It's fairly typical of the work done on metformin as an anti-cancer agent and focuses on the highly reproducible inhibitory effect of metformin on complex I.

Metformin inhibits mitochondrial complex I of cancer cells to reduce tumorigenesis.

Most of this work is very clever and very carefully done, but lives with the problem that the experiments usually use concentrations of metformin in-vitro which would be lethal in-vivo because, well, everybody does it and there is no effect if you don't... However the mouse xenograft studies have to use clinically relevant therapeutic doses of metformin otherwise the mice would be, well, a bit dead. There are other problems which will become apparent as we work through the data.

The figure I'd like to focus on is supplementary data section three of figure seven.

Graphs B and C look like this:























This is what they did to generate them. They took A549 tumour cells and injected them in to immuno-incompetent mice then measured the growth of the resulting tumour.  A549 cells are highly sensitive to metformin, so graph B comes as no surprise. Graph C is much, much cleverer. They wanted to prove that metformin was actually working on complex I. So they destroyed complex I with a shRNA targeting NDUSF3, an essential subunit of this complex. To keep the cell line functional they replaced complex I with our old friend the yeast derived NADH dehydrogenase NDI1. This enzyme does not bind metformin nor pump protons but does reduce NADH to NAD+ and does feed electrons to the CoQ couple and the downstream complexes. You can see from graph C that replacing complex I with NDI1 protects the A549 cell derived tumours from the growth slowing effects of metformin.

Look at B. Look at C. Protection from metformin in C. Yes?

Now, you have to ask: What is the effect of knocking down complex I in cancer cells? If you cannot reduce NADH to NAD+ then the TCA cannot turn. Citrate cannot be metabolised to alpha ketoglutarate so is exported from the mitochondria and can be used for tumour anabolism. The tumour becomes highly aggressive. Like this:

Down-Regulation of NDUFB9 Promotes Breast Cancer Cell Proliferation, Metastasis by Mediating Mitochondrial Metabolism

or this, blogged about many years ago:

Mitochondrial complex I activity and NAD+/NADH balance regulate breast cancer progression

This illustrates my marked discomfort with accepting complex I blockade as the mechanism of anti-cancer action of metformin. Blockading complex I will admittedly decrease ATP supply from oxidative phosphorylation but at the cost of supplying a large amount of citrate to the cytoplasm ready for anabolic processes, while glycolysis continues unabated, supplying cytoplasmic NADH and ATP.

So in the current paper, by knocking down NDUSF3, they should have generated an aggressive phenotype. They didn't, because they also engineered-in NDI1, which will reduce cytoplasmic NADH to NAD+ very effectively. Dropping the NADH to NAD+ ratio suppresses tumour aggressiveness in the above papers.

Does the engineered A549 NDUSF3 + NDI1 tumour in nude mice show reduced or increased aggressiveness compared to the A549 unmodified tumour? We are looking to compare the top line in graph B above (dark squares) with the pale squares in graph C. By eyeball they actually look pretty much the same.

Except for the x axes. Graph B is 40 weeks, graph C is 50 weeks. Hard to compare the two... But if we stretch graph C so that weeks 10-40 align with weeks 10-40 of graph B, then superimpose the two graphs we can generate the following, rather more informative, image:














It looks to me as if inserting NDI1 in to the mitochondria of a cell line, (probably) made aggressive by knockdown of NDUSF3, renders the in-vivo tumour growth rate much lower than the natural tumour cell line and remarkably similar to that of metformin treated natural tumour cell line. Probably by reducing the NADH:NAD+ ratio.

This doesn't automatically suggest that metformin might be acting by reducing the NADH:NAD+ ratio, though it might be, but it does illustrate how nicely you can still pull interesting snippets out of papers full of experiments with metformin at lethal concentrations.

The difference between isolated mitochondrial preparations and mouse models is that the mouse models have a supply of insulin, glycerol-3-phosphate and the enzyme to use cytoplasmic NADH to reduce the CoQ couple, facilitating insulin signalling and so cancer growth. This is much more likely to be the process which we can block with metformin at therapeutic concentrations.

Peter

Wednesday, August 02, 2017

Metformin (02) The dose makes the poison

Before the days of interest in metformin as an anti-neoplastic agent, a performance enhancing drug or a longevity promoter, it was just given to T2DM patients to help lower blood glucose levels. These folks, as a group, quite often have significant renal disease. Which can render metformin and lactate cumulative in the blood stream and lead to a life threatening lactic acidosis.

This paper looked at a series of 10 hapless folk to whom this happened:

Metformin overdose causes platelet mitochondrial dysfunction in humans

The mean blood concentration which gets you an ITU bed was 32mg/l. Now this is a clinical paper, written by clinicians. Nothing wrong with that, except they use Noddy units which makes the metformin concentrations extremely difficult to relate to the vast body of metformin research, which uses units of millimolar or micromolar.

So we really need to take this image
















and think of it in these terms when we're looking at research papers using mmol or micromol concentrations:
















Bear in mind that these are very chronic exposure values and metformin is thought to be progressively cumulative within the mitochondria on chronic exposure. Of course, complex I is intra mitochondrial and there will be some dependency on cumulation in getting significant effects at this site. What we can say is that, in the above diagram, there is not enough inhibition of complex I to raise lactate production in platelets, an extra-hepatic tissue (hepatocytes may be slightly different), unless we are using near-death concentrations.

What is not hidden away inside the mitochondrial matrix is mtG3Pdh. It's on the outer surface of the inner mitochondrial membrane and will be exposed to whatever metformin concentration that manages to get inside the cell.

From the classic paper

Metformin suppresses gluconeogenesis by inhibiting mitochondrial glycerophosphate dehydrogenase

we have this graph from Figure 3, using a slurry of mashed up mitochondria and some glycerol phosphate:



















Here we have a significant effect on the oxidation of glycerol-3-phosphate at micromolar concentrations. Admittedly by 50μmol we are looking at very much the upper end of therapeutic concentrations but an effect is clearly visible at this level. We can say from the platelet paper that exposure to 250μmol (black circles at the bottom of the graph), if sustained, will put you in the ITU with potentially fatal lactic acidosis.

Because mtG3Pdh is exposed to cytoplasmic (non cumulative vs mitochondrial) metformin levels it will see the drug at plasma concentrations (or slightly less) and it will see these concentrations as soon as metformin enters the blood stream.

If you want a performance enhancing drug for endurance exercise, say a cycle race taking about three hours, you can pop a single metformin 500mg tablet one hour before the start of the race and extend your time to exhaustion from 167 minutes to 191 minutes. That might make some difference to winning vs not finishing.

Metformin improves performance in high-intensity exercise, but not anaerobic capacity in healthy male subjects

Equally, there is no acute effect on lactate levels in the same study. This is no surprise as I find it difficult to envisage acute complex I blockade, to lactate generating levels, as a performance enhancing ploy.

TLDR: metformin probably works in the cytolasm on mtG3Pdh. Rising lactate may well indicate mitochondrial cumulation and some degree of complex I inhibition. Extrapolating benefits from studies based around millimolar concentrations in-vitro may well put you in to the ITU if you try them in-vivo.

Peter

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Metformin (01) Insulin

This image is taken from the paper Insulin requirement for the antihyperglycaemic effect of metformin and it deserves a little consideration.



They are using BB/S rats which spontaneously develop T1DM if fed standard rodent chow. In the absence of exogenous insulin they die but giving them a little Ultratard twice daily keeps them alive for quite some time. Stopping the Ultratard allows exogenous insulin withdrawal to produce an acute, alive, an-insulinaemic rodent model. This is the model used and at the start of this experiment the rats had no detectable insulin in their blood.

At time point -60 these an-insulinaemic rats were given metformin intrajejunally. Over the next 60 minutes the metformin did nothing to lower plasma glucose. At time point zero they were given a small intravenous bolus of glucose. Metformin had no effect on the additional hyperglycaemia induced.

At time point +90 they were given neutral insulin intravenously. In the control group plasma glucose concentration dropped to a nadir of 20mmol/l at time point +150 but in the metformin treated rats the same dose of insulin continued to reduce the plasma glucose to 10mmol/l at time point +180, when p dropped below 0.05.

So.

Insulin is essential to demonstrate any effect of metformin on blood glucose.

Any idea about how metformin works, be that via the inhibition of mtG3Pdh or via inhibition of complex I, has to accommodate the essentiality of insulin.

That's an interesting constraint.

Peter

Monday, July 24, 2017

An update

Hi All.

We've moved house. It has not been the simplest of moves. OK, it was awful. However it was also worth it as we live here now.


















While the house is in pretty good order the acre and a half of ground needs some TLC before we can get the chickens strip grazing and maybe some stock in, so I sort of doubt there will be a huge amount of free time to blog. Maybe a little musing on metformin might be possible...

Anyway, we're alive and busy and now live some distance from the nearest main road (in Norfolk terms).

Peter

Saturday, June 03, 2017

Why stop at formaldehyde?

If we consider the dissociation of hydrogen:





the right hand side of the equation can supply electrons to another reaction. The tendency for this to occur is in part dependent on the pH of the solution. If we consider alkaline hydrothermal vents we have a pH of around 11, this drives the reaction to the right because the protons avidly combine with hydroxyl ions to give water:
















Which means that there is a marked tendency to supply electrons for any electron-accepting reaction. The electrons can hop on to an FeS barrier (each changing the charge on an Fe from 3+ to 2+) which separates the vent fluid from CO2 rich, acidic oceanic water:













Deriving from fluid with a pH of 11 these electrons have a redox potential of -650mV, ie they are highly reducing.

If we now look at the situation on the oceanic side of the barrier we have:




and by adding on the factor of an acidic pH, with lots of protons driving the reaction to the right we have this:
















Under these conditions electrons supplied at -650mV are very able to allow the reaction to proceed to the right yielding CO. Repeating the process yields CH2O and metabolism is on its way.















OK. Nick Lane makes these points in his paper:

1. There is no contact between the H2 in the vent fluid and the CO2 in the ocean fluid. The two Hs in the formaldehyde come from oceanic protons combining with vent H2 derived electrons.

2. I've shown the reaction occurring once to CO and again to CH2O. Why stop at twice? Given a supply of -650mV electrons why not keep generating CO and inserting it, along with e- and H+, in to whatever hydrocarbon you have already got in the vent fluid? Nick Lane has reaction sketches for generating almost all of the Krebs cycle components on this basis.




Theoretically, if you wanted to make an origin of life reactor to test whether you can generate a multitude of the hydrocarbons at the core of metabolism you don't actually need a supply of alkaline hydrogen rich fluid. This only supplies electrons at -650mV. An alternative supply would be a 1.5 volt battery with some sort of voltage reduction to get from -1500mV to -650mv and you're away.

A microporous FeS electrode in Perrier water, energised by an AA battery via a couple of resistors and you might just be set up. Getting the apparatus anoxic and detecting the products might be more of a challenge!

Edit Finally followed Nick Lane's final reference. These folks have reached pyruvate via an energised FeS electrode. It's a lot more complex than Perrier water but it works. End edit

Peter

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Nick Lane on Proto-Ech

Nick Lane has a few more downloadable papers available on his website, two of which focus on ideas I've thought a lot about. Here are a few quotes:

Iron Catalysis at the Origin of Life

"Why does the reduction of ferredoxin via Ech depend on the proton-motive force? The answer is as yet unknown, but cannot relate to reverse electron flow [as originally proposed (49)] as these methanogens do not possess an electron-transport chain (37,38). A more pleasing possibility is that pH modulates reduction potential at the active site of the enzyme. The flux of protons through Ech from the relatively acidic exterior could lower the pH at the active site of the enzyme, which should facilitate reductions that depend on protons, including CO2 as well as some ferredoxins (50)".

My italics. Next:

Proton gradients at the origin of life

Aside: If you read the full text of Lane's paper you will take note of Jackson JB (2016) Natural pH gradients in hydrothermal alkali vents were unlikely to have played a role in the origin of life. And this passed scrutineering. Nick Lane does not seem impressed. End aside.

"One possibility is that prebiotic carbon and energy metabolism entailed the synthesis of reactive thioesters analogous to acetyl CoA, such as methyl thioacetate, coupled to substrate-level phosphorylation, generating acetyl phosphate and ultimately ATP [1, 17, 27, 60–63] as still happens in bacteria [14, 31]".

"Across the barrier, in acidic conditions, CO2 is more easily reduced, and so is more likely to be reduced by Fe2+ in the barrier. The semiconducting barrier should transfer electrons from Fe2+ on the alkaline side to Fe3+ on the acidic side. The thickness of the barrier does not matter, so long as it is semiconducting. The two phases do not come into direct contact - H2 and CO2 do not react directly (Fig. 3)".

This is really neat, it puts in to a published paper many of the logical concepts that went in to the Life series. I really like the pre biotic ideas of electron transfer across any-thickness FeS barriers. No need for membranes, indeed insulating "crud" membranes would hinder electron transfer from the FeS wall to the enzyme, necessitating the generation of a pore like structure (ancestor to NuoH) to get the voltage generating acidic pH to the active enzyme's site.

This ferredoxin reduction plus subsequent substrate-level phosphorylation is where it should all start. NuoH starts as a pH channel, not part of a nano machine. That comes later with reversal of proton flow and the development of complex I, a true advanced nano machine.

I still don't buy ATP synthase (another very complex nano machine) as running on the primordial vent proton gradient as Nick Lane holds to. Later developing Na+ energetics look much more likely, these following on from Proto-Ech's pore duplication to form a Na+/H+ antiporter, giving a usable Na+ gradient. That clearly post-dates some sort of membrane, which ferredoxin based metabolism must precede when using a geochemical proton gradient. NuoH becomes essential only after a crude membrane forms to impede this process of ferredoxin reduction.

Nice papers.

Peter

Tuesday, May 30, 2017

Adrian Ballinger on Everest

Back at the end of 2015 Mike Brampton and I had a conversation about climbing Everest.

Based on Graph A from Fig 3 in D'Agostino's rat paper

Therapeutic ketosis with ketone ester delays central nervous system oxygen toxicity seizures in rats

our conclusion was that summiting Everest might be best achieved using a ketogenic diet. I know nothing about extreme climbing or the culture which goes with it but it came as no surprise, via Mike, that they carb loaded and carb loaded and carb loaded. You know, sugar has its own partial oxygen supply built in to the molecule. No point trying to burn fat if there's no oxygen*. Understandable but, obviously, completely incorrect. I think Mike had been trying (frustratedly) to convert altitude folks to fat centred thinking for some years before this.

*It's true that there is no point trying to burn fat under anoxia. But given some oxygen ketosis pays dividends.

So it was interesting to pick up this link on Facebook:

How Adrian Ballinger Summited Everest Without Oxygen

This fits in with Veech's concept of increased metabolic efficiency per unit O2 consumed when burning ketones and D'Agostino's discovery of an "unexpected" rise in arterial PO2 in rats gavaged with a betahydroxybutyrate/acetoacetate combination precursor, while they were breathing room air (PaO2 from 100mmHg to 130mmHg, pardon the archaic units).

Very gratifying, even if completely different from the approach taken by Naked Mole Rats and their fructolysis.

Peter

Fructose and lactic acid in Naked Mole Rats

Naked Mole Rats appear to use fructose as their preferred metabolic substrate when exposed to both physiological hypoxia (which is common in their lifestyle) or complete anoxia under experimental conditions. It's irresistible to go and find out a little about why they might do this.

Fructose-driven glycolysis supports anoxia resistance in the naked mole-rat

I suppose the first thing to say is that the fact that fructose is protective against hypoxic cellular injury has been known for a long time, this paper coms from 1992:

Fructose protects rat hepatocytes from anoxic injury. Effect on intracellular ATP, Ca2+i, Mg2+i, Na+i, and pHi

There was a lot of work done in the 1980s and 90s looking at ways of preserving liver cells under anoxia. I'd guess this was looking to improve the survival of harvested livers within the transplant program.

If we look at ATP levels compared to an externally supplied control (MDPA) we have this graph, with hypoxia imposed at one hour and relieved at three hours:

















ATP falls faster within the first 30 minutes of anoxia with fructose. Although the trends are interesting, all else is ns after 45 minutes. So fructose causes a more severe ATP depletion than glucose. However a better marker is the ratio of ATP to Pi (phosphorylation potential), here plotted as the inverse for some reason, ie the lower the better in the graph:


















So under fructose there is less ATP in the cytoplasm than under glucose but the phosphate level is even lower, giving a similar or more favourable ratio of ATP to Pi except at the 30 minute mark. So the next question is: Where has the phosphate gone?

This might be related to the protective effect of cytoplasmic acidosis. It doesn't seem to matter how you acidify the cytoplasm (fructose is as good a way as any), it's the acidosis which appears to protect against mitochondrial failure. There's a nice paper here

Protection by acidotic pH and fructose against lethal injury to rat hepatocytes from mitochondrial inhibitors, ionophores and oxidant chemicals

and here

Intracellular acidosis protects cultured hepatocytes from the toxic consequences of a loss of mitochondrial energization

So if we go back to Gasbarrini's paper we can look at a surrogate for intracellular pH and how it differs between fructose and glucose:




















Fructose produces a much more profound acidosis. If we look at that basic ETC doodle I used in the rho zero cell post, but eliminate complexes I, II, III and IV we have this:









We have here two process which can be driven by an excess of protons in the cytoplasm over those in the mitochondrial matrix. Transport of Pi in to the mitochondria and synthesis of ATP. Which of these is most important to ensure cell survival is hard to say. It is even quite possible that it's neither and that maintaining an excess of protons outside the mitochondria maintains delta psi so defers the commitment to apoptosis or the occurrence of necrosis.

Later changes which confirm the commitment to cell death are an influx of extracellular calcium in to the cytoiplasm. This is marked under glucose and stays within tolerable limits with fructose. I strongly suspect the metabolic decision making is being controlled by the pH drop and the Ca2+ influx is consequent to a mitochondrial decision as to how badly damaged the cell might be. But it's hard to be sure with the data we have in these rather elderly papers.

About that acidosis:

Here are the reactions relevant to the pH change in lactic acidosis, all taken from the wiki entry on lactic acid. They are interesting. This is the situation down to pyruvate:



There are two protons generated to acidify the cytoplasm. Now look at this step where pyruvate is converted to lactate. The molecules in the red oval are needed to form the lactate.







So where did the two acidifying protons go to? They are consumed in converting pyruvate to lactate. Does lactic acid generation actually acidify the cytoplasm? It appears not to do so here but it must do because the overall reaction is:




So where are these two protons? They are in the two ATP molecules:




The conversion of ATP to ADP releases them. So lactate causes acidosis only when the ATP generated during glycolysis/fructolysis is consumed... Obviously ATP depletion is common in anaerobic exercise or hypoxia/anoxia. Hence lactic acidosis shows under these two conditions.

The Naked Mole Rat paper is very descriptive, with lots of experimental results but is light on insight as to hows and whys. I think the above scenario might well have explanatory power and might have been extended from the liver to the rest of the body in NMRs.

Peter