Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Europe Wants Some of That Molecular Library Action | Main | Biomarker Caution »

April 9, 2012

Would I Take Resveratrol? Would You?

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

I've written many times here about sirtuins, and their most famous associated small molecule, resveratrol. And I've been asked more than once by people outside the med-chem field if I take (or would take) resveratrol, given the available evidence. My reply has been the same for several years: no, not yet.

Why so cautious, for a compound that's found in red grapes and other foods, and to which I've presumably been exposed many times? Several reasons - I'll lay them out and let readers decide how valid they are and how they'd weight these factors themselves.

First off, we can dispose of the "it's in food already, and it's natural, so why worry?" line of thinking. Strychnine is all-natural too, as are any number of other hideous molecules that are capable of terrible effects, so that's no defense at all - it never is. And as for being exposed to it already, that's true - but the dose makes the poison, and the dose makes the drug. I've no idea how much resveratrol I've ingested over the years, but it's safe to say that it's been in small amounts and at irregular intervals. Going from that to regular higher dosages is worth some forethought.

So what do we know about what resveratrol does? A lot, and not nearly enough. Its pharmacology is very complex indeed, and the one thing that you can clearly draw from the (large) scientific literature is that its (a) a very biochemically active compound and (b) we haven't figured out many of those actions yet. Not even close. Even if all it did was act as on one or more sirtuins, that would be enough to tell us that we didn't understand it.

That's because the sirtuins, along with many other enzymes, are involved in epigenetic signaling, a catch-all term for everything in the DNA-to-RNA-to-protein sequence that doesn't depend on just the DNA sequence itself. (And as everyone discovered when the number of human genes came in on the low end of the low estimates, these processes are very important indeed). There are a lot of mechanisms, and it's safe to say that we haven't found them all, either, but the sirtuins modify histones, the proteins that DNA is wrapped around, and thus affect how genes are transcribed. All these transcriptional processes are wildly complex, with hundreds and thousands of genes being up- (and down-) regulated in different tissues, at different times, under different conditions. Anyone that tells you that we're close to unraveling those balls of yarn is not keeping up with the literature, or not understanding what they read.

Of course, one of the controversies about resveratrol (and some of the other sirtuin modulators) is whether they act directly on these enzymes or not. Opinion is very much divided on that, but resveratrol seems to have a number of other effects, mediated through processes that (again!) are best described as "unclear". For example, its metabolic effects seem to be at least partially driven by its actions on an enzyme called AMPK, a key enzyme in a number (brace yourself) of important cellular processes. It might well be that AMPK (activated by resveratrol) is what's having an effect on the sirtuins. A very recent paper implicates another step in the process: resveratrol may well be acting on a set of phosphodiesterase (PDE) enzymes, which affect AMPK, which affect sirtuins. But then again, there's another paper from earlier this year that suggests that resveratrol's activity against sphingosine kinase might be the key. So your guess is as good as mine.

One objection to all this is that there's room to wonder about the mechanisms of a number of drugs. Indeed, there have been many that have made it to market (and stayed there for many years) without anyone knowing their mechanisms at all. We're still finding things out about aspirin; how much can one expect? Well, one response to that is that aspirin has been used widely in the human population for quite a long time now, and resveratrol hasn't. So the question is, what do we know about what resveratrol actually does in living creatures? If it has beneficial effects, why not go ahead and take advantage of them?

Unfortunately, the situation is wildly confusing (for an overview, see here). The first thing that brought resveratrol into the spotlight was life extension in animal models, so you'd think that that would be well worked out by now, but boy, would you be wrong. The confusion extends up to mouse models, where some of the conclusions - all from respectable groups in respectable publications - seem to flatly contradict each other. No, the animal-model work on resveratrol is such a bubbling swamp that I don't see how anyone can safely draw conclusions from it.

How about people, then? There have been some clinical trials reported, with this one the most recent, and these are summed up in this open-access paper. The longest reported trials are on the order of weeks, which is useful, but not necessarily indicative of what might happen out in the real world. But there have been some beneficial metabolic effects seen (although not in all trials), and these constitute some of the biggest arguments for taking resveratrol at all.

One of the things that seems to be possible, from both the animal and human studies, is that the compound might exert these beneficial effects mostly in systems that are already under metabolic stress. Does this translate to people as well? If you're healthy already, which does resveratrol do for (or to) you? No one knows yet, and no one knows how much resveratrol you'd have to take to see things happen. Here's another article (PDF) summarizing the known effects, and here's the way the authors sum up:

"It is no exaggeration to say that the literature on resveratrol is contradictory and confusing. The wide range of concentrations and doses used to achieve the various effects reported for resveratrol in both in vitro cell culture and animal studies raises many questions about the concentrations achievable in vivo. . .

The bottom line? Resveratrol is a very interesting compound, and potentially useful. But the details of its actions aren't clear, and neither, honestly, are the actions themselves. Given the importance of the processes we're talking about - cellular metabolism, which is intimately involved with aging and lifespan, which is intimately involved with defenses against cancer - I don't feel that the situation is clear enough yet to make an intelligent decision. So no, I don't take resveratrol. But I'd be willing to if the fog ever clears.

Comments (73) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Aging and Lifespan


COMMENTS

1. Anonymous on April 9, 2012 7:49 AM writes...

The Atkins Diet is also a wonderful panacea short term. The fog has to more than clear on sirtuins. There has to be unequivocal evidence of long term efficacy.

Permalink to Comment

2. Virgil on April 9, 2012 8:35 AM writes...

I think you could reasonably take the word resveratrol in the above article, and replace it with "polyphenolic compound found in plants", and it would read the same. The entire field of "nutriceuticals" is like this. Billions of dollars have been spent on investigating flavonoids, triterpenoids, polyphenols, curcuminoids, phytoestrogens etc. The source is invariably some plant used in Eastern medicine for centuries. The effects are almost always attributed to it being an antioxidant. All of these things hit multiple pathways, usually including estrogen receptors, a swath of tyrosine kinases, or some effect on apoptosis. The "science" is almost always published in low-impact specialist journals. There's usually a company shilling the encapsulated form of said biological, with the lead author of the paper somehow embroiled financially. These are just some of the reasons why people refer to this type of science as "jungle juice".

Seriously though, the pleiotropic effects of any biologically available molecule should not be surprising... it behooves organisms to exploit the molecules they evolved in the company of, for multiple end-points. Why, having evolved in an environment containing sulforaphane (the thing in brocolli) would mammals choose only to let that compound activate a single pathway such as Keap/Nrf? I doesn't make sense from an evolutionary perspective. Clearly, having found that this stuff can activate one pathway for beneficial effect, the evolution of other pathways to exploit the same molecule was favored. Ergo, the only molecules which are going to hit single pathways are those which evolution has not yet encountered, i.e. man-made compounds. Anything biologically derived will hit multiple targets for the simple reason that billions of years of evolution has made it precisely that way. I thought this was pharmacology 101 for everyone in the drug industry?

Permalink to Comment

3. Bill Sardi on April 9, 2012 8:36 AM writes...

Most Americans have not bought into the idea of taking resveratrol pills, to their own demise. Maybe 100,000 Americans take resveratrol pills. The science is confusing because mega-doses are often used by laboratory scientists which are counter-productive. Resveratrol is antioxidant at low dose (copper chelator) and pro-oxidant at high dose (releases copper). The idea behind resveratrol pills and other similar small molecules from nature is that they exert a small amount of biological stress that then activates the body's defenses via a gene/transcription factor called NRF2 (activates enzymatic anti-oxidants glutathione, SOD, catalase as well as adenosine, heme oxygenase and nitric oxide). This low-dose biological stress concept is called hormesis. Hormesis is observed in wine which provides greater than dietary levels of resveratrol and other molecules but not mega-doses. Begging for more studies will result in a long wait. There is not a single human study of resveratrol for heart disease since resveratrol pills became prevalent 8 years ago. Human cancer trials are also nearly non-existent. Modern medicine doesn't want to put resveratrol to the test. Begging for long-term studies means one would have a long wait. The idea behind resveratrol pills is that they would mimic a calorie-restricted diet and double human lifespan/healthspan as is seen in food restricted animals. However, it would take 8-10 decades to conclusively prove this in humans, which is impractical. What we do know is that short-term (6 months) use of a modest dose of resveratrol among patients with metabolic disease abolished the first sign of arterial disease (decline in flow mediated dilatation). What we do know is that resveratrol works better than any chemotherapy drug in the laboratory (blocks all three stages of cancer -- initiation, growth, spread) which no anti-cancer drug can claim. There are ways to make mega-dose resveratrol completely non-toxic and this was demonstrated in a lab in Europe and ignored by the scientific community. The rationale to wait till science understands all the genetic mechanisms means all current drugs should be abandoned till that is known in this era of a mapped genome and epigenetics. Actually, an available resveratrol pill switched 677 of 831 longevity gene in lab mice in the same direction as calorie restriction, which also was ignored by mainstream science. It's obvious modern medicine doesn't want anything to do with resveratrol.

Permalink to Comment

4. Chemjobber on April 9, 2012 8:49 AM writes...

I think it's important to note that Bill Sardi is worth a Google search for his writings.

Permalink to Comment

5. PPedroso on April 9, 2012 9:01 AM writes...

@2. Virgil,

Although I agree with most of your comment I think man-made compounds are not the only ones which evolution has not yet encountered. We have marine products that are still a big reservoir for potential interesting molecules.

Permalink to Comment

6. Chemjobber on April 9, 2012 9:02 AM writes...

...in that he's quite the supplement booster.

Permalink to Comment

7. HelicalZz on April 9, 2012 9:06 AM writes...

As part of a regular glass of wine, sure. Other than that, there is the question of dose and frequency etc. etc., not to mention 'quality' of product.

Zz

Permalink to Comment

8. PPedroso on April 9, 2012 9:06 AM writes...

@3 Bill Sardi,

you talk about modern medicine as if it is an unknown abstract entity. We are modern medicine and if someone thinks that way about a compound, that someone should create a start-up, get some funding and take it all the way to FDA for approval. If it is indeed a good molecule it will pass with flying colours.

Permalink to Comment

9. John on April 9, 2012 9:08 AM writes...

@3:

Bill, it's refreshing to see someone trolling under his own name, but the audience of this site will not generally be receptive to your theories of a vast pro-illness FDA conspiracy.[1]

As for resveratrol, it has a scent of the magic rock that keeps tigers away. Maybe the rock does have special powers, but the data so far has been unimpressive.

[1] http://knowledgeofhealth.com/news-media-cherry-picks-negative-multivitamin-study-over-major-story-that-sufficient-amounts-of-vitamin-d-would-lower-world-mortality-rates/

Permalink to Comment

10. intrigued on April 9, 2012 9:10 AM writes...

@3 Mr Sardi-

I am intrigued by your description of the benefits of resveratrol. Could you recommend a website that contains more of this type of information and supplies of resveratrol pills?

Permalink to Comment

11. milo on April 9, 2012 9:11 AM writes...

@chemjobber,
Comment on what he said, not on who said it.

The GOP, "climate change does not exist because Al Gore says it does exist"

Permalink to Comment

12. luysii on April 9, 2012 9:25 AM writes...

Things are not always simple when risk reduction is involved. For a few examples where well intended attempts went horribly wrong (the HERS study, antioxidants to prevent cancer, even taking vitamin supplements) see

http://luysii.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/the-risks-of-risk-reduction/

Permalink to Comment

13. Anomymous II on April 9, 2012 10:00 AM writes...

As Virgil points out in his comment, a large number of “nutriceuticals” seem to exert similar biological effects, e.g. life extension in worms, efficacy in the treatment of neurodegenerative diseases or type 2 diabetes, and at higher doses induction of apoptosis and selective killing of cancer cells. Further, Virgil points out correctly that “the effects are almost always attributed to it being an antioxidant” in other words many of these “nutriceuticals” are chemically reactive molecules and contain an a,b-unsaturated ketone moiety. So to me it is not too surprising that in vitro, high doses of these “nutriceuticals” covalently modify various signaling molecules, which many authors have use as an explanation for the various observed biological activities. However, in vivo one of the most plausible scenarios is that these “nutriceuticals” or a metabolite react with the endogenous antioxidant glutathione followed by a mild and short duration increase in the cellular levels of reactive oxidant species (ROS). This increase in ROS will then trigger various adaptive/repair gene programs including the nrf2/antioxidant response, heat shock response, unfolded protein response. In other words, a low dose of stressor or damaging agents (above mentioned “nutriceuticals”) will trigger various repair mechanism, an approach that has been named hormesis. Therefore, by and large the therapeutic effect of the discussed class of “nutriceuticals” may not come from working on a specific molecular target or targets, but through mild depletion of endogenous antioxidants such as glutathione and the initiation of adaptive stress responses. While a small amount of stress once in a while may turn out to be good for your health, I would certainly see a problem with causing long-term or very high levels of stress. So Derek taking a small dose of resveratrol (glass of red wine) once in a while may do you some good, but I would have reservations taking it every day for a long time. By the way physical exercise triggers many of the same adaptive responses.

Permalink to Comment

14. Curious Wavefunction on April 9, 2012 10:25 AM writes...

I think Bill Sardi raises an important question even if I may not agree with his specific points about resveratrol. What do you do when comprehensive clinical trials of a medicinal substance are impractical because of length of time or expense? Do you withhold judgement until enough time has passed for the results to look conclusive, or do you rely on anecdotal evidence and small-scale studies to draw your own conclusions? The scientifically valid thing to do would be to withhold judgement (and that's what I would do in this case), but I can't entirely blame people for starting a regimen based on anecdotal evidence, as long as they are willing to shoulder the risks and to not draw unreasonable conclusions based on personal experience.

Permalink to Comment

15. PPedroso on April 9, 2012 10:31 AM writes...

@13

First of all I would like to see a complete PK and Tox GLP Package demonstrating that the molecule (either resveratrol or other) are ok to dose in humans.

Then at least a long term study in humans with safety endpoints. I mean if the metabolic syndrome molecules have to go through it why does this kind of molecules shouldn't?

ps- I am sorry if some of this is already available but I am in Europe and these natural stuff does not have much impact here.

Permalink to Comment

16. Morten G on April 9, 2012 10:35 AM writes...

No, I wouldn't.
There's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody always picks up the tab and I don't want it to be me. And if resveratol made us superhuman evolution would have slowly lumbered us that way - even in humans where selection is very weak.

Resveratol got picked out because it turned out that a very moderate wine consumption (1 unit of alcohol per day) was actually health promoting. This was back when antioxidants were big - before people realised that exogenous antioxidants are a drop in the ocean compared to endogenously produced antioxidants and in addiction actually didn't reduce ROS.
(Now we have supplement idiots saying that antioxidants work because they increase ROS production but since antioxidants were not actually ever shown to make people healthier - only that veggies etc. that contained the antioxidants were shown to promote health - this is absolute horse shit)
Later it turned out that very moderate alcohol consumption in general reduced cardiovascular health. Alcohol is a vasodilator so that makes good sense. Reducing blood pressure is a widely recognized way of reducing CVD risk.

I should be a consultant for GSK. They don't get upset if you point out that their ideas are fucking moronic, do they?

Permalink to Comment

17. HelicalZz on April 9, 2012 10:37 AM writes...

#3 - Bill Sardi

It's obvious modern medicine doesn't want anything to do with resveratrol.

Is that right? Funny, NCI, Universtity of Washington, University of Florida, and a slew of others beg to differ. Quite a lot of clinical research going on here.

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=resveratrol

While it is true that GSK halted a trial and that commercial pharmaceutical appeal may be limited due to IP restrictions (or lack thereof), that sure doesn't mean research won't be / isn't being conducted.

Zz

Permalink to Comment

18. partial agonist on April 9, 2012 10:37 AM writes...

Mr. Sardi,

You made some pretty strong claims in your post, so as a scientist I would sure like to see links to the evidence.

Let's start with this claim:

"resveratrol works better than any chemotherapy drug in the laboratory (blocks all three stages of cancer -- initiation, growth, spread) which no anti-cancer drug can claim"

I would like to read such a report, with effective doses, cell types studied, etc. As a member of the scientific community, I promise not to ignore it.

Thanks in advance!

Permalink to Comment

19. HelicalZz on April 9, 2012 10:44 AM writes...

And by the way, the antioxidant responses via NRF2 are hardly exclusive to resveratrol. Neutracuetical lipoic acid has shown these effects too. So has ischemic preconditioning, a mechanical restriction of blood flow / oxygenation.

So, if you are 'holding your breath' waiting for more resveratrol research -- perhaps you are deriving a similar benefit?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3166574/

Zz

Permalink to Comment

20. Morten G on April 9, 2012 10:44 AM writes...

Just to point out that I'm not some kind of nazi: When I say that selection is weak in humans I mean it is weak compared to viruses, bacteria, and archea. This is because of effective population sizes and even if we left "the weak" to die in the streets it wouldn't change that metazoans have weak selection. Read Eugene Koonin's 'The Logic of Chance: The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution' for an update on where the science of evolution stands today.

Permalink to Comment

21. partial agonist on April 9, 2012 11:02 AM writes...

I assume the cancer efficacy claims go to the 1997 Pezzuto science paper,

w w w dot
sciencemag.org/content/275/5297/218.abstract

interesting glimmers of antitumor activity, but hardly earth-shaking and not indicating anything about mechanism or about the various stages of tumor growth

More troubling to me is the result of the google search I did, as Chemjobber suggested, with the result being links to anti-vaccine gibberish and "Buy all of my books to tell you how scientists in industry are evil" opportunities

Permalink to Comment

22. JAB on April 9, 2012 11:19 AM writes...

@2: There exist a continuum of substances in organisms which can affect other organisms, usually in a defensive mode. Some of these are extremely non-specific, such as polyphenolics (tannins), and some of them are exquisitely specific (e.g., strychnine certainly is specific for glycinergic CNS receptors, and I could go on for pages with other examples). I agree that much of antioxidant work is meaningless. I disagree that synthetic compounds are the only place to find new drugs.

Permalink to Comment

23. milo on April 9, 2012 11:32 AM writes...

@ partial agonist,
I guess you missed the recent aspirin study results out of the UK? Huge.

Aspirin is a natural substance, with many targets, just like resveratrol.

Permalink to Comment

24. rodentrancher on April 9, 2012 12:03 PM writes...

@23 milo

Aspirin is synthesized from a phytochemical, salicylic acid. Aspirin itself is not a naturally occurring compound.

It's interesting to note that the motivation for producing aspirin is that it is less toxic and irritating than the naturally occurring salicylates.

Permalink to Comment

25. partial agonist on April 9, 2012 12:24 PM writes...

#23 (milo)

I asked about resveratrol, and evidence to back up extraordinary claims about anti-cancer efficacy "beyond what any other drug can claim"

Resveratrol is not the same as aspirin.

As a late 40ish male, I take aspirin every day.

I don't take resveratrol, and I am not likely to do so unless there is scientific evidence to take that action. The fact that such evidence exists for aspirin debunks the whole argument that crooked scientists don't ever want to look for new uses of old substances, presumably for some nefarious reason.

I want data, not empty claims and 3rd person anecdotes

Permalink to Comment

26. anon the II on April 9, 2012 12:25 PM writes...

I agree with the first part of what #2 Virgil had to say but he had to keep talking. I'd say #22 JAB pretty much straightened it out. I remember back in the late 80's and early 90's when ellagic acid had many of the magical powers currently attributed to resveratrol. It showed up as a hot hit in some of the NIH's Molecular Libraries Initiative early screens. I believe most of the science (?) around these compounds is meaningless and a pretty good waste of resources. But to answer the original question, I am willing to ingest resveratrol as long as it comes in a good cabernet.

Permalink to Comment

27. Hanibal Lechter on April 9, 2012 12:31 PM writes...

@anon the II: I prefer mine with fava beans.

Permalink to Comment

28. milo on April 9, 2012 12:51 PM writes...

@ partial agonist.

The fact is, the money lies w big pharma and governments.
Big pharma is not going to undercut its business by promoting non patentable substances. As such, it takes a Long time for Truth to emerge....ie studies to be conducted AND published. Enter aspirin as a cancer preventer and fighter...a Century later.

I think ill go pop a celebrex.

Permalink to Comment

29. dichotomous on April 9, 2012 1:02 PM writes...

@milo #28 - if, as you claim, money lies with governments, ashouldn't they be aggressively funding research into non-patentable substances? Governments are the largest purchasers of pharmaceuticals in Europe and the US, so they would have every motivation to undercut the pharmaceutical industry with non-patentable medicines if they worked.

Permalink to Comment

30. milo on April 9, 2012 1:21 PM writes...

You are correct, but governments are slow. Also, lobbying and employment and stock price concerns are also a factors.

My advice. Take high dose of omega 3 and low dose resveratrol (250 mg/day) and one baby aspirin/day.

Permalink to Comment

31. anonie on April 9, 2012 1:30 PM writes...

Why does it take so many words for you to say that snake-oil is still snake-oil, no mater who sells, packages, or advertises it?

Permalink to Comment

32. Haiku on April 9, 2012 1:32 PM writes...

Resveratrol likely has more benefits as an anti-cancer agent than anti-aging.


Still you guys are missing the big headlines!Foreign spies everywhere!!

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-04-08/american-universities-infected-by-foreign-spies-detected-by-fbi.html

But I guess if your business model is getting Chinese to come to your University at full tuition that's likely to happen.

//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304750404577319922446665462.html

Permalink to Comment

33. milo on April 9, 2012 1:36 PM writes...

@anonie,
Being a simpleton might make your life easier, but it does not mean you are correct.

Permalink to Comment

34. dichotomous on April 9, 2012 1:39 PM writes...

@#28/30: I think the US Healthcare Reform Act (PPACA), which will transfer ~$100B from pharmacos to the US government in various forms, shows the government cares more about saving money on healthcare than pharma industry employment and stock prices.

Permalink to Comment

35. anonie on April 9, 2012 1:41 PM writes...

#32:

Maybe, lashing out by calling people unfavorable names makes you feel good, but it's not helpful, useful, necessary, or even true. The compound will never be an approved drug by FDA.

Permalink to Comment

36. milo on April 9, 2012 1:49 PM writes...

Anonie,
Maybe in your world that is the holy grail...but not in mine. I know too many people who are not being helped by FDA approved medications...not to say that many are not wonderful, because they are.

Permalink to Comment

37. Vader on April 9, 2012 1:52 PM writes...

Derek,

I share all your concerns except the upregulation of AMPk. As I understand it, this is basically the mechanism of action of metformin, which is the closest thing there is to a wonder drug in the diabetes world.

Of course, that raises a new objection: Is resveratrol going to do anything metformin doesn't? If so, are those things actually beneficial?

And I note that you can Google up accounts of folks taking metformin off-label as a "life prolongation drug." I should buy stock in tinfoil.

Permalink to Comment

38. plm on April 9, 2012 1:55 PM writes...

Thanks for the very interesting post -and the whole blog.

If not resveratrol, what (broadly targeted) life-improving drug would or do you take regularly? Do you take vitamin or mineral supplements? Any other comments, thoughts on those matters? I am greatly interested in your opinion as a sage of the pharmaceutical industry.

The remarks of Morten G are also very interesting. What could make a natural compound significantly life-enhancing for humans, in unnatural doses? Should we expect such compounds to work specifically on humans, mammalians, or all animals? What concepts from standard evolutionary theories could give clues to answer these questions?

Permalink to Comment

39. Crashpanic on April 9, 2012 1:56 PM writes...

One word: pterostilbene.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21982274

Permalink to Comment

40. r.pal on April 9, 2012 2:05 PM writes...

As Hippocrates put it " Food is they medicine and medicine is they food . If a physician does not understand food how can he heal the diseases of men.:

The clue to disease will be more enhanced if we design i gradients with a human evolutionary approach

Permalink to Comment

41. RKN on April 9, 2012 2:08 PM writes...

It's worth noting that Resveratrol exits in two isomeric forms: trans- and cis-. Supposedly, only the trans- form has activity, which quickly changes to the cis- form under exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

Yet I wonder if all the research done with Resveratrol takes care to prevent isomerization during the experiment. If not, might it be that the cis- form really is active in some animal models under specific conditions where the trans- form is not?

Permalink to Comment

42. partial agonist on April 9, 2012 2:16 PM writes...

@milo

The fact is, the money lies w quacks and charlatans peddling their books and worthless "cures" to unsuspecting people lacking scientific literacy to understand the science or lack there of behind it.

Quacks are not going to undercut their business by actually backing up their claims with any scientific data. As such, it takes a long time for truth to emerge and for people like Dr. Brzezinski to be stopped from milking the vulnerable public for every last dollar in the name of phony science and feathering their lucrative personal fortunes.

I am not debating about who the bogeymen are. Substantial claims require substantial evidence. If that evidence exists, it should be shared so that the scientific merits can be debated.

If the evidence does not exist, the tactic seems to be to excuse it away- that it doesn't exist only because of some sort of conspiracy to cover it up, and that we should "trust you" that the secret information supports your point of view.

Sorry, but that is not how science works. It's not magic. Claims need supporting evidence, or else the appropriate de facto position is to assume that the claims are false.

Permalink to Comment

43. It's complicated on April 9, 2012 2:20 PM writes...

As you mention, it isn't clear what resveratrol does vis a vis SIRT1. I would point out that it isn't clear that SIRT1 activation is always a good thing. There are several papers by Millner regarding the involvement of SIRT1 in carcinomas. And as you point out, SIRT1 has a major role in epigenetic silencing. Many genes are silenced in cancer, but there are many that are silenced in normal development also. So it is not clear what the result of this would be for long-term health.

Having said that, I have not ever heard of any negative effects from resveratrol supplements, so in a free country, I say knock yourselves out. More human guinea pigs means we should see faster whether there are good or bad effects in the only mammal that matters.

Permalink to Comment

44. Rev. Howard Furst on April 9, 2012 2:22 PM writes...

Insofar as resveratrol or the GSK/Sirtris SIRT1 drugs actually activate SIRT1, they might not be terrific for cardiovascular aspects of metabolic diseases. SIRT1 overexpression in mice improved glucose homeostasis as expected, but exacerbated atherosclerosis. Oops.

Cell Metab. 2011 Dec 7;14(6):758-67. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

Proatherogenic abnormalities of lipid metabolism in SirT1 transgenic mice are mediated through Creb

Qiang L, Lin HV, Kim-Muller JY, Welch CL, Gu W, Accili D.

Dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis are associated with reduced insulin sensitivity and diabetes, but the mechanism is unclear. Gain of function of the gene encoding deacetylase SirT1 improves insulin sensitivity and could be expected to protect against lipid abnormalities. Surprisingly, when transgenic mice overexpressing SirT1 (SirBACO) are placed on atherogenic diet, they maintain better glucose homeostasis, but develop worse lipid profiles and larger atherosclerotic lesions than controls. We show that transcription factor cAMP response element binding protein (Creb) is deacetylated in SirBACO mice. We identify Lys136 is a substrate for SirT1-dependent deacetylation that affects Creb activity by preventing its cAMP-dependent phosphorylation, leading to reduced expression of glucogenic genes and promoting hepatic lipid accumulation and secretion. Expression of constitutively acetylated Creb (K136Q) in SirBACO mice mimics Creb activation and abolishes the dyslipidemic and insulin-sensitizing effects of SirT1 gain of function. We propose that SirT1-dependent Creb deacetylation regulates the balance between glucose and lipid metabolism, integrating fasting signals.

Permalink to Comment

45. Rev. Howard Furst on April 9, 2012 2:23 PM writes...

Insofar as resveratrol or the GSK/Sirtris SIRT1 drugs actually activate SIRT1, they might not be terrific for cardiovascular aspects of metabolic diseases. SIRT1 overexpression in mice improved glucose homeostasis as expected, but exacerbated atherosclerosis. Oops.

Cell Metab. 2011 Dec 7;14(6):758-67. Epub 2011 Nov 10.

Proatherogenic abnormalities of lipid metabolism in SirT1 transgenic mice are mediated through Creb

Qiang L, Lin HV, Kim-Muller JY, Welch CL, Gu W, Accili D.

Dyslipidemia and atherosclerosis are associated with reduced insulin sensitivity and diabetes, but the mechanism is unclear. Gain of function of the gene encoding deacetylase SirT1 improves insulin sensitivity and could be expected to protect against lipid abnormalities. Surprisingly, when transgenic mice overexpressing SirT1 (SirBACO) are placed on atherogenic diet, they maintain better glucose homeostasis, but develop worse lipid profiles and larger atherosclerotic lesions than controls. We show that transcription factor cAMP response element binding protein (Creb) is deacetylated in SirBACO mice. We identify Lys136 is a substrate for SirT1-dependent deacetylation that affects Creb activity by preventing its cAMP-dependent phosphorylation, leading to reduced expression of glucogenic genes and promoting hepatic lipid accumulation and secretion. Expression of constitutively acetylated Creb (K136Q) in SirBACO mice mimics Creb activation and abolishes the dyslipidemic and insulin-sensitizing effects of SirT1 gain of function. We propose that SirT1-dependent Creb deacetylation regulates the balance between glucose and lipid metabolism, integrating fasting signals.

Permalink to Comment

46. MoMo on April 9, 2012 3:25 PM writes...

Stilbenes! Probably one of the least understood of all the drug families as far as SAR goes and for just about every assay ever done. Go ahead and try to describe the SAR, and you can't because they haven't been done (without DMSO)!

And this family is dumber than propofol, one of the most archaic of drugs made famous by AZ's Ditrivan and Michael Jackson's demise! He could of gotten the same effect by smacking himself in the head with a ball-peen hammer.

I am still waiting for an SAR people!

Stilbenes! Ye Gods! Isn't there enough unpleasantness on this planet already?

Permalink to Comment

47. eben on April 9, 2012 3:31 PM writes...

In addition to the many great points already made, I don't take resveratrol for aesthetic reasons. I prefer to ingest food, that is something which provides sustenance and is identifiable as having been alive recently. Any substance which doesn't closely follow this definition should only be ingested if it is proven to have a desired effect not obtainable through "eating food". I realize that this is a drug discovery blog and readers may scorn the food vs. chemical substance dichotomy, but it's hasn't explicitly come up and is worth thinking about.

Permalink to Comment

48. PacRim Jim on April 9, 2012 3:52 PM writes...

Life is short. Medical ignorance is long — too long.
Either we ignorami act with fingers crossed with the information available — however scanty — or we do nothing.
Ignorance is not bliss. It's self-doubt and mistakes.
Perhaps "Homo sapiens" is a misnomer.

Permalink to Comment

49. Dan R Morris on April 9, 2012 4:11 PM writes...

I was surprised from the title of this article, and then the ensuing comments, that the subject went immediately to supplements. I guess when someone says, "would you take resveratrol?" that assumes they are talking about the supplement. I take it just about every day in things like red wine, peanuts and grapes.

Resveratrol is made by plants as a defense mechanism against disease, hardship, and intrusion. The more a resveratrol producing plant must fight its surroundings the more "resveratrol" it makes.

While the scientific community may not understand every nuance of what it does, that doesn't put my love of red wine or peanuts in jeopardy. I'm certainly not going to wait for science to catch up while I enjoy the supposed health benefits of these.

And the fact remains that supplements in general are far inferior to regular food anyway. Many can't be digested, some can't be assimilated and most "antioxidant" supplements are oxidized long before you consume them.

So despite the non-evidence that it may or may not be good, resveratrol does great things for plants. If it's making heartier plants that can then produce better vitamins and minerals - I'm in.

Supplement or not, I'm not giving up on it.

[Because it seems commenters are being "researched", you should know I publish and author the site Benefits-of-resveratrol.com]

Permalink to Comment

50. John Schilling on April 9, 2012 4:14 PM writes...

"I don't take resveratrol. But I'd be willing to if the fog ever clears."

Same here, but that raises the more generally interesting question: What constitutes a clearing of the fog? Unambiguously successful phase III clinical trials, certainly, but that isn't always possible - the substance isn't patentable, you'll be dead of whatever it is supposed to cure before phase III is complete, whatever. Where the gold standard of full clinical trials is unavailable, what kind and quality of evidence would you be looking for as an alternative?

Permalink to Comment

51. MTK on April 9, 2012 5:52 PM writes...

Milo,

When you say low dose resveratrol (250 mg/day), how do you know that's a low dose?

I'm not asking to be a smart ass, I'd really like to know. Red wine has something like 5-10 mg/L, while peanuts have about the same amount on a mass basis. That's a lot of wine and peanuts to get to 250 mg.

Which brings me to Dan #48, how do you know you're getting a therapeutic amount of resveratrol in your diet?

Permalink to Comment

52. Bryan C on April 9, 2012 6:14 PM writes...

I've been cautious about supplements too, except for fish oil and CoQ10, but that's because of expense and not because of danger. To cite an example from my chilhood, daily megadoses of Vitamin C were theoretically dangerous, but generally just useless. If it's probably not going to kill me or cripple me over the 50 odd years remaining in my lifespan, then there's not much to worry about.

Provided nobody bans the stuff, I suspect that private and personal experimentation will give us useful answers on supplements like this long before any formal drug trials or approvals. The closer we look at how we work the more complex it all becomes, and the FDA is just another easily distracted and politically opportunistic government bureaucracy. That's not to say they're worthless or malicious, just limited in their useful scope.

Permalink to Comment

53. Anonymous on April 9, 2012 6:52 PM writes...

@ MTK,
Let me rephrase, it is a low dose compared to what the Resvetatrol scientists at GSK/Sirtris said you would have to take to see benefits...eg. 2500 to 5000 mg/day. An absurd amount...

Permalink to Comment

54. Vince on April 9, 2012 7:04 PM writes...

The remarks of Morten G might be very interesting, but they are broadly wrong.

The concept of "No Such Thing As A Free Lunch" is one of the most overused and misapplied out there. It's invoked in ways which are so superficial, they unfortunately distort the actual meaning.

Wolpert and Macready rigorously demonstrated the No Free Lunch concept and showed there is no general algorithm which is optimal over any arbitrary search space. There will have to be trade-off's when you're on the theoretical physical limits.

In systems biology, there is no way (at any level of hierarchy) that as we dynamically whiz around a subset of the phase space which describes a system, that we're butting up against the theoretical border of possibility space.

I can not imagine a single person who has worked with a living biological system that *could* believe that. Biology is messy, it's inefficient and intrinsically noisy and lossy.

For instance, I've worked in neurobiology and the fact that evolution's solution, Synapses and cells, are using 10^5 to 10^8 times more energy than the thermodynamic minimum should give you an indication. And that's in a highly optimized system where energetic bounds are everything.

So, to make some vague comment that there's NFL in a metabolic pathway -- which if you've worked on any of the en-vogue pathways: Insulin-IGF, mTORCx, SIRT, etc know are the evolutionary equivalent of I-Love-Lucy playing telephone operator -- is somewhat unlikely to me. I find it vastly more probable that we have much optimization that could be achieved to better map our current calorie-rich and abundant state to a longer-lived state.

If resveratrol, which was picked from screens investigating the French Paradox, is the molecule to shift our metabolisms to a more optimal volume of phase space is not clear -- but to discredit it as has been done is incorrect.

Permalink to Comment

55. Ttb on April 9, 2012 7:21 PM writes...

Derek,

I'm curious, what do you suplement and why?

Permalink to Comment

56. anon the II on April 9, 2012 8:21 PM writes...

"to shift our metabolisms to a more optimal volume of phase space"

I think that says it all. Next topic, please.

Permalink to Comment

57. Anonymous BMS Researcher on April 9, 2012 8:51 PM writes...

What burns me up about the supplement makers is how many of them IMPLY their products have drug-like benefits, without actually saying things that would get them into trouble with the FDA. My employers need evidence for each claim we make in our labeling, because we must convince some very skeptical regulators. Until something has been shown to be safe and effective in a controlled trial, we do not know whether it really is beneficial. When long-used treatments finally get proper trials, sometimes there are shocking results.

For instance in the 1990s there was a huge controversy over high-dose chemo with bone marrow transplantation for breast cancer: inurance companies refused to pay for this expensive treatment because they said there was no evidence of its effectiveness. Patients sued, gave emotional testimony before State Legislators, etc., so the political narrative became "insurance company bean counters are denying this lifesaving treatment." Laws were passed forcing insurers to pay, etc. Finally some large well-designed clinical trials were conducted. Not only did this treatment turn out not to be cost-effective, but it turned out to be KILLING MORE PATIENTS THAN IT HELPED. The billions of dollars
spent on this treatment before it was shown to be harmful had not only been wasted, but had harmed a great many patients.

My point is, until we have solid evidence we just do not know what works. No amount of theory, no amount of wet-lab data, no animal trials can predict what happens to people. As Derek often says, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."

Permalink to Comment

58. Charlie on April 9, 2012 10:19 PM writes...

There's a lot of this sort of thing going around. We want to believe there's a magic bullet for our ills. That it's "Natural" is an instant admission ticket. That it's found in red wine is an excuse for drinking. Huzzah!

Recent research indicates that there are similar compounds in beer. So good news is breaking out all over.

Everybody needs to believe in something. I believe I'll have a beer.

Charlie

Permalink to Comment

59. Anonymous on April 9, 2012 10:43 PM writes...

For instance, I've worked in neurobiology and the fact that evolution's solution, Synapses and cells, are using 10^5 to 10^8 times more energy than the thermodynamic minimum should give you an indication. And that's in a highly optimized system where energetic bounds are everything.

Yea right, I'm sure that's just one of those things that makes no sense in biology, like how biologists assumed the majority of our DNA was "junk" because they couldn't figure out what it did.

Permalink to Comment

60. Vince on April 10, 2012 1:31 AM writes...

I really don't follow your analogy. Perhaps you could elaborate?

Your analogy seems to be missing much of the point in that in any biological system, here we're interested in some metabolic pathways, it's amazingly improbable that they are operating near optimal given the goal of longevity or fighting various pathologies whose frequency is coupled to age and abundance given the inputs we current have (energy consumption, diet, lifestyle, etc) gathered over an evolutionarily new timeframe. Thus, his point about a trade off being inevitable is wrong. Research in this field is warranted; Resveratrol being a useful molecule is another story.

On the inefficiencies and constraints in basic neural computation, you seem to miss that there will -- intrinsically -- be a gap between physical limits imposed by thermodynamics (think on the order of kBT/bit op) and what a biological construct can evolve to do given where it's at and been on the ev. landscape. It's not that we just don't see it yet. I would look to much of the work done by Simon Laughlin at Cambridge for a quick read on the topic. You might enjoy it!

Also, 'Junk DNA' was never, AFAIK, claimed to be just totally useless. At the least, there were always statistical reasons to bury your structural coding regions in long sequences related to error correction and observed in the flicker noise seen in long-range correlations in intron sequences. We've known this since the early '90s.

PS. I don't understand 'anon the IIs' comment, but it seemed more snarky than intelligent anyway.

Permalink to Comment

61. gippgig on April 10, 2012 2:30 AM writes...

The human body is not designed for a long, healthy lifespan since natural selection favors rapid reproduction over the survival of the individual. We can't do much about that, but the body's control systems also favor rapid reproduction over long-term health and we should be able to do something about that. Activating AMPK, which acts as a low energy alarm, seems a plausible approach to doing this. Some studies show resveratrol extends lifespan but as far as I know none show that it reduces lifespan. That's inconclusive but promising. I take resveratrol but only a puny dose of around 15 mg/day (which I suspect is too little to do much of anything). If more favorable evidence is reported I'll presumably increase that.
On the other hand, activating the antioxidant response pathway (Nrf2) makes too much sense not to try; I take sulforaphane & recommend others do the same (either by eating broccoli sprouts or taking a supplement (very cheap)).

Permalink to Comment

62. dichotomous on April 10, 2012 8:29 AM writes...

+1000 to Anonymous BMS researcher. It is preposterous that companies making "natural" products, such as those making resveratrol supplements, claim medicine-like properties continue with minimal regulatory oversight, when drug companies and even food manufacturers have to prove any claims they make (if you think I'm exaggerating, see the FDA's warning letter re: cholesterol reduction claims on Cheerios at http://www.fda.gov/iceci/enforcementactions/warningletters/ucm162943.htm ).

I'll put it another way: I refuse to believe claims on "natural" products, such as resveratrol, until they are held to the same level of proof as marketed medicines and foods. Do the double-blinded clinical trials and come back to us.

Permalink to Comment

63. Torben on April 10, 2012 8:48 AM writes...

Calorie restriction works in increasing health associated with aging. I'd be cool if the mechanism could be fooled with a drug to work despite not fasting.

Permalink to Comment

64. Marion on April 10, 2012 10:06 AM writes...

FYI: ResLina is a resveratrol supplement from Nutritionalearth.com. ResLina has resVida® resveratrol which is 99% pure, one of the purest forms of trans-resveratrol and is the first human tested resveratrol compound and is also currently conducting more human studies to demonstrate the effects in has on humans. resVida® resveratrol is also has GRAS status with the FDA. Resveratrol was found to mimic the effects of calorie restriction, which is the only scientifically proven way to extend life. (Pearson KJ, JA Baur, et al. (2008))
A a number of clinical studies can be found here on Cardiovascular Health and Healthy Aging. http://goo.gl/XsHCs

Also more info on the benefits of resveratol can be found at www.nutritionalearth.com

Permalink to Comment

65. processchemist on April 10, 2012 11:22 AM writes...

So sad to see someone from DSM to join the army of the resveratrol advocates on this blog. Wrong target/site for resveratrol ads, mate...

Permalink to Comment

66. milo on April 10, 2012 1:13 PM writes...

@dichotomous,
More easily said than done. Where is the money going to come from...resveratrol is not patentable so no one company is making enough money from it to support this.

My advise, wait till you are really old for the results of long term government study results, or connect the dots now.
Fish oil, resveratrol, and aspirin.

Permalink to Comment

67. noname on April 10, 2012 1:52 PM writes...

Derek, haven't you learned your lesson?
Posts like this are crank-bait.

Permalink to Comment

68. Morten G on April 10, 2012 2:37 PM writes...

Hey Vince,
I didn't really like the free-lunch bit but I let it slide because my post was not very scientifically stringent. I left out that alcohol is an anxiolytic!

I think I was upset with Bill Sardi's claim that every American should use his product (apparently he doesn't market internationally) and they would live twice as long (average expected life-span above 150 - wow!). Oh, and that it would both prevent and treat all cancers in all stages! Amazing stuff.
Aspirin and fish oil are both blood thinning and inflammation reducing. And they increase the chance of bleeding. So that's a trade-off. But my main point stands: were there ever any clinical trials of red wine vs no alcohol vs vehicle?

With regard to ageing and evolution: if one man lives 150 years and one lives 75 years then wouldn't the 150-year-old be expected to have fathered more children? Hmm, maybe not but I don't see why. Though the evolutionary reasoning for the long life span of humans is probably grandparents rather than grandpa getting his rocks off.

Permalink to Comment

69. Spiny Norman on April 10, 2012 11:05 PM writes...

When someone solves an interesting x-ray structure of an important signaling protein with resveratrol bound to it, stereospecifically, in a mechanistically revealing manner that is consistent with some high-quality enzymology, I might start to think that some fraction of the published assay data are not unmitigated BS. But at this point, that is the kind of evidence that I would want to see. Until we have genuinely strong evidence in support of a direct and specific mechanism, I will continue to think that what we're really seeing is a massive case of confirmation bias spiced with a smaller but significant amount of actual scientific fraud.

Permalink to Comment

70. Spiny Norman on April 10, 2012 11:23 PM writes...

Dan Morris @49 typed: "Resveratrol is made by plants as a defense mechanism against disease, hardship, and intrusion. The more a resveratrol producing plant must fight its surroundings the more "resveratrol" it makes."

That is an interesting hypothesis. Another interesting hypothesis is that resveratrol, like most plant secondary compounds, evolved as an insecticide.

Perhaps Dan Morris has evidence that weighs strongly in favor of or against one of these hypotheses. But if he has any such evidence, he has not yet shared it.

Permalink to Comment

71. anonie on April 11, 2012 9:06 AM writes...

#36 milo:
You seem to be taking this very personally, hmmm, an investor? (he said cyincally).

I take my share of meds, and know personally that not all drugs carry the same benefit to cost ratio. Drs seldom tell (or even know) all the potential negatives, so support of unproven, questionable compounds as useful therapeutics can be irresponsible, dangerous, legally questionable.

I am very sympathetic to everyone who is not being properly treated by currently approved methods, but do not believe that a blog like this should support the use of unproven drugs, even if done "over-" or "under-" the table. Many prove to be costly with little to no benefit; at worst, very harmful. And I don't think that properly controled trials with analytically consistent drug substance are being done or will be conducted with this compound.

Permalink to Comment

72. simpl on April 16, 2012 6:38 AM writes...

Sorry I'm late to the party, here are two reasons :
UNCERTAINTY at the highest scientocracy levels: Vitamin Ds were in the last year delisted from being beneficial, and on the other hand groups have showed that they interacted with over 100 gene products and may be useful in cancer.
NEED SOMETHING NOW - if you are suffering, from anything, why wait until all agree? Many mechanisms were discovered late after launch, and chemicals are not covered by the FDA, only medicines. Vitamins are old hat, for Pete's sake. My favorites here are menthol, and acetylcysteine, on prescription in England as a cold medecine but available as a food supplement. At a nastier level, sodium chlorite is in today's papers as a do-it-yourself fix for ALS.

Permalink to Comment

73. Andrea on July 12, 2012 11:10 AM writes...

I personally think that resveratol shouldn't be taken in a regular base because there are not enough reserch for its safety and efficacy , also there is nothing called magic drug " what is sound like a magic is really a magic " nothing real " also there is nothing called " its natural so its safe " that is really a false sentences

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
How Not to Do It: NMR Magnets
Allergan Escapes Valeant
Vytorin Actually Works
Fatalities at DuPont
The New York TImes on Drug Discovery
How Are Things at Princeton?
Phage-Derived Catalysts
Our Most Snorted-At Papers This Month. . .