Popular antioxidant seems to spread skin cancer cells in mouse research
October 7, 2015 by Dennis Thompson, Healthday Reporter

The antioxidant, N-acetylcysteine, is used to relieve mucus production in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), said study senior author Martin Bergo, a professor at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden.

It also is used as a supplement by people who believe that the antioxidant can help reduce exercise-related muscle damage, burn fat and prevent fatigue, Bergo added.
But water laced with N-acetylcysteine appeared to speed up the spread of melanoma, the potentially deadly skin cancer, in lab mice, researchers found.

The antioxidant had no effect on the number and size of tumors, but it enhanced the migration and invasion of these tumors to other parts of the body, the research team reported Oct. 7 in the journal Science Translational Medicine.

N-acetylcysteine was linked to a doubling of the number of lymph-node tumors in mice who drank the laced water, compared to untreated animals, according to the findings.
Previously, the same research team reported that certain antioxidants can spur lung tumor growth in mice.

Antioxidants are believed to protect healthy cells from damage caused by unstable molecules called "free radicals," according to the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH).

However, Bergo believes that antioxidants like N-acetylcysteine also protect cancer cells from free radicals that might otherwise slow their growth or keep them from spreading to other parts of the body.

Other studies have linked high doses of beta-carotene to increased risk of lung cancer in smokers. High doses of vitamin E may increase risk of prostate cancer, the NIH says.

"For people with an increased risk of cancer, this means that taking nutritional supplements containing antioxidants may unintentionally speed up the progression of a small tumor or premalignant lesion, neither of which is possible to detect," Bergo said.

Bergo said his team decided to focus on N-acetylcysteine because it is a potent antioxidant that dissolves quickly in water, which makes it easy to feed to lab mice.

The researchers also performed follow-up lab tests on human melanoma cells, using N-acetylcysteine and vitamin E. Both antioxidants produced similar results in the human skin cancer cells, increasing their ability to migrate and invade other cells.

The boost provided to skin cancer could come from antioxidants' protective benefits. But the research team also found that the antioxidants activated a protein that regulates cellular processes and is likely involved in promoting the spread of cancer.

Bergo recommends that people with cancer or at high risk for cancer avoid antioxidant supplements.

"For a patient with newly diagnosed lung cancer or melanoma - and potentially other cancer forms - antioxidants could speed up the progression of the disease," he said. "There is no conclusive evidence that antioxidant supplementation would be beneficial for these patients, and they should be encouraged to avoid this strategy because the risk of worsening the disease is high."

Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, deputy chief medical officer for the American Cancer Society, said that while the study results are interesting, "it's difficult to take this information and directly translate it into recommendations for patients."

The results of animal studies "don't necessarily translate into what happens for people," Lichtenfeld said. "One really has to do the clinical trial in people before you can make conclusions about antioxidants or anything else impacting the course of cancer treatment."

However, Lichtenfeld said cancer patients should make sure their treatment team knows about all supplements they take, so they can get the best advice possible for their particular situation.

"Patients do need to discuss with their doctors and their oncologists not only what traditional medicines they are taking, but alternative medications and vitamins they are consuming," he said. "It's important for the care team to know."

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

Good info, thanks for sharing.

Yes, but this probably needs more study.

BUT, , , , given the circumstances of all us fellow "Surfers", it is certainly something to consider.

Lots of us trying to eat healthy and stay "in shape", etc., , , , and then to find out that the antioxidant supplement(s) that we have been taking have actually made us "sicker" and/or more susceptible to disease????!!!!????

I'm going to stick with hot dogs, bacon, and heavy cream. LOL

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

I don't "intentionally" and "knowingly" take any anti-oxidents. I am guessing that they are, however, in drinks or food that I consume. Does anybody know of any popular food items or drinks that contain these anti-oxidents?

The article above left out one important caveat of the original article. The N-acetylcysteine that they are concerned about is synthetic.

Any blanket statement about antioxidants as a whole is foolish.

 

On a side note, I am not so concerned about synthetic vs natural as long as they are structurally the exact same. In the case of NAC, all of it is synthetic as there is no natural food source for it.

Edited: 10/08/2015 at 06:10 AM by miker

Antioxidants are in foods that we consume. Typically, they are present in healthy foods i.e. fruits and vegetables that contain vitamin A, C and E. They protect us and fight free-radicals which are damaging to our bodies and responsible for disease. So, put out that cig and step away from the bag of Doritoes.

I have not slept in a Holiday Inn lately but, , , , "synthetic" may not have anything to do with it. It is perhaps more due to "increased levels" induced by taking the supplement(s). ? ?

"Abstract" from the source publication:

Antioxidants can increase melanoma metastasis in mice
Kristell Le Gal1,2, Mohamed X. Ibrahim1,3, Clotilde Wiel1,3, Volkan I. Sayin2,4, Murali K. Akula1,3, Christin Karlsson1,3, Martin G. Dalin1,3,*, Levent M. Akyürek2, Per Lindahl2,4, Jonas Nilsson1,5 and Martin O. Bergo1,3,†
+ Author Affiliations
?†Corresponding author. E-mail: martin.bergo@gu.se
?* Present address: Human Oncology and Pathogenesis Program, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY 10065, USA.

Science Translational Medicine 07 Oct 2015:
Vol. 7, Issue 308, pp. 308re8
DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aad3740

You are currently viewing the abstract.


Another strike against antioxidants

Antioxidants are found in a variety of foods and dietary supplements and are frequently used with the goal of preventing cancer, but mounting evidence suggests that they may not be as beneficial as once thought. Clinical studies have shown mixed or no benefits, and other works demonstrated that antioxidants may accelerate the progression of lung cancer. Now, Le Gal et al. discovered that some common antioxidants increase the rate of melanoma cell migration and invasion and increase metastasis in a mouse model. These are early findings, and additional work will be required to confirm the generalizability of this observation. Nevertheless, the results suggest a need for caution in the use of antioxidants, especially for patients with existing cancer.
Abstract

Antioxidants in the diet and supplements are widely used to protect against cancer, but clinical trials with antioxidants do not support this concept. Some trials show that antioxidants actually increase cancer risk and a study in mice showed that antioxidants accelerate the progression of primary lung tumors. However, little is known about the impact of antioxidant supplementation on the progression of other types of cancer, including malignant melanoma. We show that administration of N-acetylcysteine (NAC) increases lymph node metastases in an endogenous mouse model of malignant melanoma but has no impact on the number and size of primary tumors. Similarly, NAC and the soluble vitamin E analog Trolox markedly increased the migration and invasive properties of human malignant melanoma cells but did not affect their proliferation. Both antioxidants increased the ratio between reduced and oxidized glutathione in melanoma cells and in lymph node metastases, and the increased migration depended on new glutathione synthesis. Furthermore, both NAC and Trolox increased the activation of the small guanosine triphosphatase (GTPase) RHOA, and blocking downstream RHOA signaling abolished antioxidant-induced migration. These results demonstrate that antioxidants and the glutathione system play a previously unappreciated role in malignant melanoma progression.
Copyright © 2015, American Association for the Advancement of Science

-------------------------
Dora Hates You

The statements in that abstract are irresponsible in my opinion. Not all substances under the "antioxidant" umbrella work the same, in fact, nearly all of them have different effects.

 

NAC replensishes and increases Glutathione in your body which is our own personal antioxidant. Glutathione is critical in keeping our cells from mutating into cancer to begin with and destroying those that do. Seems like a good thing to saturate your body with at first glance without understanding exactly what is going on in your body.

 

Is the L-Cysteine saturation overloading Glutathione conversion pathways and causing issues with certain cancers? Is this finding only relevant if you are a mouse? Or more specifically the genetically mutated mice they use to test things with? Is the problem that the NAC works so well that it protects the melanoma from your own body as well allowing it to proliferate better? Is this only relevant with certain melanomas (in mice?)

 

What I can tell you about NAC is that it is advisable to take after a night of heavy drinking (or other conditions that can wreck your liver, and kidneys as well). I can also tell you that high dosages of it will reduce the effectiveness of your exercise due to the heavy antioxidant response. I can also tell you that it prolonged heavy use has been tied to PAH in humans. It also will treate acetaminophen overdose. It also acts as a mercury chelator ....though I am a little fuzzy on how it works in that aspect.

 

Do I take NAC myself? No, but I keep a bottle of 500mg in case I have a few too many drinks (not that I am a heavy or frequent drinker).

 

 

Edited: 10/08/2015 at 06:38 AM by miker

Maybe I missed something but is this surf related?

-------------------------
I troll 2L.com to be a better person in real life

Too much of just about anything is usually bad.

The people that want to sell you shit have a habit of finding something beneficial like vitamins in food and then concentrating it, isolating it, and marketing it as some miracle. The stuff is rarely more beneficial than just eating a well rounded diet. At best you pass the excess. At worst the excess is toxic like some fat soluble vitamins on the liver when over-consumed. Somewhere in between the excess feeds some damaging chronic process.

-------------------------
...

Sun damage.

Melenoma.

Some practice that might increase the risk or speed of metastasis is generally of concern to sun damaged surfers.

Perhaps the thread could be in NPNR but it gets more eyeballs here.

-------------------------
...

Then you have cases where concentrating and isolating a subtance found naturally work miracles.... i.e. almost every drug ever.

 

French Lilac -> Metformin

Willow Bark -> Aspirin

Penicillium chrysogenum - > Penicillin

repeat ....

"

Milk Thistle is more long term and the better choice for that. NAC counters the alchohol immediately, so specifically for *that* it is the better choice.

 

 

Does a specific thing. Results are reproducible in blind trials. This applies to n-acetylcysteine for a variety of functions related to its chemstry in the body.

This differs dramatically from the supplement industry non-standards. You know "Hey, vitamins are good so take this pill chock full of vitamins and you'll be healthy". Or some legitimate study finds a link between anti-oxidant rich diets and lower cancer rates in some population somewhere so the supplement industry starts pushing anti-oxidant pills without any evidence at all that their product reduces cancer risk.

NAC obvisously has legitimate documented effects and uses. But there's always got to be a side effect.

-------------------------
...

Edited: 10/08/2015 at 08:50 AM by scombrid

Don't apply truth about multivitamins with supplements as a whole. It is hardly fair nor accurate. All multis are supplements, but very few supplements are multis.

The problem with multis are that vast majority of them use too much of some things, the wrong forms of others, mix fat/water soluable vitamins, mix ingredients that negate each other, and have questionable ingredient sources. I agree that there is very little to support ever taking any multivitamin and they will generally in fact do more harm than good.

Other supplements are a different story. There are some very good supplement manufacturers out there that have pharmacutical grade standards, provide COAs, and sell product backed by actual real research. Even then, you still have to be careful of what you are taking even from these companies because the individuals diet, life style, and genetics can all influence this. They key point is that you need to know your genetics, trust your manufacturer, and believe that the cost/benefit/risk analysis of the substances is tilted in your favor.

 

For example, those with both single and double MTHFR mutations should not be eating any food fortified with folic acid nor take any supplements with folic acid in them. A substance that generally is beneficial for people with folate deficiency, is absolutely disasterous for people with this genetic mutation. In other words, for some people, supplementing it increases cancer risk and in others it decreases it. Not to mention, this is exactly why there are conflicting research results on Folic Acid, heh.... genetic factors were not included in most studies.

 

Why is this so? The MTHFR mutation reduces the body's ability to convert folic acid into 5-methyltetrahydrofolate, moderately  in the case of a single mutation and severly in the case of double gene mutation. This causes all sorts of problems when the pathway gets saturated in people with the mutations.

Joe Blow eating two bowls of cereal, 2 pieces of toast, and taking a daily multi leaves his house in the morning at 500% of us folic acid RDA. Unfortunately Joe Blow has the double mutation and can't convert it into the form the body needs..... he is double screwing himself in both systemic homocysteine and pathway overload.

 

Those with this gene mutation NEED to be supplementing 5-methyltetrahydrofolate directly. Those without it don't need to supplement period unless their diet sucks and they arent getting enough natural folate... and if they aren't better be safe than sorry and just take 5-methyltetrahydrofolate instead of folic acid.

 

Edit: I am a software engineer not an expert in this field. It is just a hobby of mine..... heh

I'm guessing that you're familiar with the books written by T. Colin Campbell and David Perlmutter?

No. I just read research papers, like at pubmed for example. I also have a few subject matter experts I can bounce things off of when my understanding is lacking.