Some papers that have been in the pipeline for quite some time are now finally in the wild –
(1) Our paper showing how cardio-protection by the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPRmt) depends on the transcription factor ATF5, is now out in AJP Heart.
(2) From our long-running collaboration with Keith Nehrke, some work from his post-doc’ Yunki Im showing that the post-fertilization elimination of paternal mitochondria employs the FNDC1 mitophagy pathway. Published in Dev. Biol.
(3) From a collaboration with Paige Lawrence‘s lab, a paper in Scientific Reports on how early-life exposure to aryl-hydrocarbon receptor agonists has long-term impacts on mitochondrial function in T-Cells.
Other news –
Paige was also instrumental in the recent acquisition of a new Seahorse XFe96 analyzer for the URMC Shared Resource Laboratories. This came not a moment too soon, as our own ancient (serial # 003) XF24 machine died, and our XF96 will no longer be supported after next year.
PSBLAB grad’ student Alexander Milliken is about to do his qualifying exam in a couple of weeks, closely followed by former rotation student Jessica Ciesla (in the lab of Josh Munger).
As reported on Twitter, Alan Cash (the CEO of various corporations selling oxaloacetate as a supplement) called me up and threatened to sue over things written in this article. No letter yet.
We had a great time at the AHA BCVS meeting in Boston, catching up with old science friends and making new ones. Next travel is NHLBI mitochondria meeting in DC at the end of September, and then NIH MIM study section in DC in October.
Congratulations to our colleague George Porter, who got his R01 funded (on cyclophilin D and the PT pore in early cardiac development), and is now searching for a mitochondriac post-doctoral fellow.
I was at a meeting yesterday discussing cancer treatments, and the use of oxaloacetate (OAA) as an anti-cancer drug came up. This prompted some more reading, and my conclusion is there’s a lot of craaaazy stuff out there, with very little actual evidence for pushing this molecule into the clinic.
Background on OAA
First, for the uninitiated, OAA is one of the metabolites in the Krebs’ tricarboxylic acid (TCA) cycle in mitochondria. OAA is made by malate dehydrogenase (MDH)…
The MDH reaction is energetically unfavorable (ΔG +29.7 kJ/mol), but in reality that’s overcome by the next reaction in the Krebs’ cycle (citrate synthase, CS) being very favorable (ΔG -31.5 kJ/mol) so OAA gets removed as soon as it is made and that pulls the cycle forward.
OAA as a Drug?
The development of OAA from metabolite to drug appears to be pushed mostly by a company called “Terra Biological“. They’re selling OAA as a nutraceutical dietary supplement (only $49 for a month’s supply!) with all of the usual snake-oil claims that accompany such operations (“boosts energy”, “enhances mental focus”, blah-di-blah). Oh, and it allegedly mimics caloric restriction (CR) so will help you live longer, so there’s that. Here‘s a slide deck by the CEO of the company, Alan B. Cash, pushing all kinds of uses of OAA, from cancer to Parkinson’s and Alzhemier’s disease and everything in between (and here‘s another link in case that one goes down). The company received a warning letter from the FDA in 2017, for making drug-like claims about OAA supplements.
Despite this craziness, the company is now pushing OAA into the disease area of Glioma, by promoting “Cronoxal” (aka OAA) as a “medical food” for glioma patients. This DropBox link contains a bunch of hokey information from the company on the alleged benefits. For a time, Cronoxal was also known as “Gliaxal”. It’s also marketed under the name Benagene a “genomic aging supplement” (whatever that means) and as Jubilance for PMS relief. Cash also runs MetVital, yet another company developing OAA in a bunch of disease areas.
So where’s the evidence?
As is often the case with the murky waters of poorly-regulated dietary supplements are a number of shortcomings with the actual underlying scientific evidence for OAA’s effects. Most of the hype appears to hinge on this 2009 paper in Aging Cell, claiming that addition of 8 mM (!) OAA to growth media enhances lifespan in the nematode C. elegans. A notable feature of this paper is that it was published in September 2009 and contains no conflict of interest statement.
Compare and contrast with an October 2009 review article (Submitted April that year) in the OA journal Open Longevity Science (which no longer exists), in which author Alan B. Cash lists a conflict of interest – namely being an officer of a company that sells OAA supplements (that would be Terra Biological, founded in 2006).
So, Dr. Cash (and the lead author on the Aging Cell paper David Williams) appear to have seen fit to disclose this rather massive COI in an OA review article, but not in an Aging Cell primary research paper. Another notable find is that Cash submitted a patent application on OAA as a CR mimetic in 2005 – a full 4 years before the paper was published. You might think such an event would require disclosure?
Back to the science, Cash’s glorious PowerPoint deck from 2014 includes claims that studies in mice were underway in 2011, in collaboration with Steve Spindler at UC Riverside. A quick PubMed search indicates that nothing was ever published on this. Similarly, claims are made about lifespan extension in flies, but again there’s nothing published.
For brain cancer, there are a couple of papers showing alleged effects of OAA in mice, but the data are just not very believable, and the dose used – 2 grams per kg (that’s not a typo) equating to 150 grams in a human – is ridiculous!
So, that leaves just about the entirety of the medical claims about OAA based on a single published paper about worms, a shady pay-to-play OA review article by the CEO of the company, and a bunch of unsubstantiated and unpublished claims in PowerPoint slides. Despite this, some people saw fit to convince the FDA to allow clinical trials – one for Parkinson’s, which failed, and another for Alzheimer’s which is ongoing (wanna bet how it’ll turn out?)
OAA cannot work the way they say it does
The claimed mechanism-of-action for OAA is that it drives the MDH enzyme reaction backwards, and this enhances levels of NAD+, which boosts the activity of the Sirtuins, which are allegedly involved in the beneficial effects of CR. There’s another whole can of worms about SIRTs and NAD+ (covered briefly here), but that’s for another day. But anyway, driving MDH backwards to make NAD+ has a number of problems…
First, by using this redox reaction as a source of NAD+, the ultimate source is of course NADH. In cells, NAD+ is normally present at about 700-fold greater levels than NADH. As such, NADH cannot possibly serve as an adequate “reservoir” to provide more NAD+. Even if you could convert all the NADH in your cells to NAD+, the effective level of NAD+ would only go up by 0.14% (and you’d probably die because – duh – no NADH left!)
Second, OAA (above) is a dicarboxylic acid. As such, it is negatively charged at physiologic pH. Negatively charged species are generally excluded from cells. Any mitochondrial biologist can tell you the way to get dicarboxylates into cells is to block the carboxylate moieties with alkyl groups… You make methyl or ethyl esters and these get transported into cells, then the alkyl groups are cleaved off by cytosolic esterases, yielding the free dicarboxylate trapped inside the cell. This is done all the time for Krebs’ cycle metabolites, and you can buy methylated versions of succinate, alpha-ketoglutarate, etc. These molecules are proven bio-available, and the cancer drug dimethyl fumarate exploits this exact same biology to get the active agent (fumarate) into cells.
A third potential confounder is the achievable concentration in people. Remember, the worm study used a level of 8 millimolar in the media – that’s about a gram per liter (molecular weight of OAA = 132). To obtain a similar level in human plasma, assuming a typical human blood volume of 5 liters that would be 5 grams of OAA, or 50 times more than the 100 mg found in the dietary supplement being sold. It’s unlikely that 100 mg of oral OAA would appreciably increase the level of this metabolite in tissues.
Essentially, non-esterified OAA at a low external concentration will not get into cells, and unfortunately that’s where the MDH enzyme (required for the claimed mechanism-of-action) is located. It’s notable that the only evidence Alan Cash shows for an effect of OAA on NAD+/NADH levels comes from isolated mitochondrial studies in the 1960s, where of course the cell membrane is not present.
Another claimed mechanism for OAA is the lowering of blood glutamate levels. Glutamate at high levels in the brain causes excitotoxicity, and OAA is claimed to remove glutamate by converting it to a-ketglutarate, using the enzyme GOT (glutamate/oxaloacetate transaminase). Here’s the reaction:
Glutamate + OAA <–> Aspartate + a-ketoglutarate.
Except there are problems with this mechanism too. First, the enzyme GOT (there are 2 isoforms, GOT1 and GOT2) is not usually found in the plasma. In-fact, you probably know it by another name… aspartate aminotransferase, or AST. That would be the very same AST that’s used (along with ALT) as a biomarker for liver injury. AST is not supposed to be in the bloodstream – if it’s there you have liver failure!
Furthermore, the very paper that is used to make these claims contains data that contradicts this mechanism of action. Specifically, Figure 7 shows that glutamate levels went UP slightly with OAA treatment (not down as desired). Here’s a snapshot from the brochure for Cronaxal (from that DropBox treasure trove), explaining the GOT mechanism. It makes my brain hurt…
For starters, there’s the ridiculous claim that OAA is ketone. This seems disingenuously pitched to jump on the bandwagon of the ketogenic diet fad. Yes, chemically speaking OAA contains a ketone group, but it’s not a ketone body in the classical medical terms intended here. There are only 2 ketone bodies: beta-hydroxybutyrate and acetoacetate. Nothing else is a “ketone” if what you mean is something involved in ketosis, ketogenenesis, diet effects, etc.
Then there’s the claim that D-2HG is inhibited by OAA. WTF? 2HG is an “oncometabolite” made by rogue enzymes in certain forms of cancer. It is not an enzyme. Enzymes get inhibited. Metabolites are processed by enzymes. As far as I know, metabolites cannot get “inhibited” by other metabolites, but whatever, I’m just a lowly biochemist. Like I said, this makes my brain hurt.
Someone needs to go read a biochemistry text book.
The biochemistry dumb-fuckery gets even worse in this awesome slide from the Cronaxal promotional materials…
To be clear… NAD+ availability is a key determinant of the rate of glycolysis in cells. Cancer cells LOVE glycolysis (the Warburg effect). More NAD+ means more glycolysis. NAD+ will thus promote the Warburg effect. Anyone suggesting the opposite (note the lack of a reference for the statement at the bottom of the slide) is being silly.
So how might OAA be working (if it is working at all)?
In my (not so professional) opinion, there’s no freakin’ way that OAA can be having its biological effects via an MDH >> NAD+ mechanism. The biochemistry just doesn’t add up. There’s also very little chance it’s working via a GOT-dependent lowering of glutamate (and if it is, this might actually be beneficial toward cancer).
So, how could it be working? There are a number of known G-protein coupled receptors for Krebs’ cycle metabolites expressed on the surface of cells – most notably the succinate receptor GPR91. Whether such receptors can respond to OAA in the plasma is not known. Another interesting property of OAA (and indeed all alpha-keto acids) is that it reacts directly with hydrogen peroxide. Mixing OAA with H2O2 gets you malonate, another metabolite with biological effects. It has been claimed that OAA is an antioxidant, but that’sa bit of a stretch. A third interesting property of OAA… it’s a potent inhibitor of mitochondrial respiratory complex II (succinate dehydrogenase), but of course such an effect would require it to get across cell membranes, oops!
So there you have it, a molecule that doesn’t get into cells, with no published primary scientific data in mammals indicating an effect at an achievable dose, and has failed in at least one clinical trial, hyped to hell by a zealous CEO who doesn’t disclose COIs when publishing, mostly based on a single paper in worms, now being pushed on desperate glioma patients, with a complete lack of understanding of the fundamentals of biochemistry, all wrapped up in a bunch of slick brochures and at least 5 different supplement companies all run by one person. What a shit-show!
Yes, you read that correctly. This revelation (to me at least) comes from a recent interaction with the Federal Office of Research Integrity (ORI), namely this reporting of several image duplications across papers from the same lab. Importantly, in most cases*** the images were re-used within a similar context and to describe the same experiments. Here is the response I received from ORI…
Dear Dr. Brookes: Thank you for your thorough email regarding the re-use of images and data across nine (9) different publications, over the span of fourteen (14) years. The 2012-2018 publications and after, are within the six year period of limitations, thus are under ORI’s jurisdiction. In addition, the Current Drug Targets 2008 and Biocatal Biotransformation 2010 publications would also be under ORI’s definition, per 42 C.F.R. Part 93.105 (b)(1) Subsequent use exception.
However, re-use of images and data does not meet the definition of research misconduct. Per 42 C.F.R. Part 93.103: Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Falsification is manipulating research materials, equipment or processes such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.
In each instance of re-use, the research is accurately represented in the research record; thus there is no falsification. The re-use is consistent with self-plagiarism, which also does not meet ORI’s definition of plagiarism. Thus ORI does not have jurisdiction. This also may be consistent with a copyright violation, depending on the specific journal’s policies.
As ORI does not have jurisdiction, ORI considers this a closed matter.
Thank you, XXXXXXXXXX, Scientist Investigator, Division of Investigative Oversight, Office of Research Integrity
This is news to me! It’s the polar opposite of what we teach in our mandatory research ethics course (i.e., self-plagiarism is bad). Even if the experiments are the same, simply republishing the same data and images more than once raises two important ethical issues:
(1) Double-Dipping. When you publish the same data twice you get to <i>game</i> the metrics system by getting more publications for the same or less work (vs. others who do new experiments each time). Most would agree this is “not fair”, as important events in academia such as promotions and tenure depend on such metrics.
(2) Copyright. When you publish a figure in one journal, typically that journal owns the copyright to the image. Even if you’re a CC-BY hawk and do everything open access, publishing the same figure again elsewhere without acknowledgement is a breach of someone’s copyright.
This issue clearly raises a dilemma from the journal editorial perspective…. Say for example something is published first in Journal A and then Journal B. If A sues B for copyright infringement and it results in retraction of the paper in B, all good. But, if B acts alone and retracts the paper, they have to be VERY careful. If they implies any kind of misconduct occurred, and the authors are savvy about the above-mentioned ORI policy, this could open the door for a defamation lawsuit from disgruntled authors. Caveat editor!
***In some cases the images were not reporting the same experimental conditions. In other papers there were clear examples of image manipulaton such as splicing together unrelated western blots. But, all those papers were >6yrs old and so fell outside the ORI statute of limitations. Thus, overall there was nothing that both met the definition of misconduct AND was within the S.O.L. Oh well.
Last week I had the great pleasure of visiting Sabzali Javadov at the University of Puerto Rico, to participate in the PhD thesis defense of Rebecca Parodi-Rullan (Rebecca had spent some time in my lab a few years ago on an SfRBM mini-felowship). She passed (yay!) and is off to start a post-doc at NYU soon. Here’s a picture of Dr. Javadov’s awesome lab group, who I greatly enjoyed meeting with and discussing science:
But, as often happens during such visits, there was some down-time, so I found myself waiting in a corridor outside someone’s lab. What else is there to do but read a poster?
Well, let’s just say the poster had some “imaginative approaches to the re-use of loading controls on western blots”. I snapped a cellphone pic of the author banner and decided to pull some papers when I got home.
Here is what I found. Ugh! Details are posted on PubPeer here, here, here and here, for those of you who don’t want to download a PDF with all the details. Essentially it’s mutiple examples of images being re-used across 9 different papers spanning 2004-2018, all from a single PI’s lab – Dipak K. Banerjee in the Department of Biochemistry at UPR (Dr. Banerjee is the only author common to all 9 papers). He was and is funded by NIH, and some of the papers fall within the ORI 6 year statute of limitations. Thus, ORI has been informed, as have all the journal editors, and COPE (since all the journals are COPE members).
This sucks! What should otherwise have been an enoyable trip now leaves a sour after-taste. Scientific misconduct never sleeps, it just keeps following me into the most unlikely places. When you’ve seen it once, it’s impossible not to see it everywhere you look. Ugh!
PSBLAB post-doc’ Chaitanya Kulkarni (Chaitu) found out this week that his AHA post-doctoral fellowship (the one he wrote just 2 months after joining the lab!) is gonna be funded! Congratulations Chaitu!
Next month Paul is speaking at Drug Discovery 2018 in San Francisco CA, and in January we’re presenting posters at this Keystone CO meeting on Cardiac and Skeletal Muscle Mitochondria.
Yves Wang’s paper on the mitochondrial unfolded protein response and ATF5 was resubmitted recently (after getting the run around elsewhere. The pre-print on BioRxiv has been updated.
A few years ago, Rebecca Parodi-Rullan, a grad’ student in the lab of Sabzali Javadov at the University of Puerto Rico was awarded an SFRBM “mini-fellowship” to spend time in our lab learning the mouse Langendorff perfused heart method. In December Rebecca will defend her PhD thesis, and then she’s off to NYU for a post-doc!
Also in December is the beginning of Module 5 – Metabolism – in the new IND431 “Foundations in Modern Biology” course. In addition to making the lecture notes available to URMC students on BlackBoard, I am investigating the possibility to try to host some of the course materials here.