• Due to excessive bot signups along with nefarious actors we are limiting forum registration. Keep checking back for the register link to appear. Please do not send emails or have someone post to the forum asking for a signup link. Until the current climate changes we do not see a change of this policy. To join the forum you must have a compelling reason. Letting us know what skills/knowledge you will bring to the community along with the intent of your stay here will help in getting you approved.

Warbug Effect Revisited - Glycolysis Is "cheaper" For Dividing Cells

haidut

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,846
Location
USA / Europe
This study shed some light on why the fast dividing cells like bacteria and cancer prefer to use glycolysis even in the presence of oxygen - i.e. the well-known Warburg effect. The study says this is due to the fact that after factoring the energetic cost of synthesizing the mechanisms that allow the cell to perform respiration. In other words, it is easier for cell that grows fast to keep itself alive and structured by doing glycolysis than by oxidative respiration. This is not surprising, and a similar effects occurs when doing any sort of exertion that leads to insufficient energy supply for the cells. After say a few minutes of intensive running or a few seconds of weight lifting, the cells switch to glycolysis and as a result lactic acid builds up.
I have not seen the full study yet, but it once again points to a key point of Ray view - i.e. that all cells will revert to growth, division and glycolysis unless mechanisms for restraining that growth are working properly.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v5 ... 15765.html
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35010171

"For bacteria to grow fast, they need lots of ribosomes… and ribosomes making ribosomes", explained Terry as he emphasized that a lot of ribosomes are "tied up" in making the proteins for the fermentation and respiration machineries."

"...When they drew the line and calculated the costs involved, Prof Hwa's team found that building and running the fermentation pathway was "cheaper" for fast growing cells. This idea was first suggested several years ago by a group of theoretical biologists from the Netherlands, and Prof Hwa's team has provided the experimental evidence for it. "What we discovered could be compared to the difference between generating energy by a coal factory versus a nuclear power plant," said Terry Hwa. "Coal factories produce energy less efficiently than nuclear power plants on a per-carbon basis, but they are a lot cheaper to build."
 
J

jb116

Guest
thx for posting haidut.
Just for clarification, this line confused me a bit "that all cells will revert to growth, division and glycolysis unless mechanisms for restraining that growth are not working properly."
Did you mean to type "mechanisms for restraining that growth are working properly"?
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,846
Location
USA / Europe
jb116 said:
post 113148 thx for posting haidut.
Just for clarification, this line confused me a bit "that all cells will revert to growth, division and glycolysis unless mechanisms for restraining that growth are not working properly."
Did you mean to type "mechanisms for restraining that growth are working properly"?

Oops, sorry, you are right and it is a typo. I corrected it in the original post. And yes, I meant restraining mechanisms ARE working properly.
And here is another evidence to consider. Cancer is basically what life looked like 1 billion years ago. Primitive, fast, and shapeless and doing nothing but GROWTH!
http://www.lifescientist.com.au/content ... s-65321653
"... "'Advanced' metazoan life of the form we now know, i.e. organisms with cell specialization and organ differentiation, was preceded by colonies of eukaryotic cells in which cellular cooperation was fairly rudimentary, consisting of networks of adhering cells exchanging information chemically, and forming self-organized assemblages with only a moderate division of labor," they write. According to Lineweaver, this suggests that cancer is an atavism, or an evolutionary throwback. "

"... “We think that the tumours that develop in cancer patients today take the same form as these simple cellular structures did more than a billion years ago,” he said. In a way, the genes that controlled this early multi-cellular form of life are like a computer operating system's 'safe mode', and when there are failures or mutations in the more recent genes that manage the way cells specialise and interact to form the complex life of today, then the earlier level of programming takes over."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
J

jb116

Guest
haidut said:
post 113153
jb116 said:
post 113148 thx for posting haidut.
Just for clarification, this line confused me a bit "that all cells will revert to growth, division and glycolysis unless mechanisms for restraining that growth are not working properly."
Did you mean to type "mechanisms for restraining that growth are working properly"?

Oops, sorry, you are right and it is a typo. I corrected it in the original post. And yes, I meant restraining mechanisms ARE working properly.
And here is another evidence to consider. Cancer is basically what life looked like 1 billion years ago. Primitive, fast, and shapeless and doing nothing but GROWTH!
http://www.lifescientist.com.au/content ... s-65321653
"... "'Advanced' metazoan life of the form we now know, i.e. organisms with cell specialization and organ differentiation, was preceded by colonies of eukaryotic cells in which cellular cooperation was fairly rudimentary, consisting of networks of adhering cells exchanging information chemically, and forming self-organized assemblages with only a moderate division of labor," they write. According to Lineweaver, this suggests that cancer is an atavism, or an evolutionary throwback. "

"... “We think that the tumours that develop in cancer patients today take the same form as these simple cellular structures did more than a billion years ago,” he said. In a way, the genes that controlled this early multi-cellular form of life are like a computer operating system's 'safe mode', and when there are failures or mutations in the more recent genes that manage the way cells specialise and interact to form the complex life of today, then the earlier level of programming takes over."

oh that is good stuff :) it confirms my philosophical views quite nicely
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Amazoniac

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
8,586
Location
Not Uganda
http://www.encognitive.com/files/Dr...tocol--Prime Cause of Cancer--Encognitive.pdf

“The early history of life on our planet indicates that life existed on earth before the earth’s atmosphere contained free oxygen gas. The living cells must therefore have been fermenting cells then, and, as fossils show, they were undifferentiated single cells. Only when free oxygen appeared in the atmosphere - some billion years ago – did the higher development of life set in, to produce the plant and animal kingdoms from the fermenting, undifferentiated single cells. What the philosophers of life have called "Evolution créatrice" has been and is therefore the work of oxygen. The reverse process, the dedifferentiation of life, takes place today in greatest amount before our eyes in cancer development, which is another expression for dedifferentiation. To be sure, cancer development takes place even in the presence of free oxygen gas in the atmosphere, but this oxygen may not penetrate in sufficient quantity into the growing body cells, or the respiratory apo-enzymes of the growing body cells may not be saturated with the active groups. In any case, during the cancer development the oxygen-respiration always falls, fermentation appears, and the highly differentiated cells are transformed to fermenting anaerobes, which have lost all their body functions and retain only the now useless property of growth. Thus, when respiration disappears, life does not disappear, but the meaning of life disappears, and what remains are growing machines that destroy the body in which they grow."

“But why oxygen differentiates and why lack of oxygen dedifferentiates? Nobody would dispute that the development of plants and animals and man from unicellular anaerobes is the most improbable process of all processes in the world.” “But according to the thermodynamics of Boltzmann, improbable processes require work to take place.
It requires work to produce temperature differences in a uniformly temperatured gas; whereas the equalization of such temperature differences is a spontaneous process that does not require work. It is the oxygen respiration that provides in life this work, and dedifferentiation begins at once when respiration is inhibited in any way. In the language of thermodynamics, differentiation represents a forced steady state, whereas dedifferentiation - that is, cancer - is the true equilibrium state. Or, illustrated by a picture: the differentiated body cell is like a ball on an inclined plane, which, would roll down except for the work of oxygen-respiration always preventing this. If oxygen respiration is inhibited, the ball rolls down the plane to the level of dedifferentiation.”

“..If one applies this knowledge to carcinogenesis, it seems that only oxidative phosphorylation but not fermentative phosphorylation can differentiate, a result, that may in future explain the mechanism of differentiation.”

“The endproducts of fermentation is reached by one single reaction, the reduction of pyruvic acid by dihydro-nicotinamide to lactic acid. On the other hand, the endproducts of the oxidation of pyruvic acid, H2O and CO2, are only reached after many additional reactions. Therefore, when cells are harmed, it is probable that first respiration is harmed.
In this way the frequency of cancer is explained by reasons of probability.”

“To sum up:
1. Impairment of respiration is [more] frequent than impairment of fermentation because respiration is more complicated than fermentation.
2. The impaired respiration can be easily replaced by fermentation, because both processes have a common catalyst, the nicotinamide.
3. The consequence of the replacement of respiration by fermentation is mostly glycolysis, with death of the cells by lack of energy. Only if the energy of fermentation is equivalent to the lost energy of respiration, is the consequence anaerobiosis. Glycolysis means death by fermentation, anaerobiosis means life by fermentation.
4. Cancer arises, because respiration, but not fermentation, can maintain and create the high differentiation of body cells.”
 

BastiFuntasty

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
225
2. The impaired respiration can be easily replaced by fermentation, because both processes have a common catalyst, the nicotinamide.
Would you think that taking nicotinamide in very hypo persons with low energy, while doing sport could possibly promote glycolysis than? And should not be taken around training sessions?
 

haidut

Member
Thread starter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
18,846
Location
USA / Europe
Would you think that taking nicotinamide in very hypo persons with low energy, while doing sport could possibly promote glycolysis than? And should not be taken around training sessions?

Even though the text says dihydronicotinamide, the current name is NADH. That is NOT the same as nicotinamide. The nicotinamide we know and talk about is a precursor to NAD and it raises the NAD/NADH ratio. When there is relative deficiency of nicotinamide the result is a build up of NADH and in order for the organism to continue functioning the enzyme LDH oxidizes NADH back to NAD using pyruvate as the oxidant and the result is NAD and lactic acid (derived from pyruvate after reduction). The relative deficiency of nicotinamide can be caused by many things but specifically in cancer the cancer cells divert the metabolism of tryptophan towards serotonin and various other toxic byproducts and away from niacin.
 
Last edited:

tara

Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2014
Messages
10,368
I like these explanations, thanks Haidut and Amazoniac.
 

Regina

Member
Joined
Aug 17, 2016
Messages
4,411
Location
Chicago
Even though the text says dihydronicotinamide, the current name is NADH. That is NOT the same as nicotinamide. The we know and talk about nitocinamide is a precursor to NAD and it raises the NAD/NADH ratio. When there is relative deficiency of nicotinamide the result is a build up of NADH and in order for the organism to continue functioning the enzyme LDH oxidizes NADH back to NAD using pyruvate as the oxidant and the result is NAD and lactic acid (derived from pyruvate after reduction). The relative deficiency of nicotinamide can be caused by many things but specifically in cancer the cancer cells divert the metabolism of tryptophan towards serotonin and various other toxic byproducts and away from niacin.
:clap:
 

BastiFuntasty

Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
225
Even though the text says dihydronicotinamide, the current name is NADH. That is NOT the same as nicotinamide. The we know and talk about nitocinamide is a precursor to NAD and it raises the NAD/NADH ratio. When there is relative deficiency of nicotinamide the result is a build up of NADH and in order for the organism to continue functioning the enzyme LDH oxidizes NADH back to NAD using pyruvate as the oxidant and the result is NAD and lactic acid (derived from pyruvate after reduction). The relative deficiency of nicotinamide can be caused by many things but specifically in cancer the cancer cells divert the metabolism of tryptophan towards serotonin and various other toxic byproducts and away from niacin.
Thank you for the explanation, I knew I got it wrong :thumbleft
 

Similar threads

Top