From: gts (gts_2000@yahoo.com)
Date: Sat Feb 08 2003 - 03:58:23 MST
ABSTRACT
Neuroprotection by deprenyl and related compounds
Maruyama W, Naoi M
Department of Basic Gerontology,
National Institute for Longevity Sciences Obu, Japan.
maruyama@nils.go.jp
Mech Ageing Dev 1999 Nov; 111(2-3):189-200
There is an increasing number of data by in vitro and in vivo experiments,
indicating that (-)-deprenyl is neuroprotective to dopamine neurons, even
though detailed mechanism remains to be clarified. In this paper
neuroprotection by (-)-deprenyl and structurally related compounds was
examined in concern with the suppression of apoptosis induced by a reactive
oxygen species, peroxynitrite generated from SIN-1. The apoptotic DNA
damage was quantitatively determined using dopaminergic SH-SYSY cells and by
a single cell gel electrophoresis (comet) assay. DNA damage induced by
peroxynitrite was proved to be apoptotic by prevention of the damage by
cycloheximide or actinomycin-D. (-)-Deprenyl and other propargylamines
protected the cells from apoptosis in a dose-dependent way. (-)-Deprenyl
protected the cells even after it was washed out, suggesting that it may
initiate the intracellular process to repress the apoptotic death program.
The study on the structure-activity relationship of (-)-deprenyl analogues
revealed that a N-propargyl residue with adequate size of hydrophobic
structure is essentially required for the anti-apoptotic activity. These
results suggest that (-)-deprenyl and related compounds may protect neurons
from apoptosis and be applicable to delay the deterioration of neurons
during advancing ageing and in neurodegenerative disorders.
=======
I'm reposting this abstract above, Rafal, because you failed to address it,
much less refute it, in your reply to the last message to you.
Rafal wrote:
>> Other studies show that selegiline increases lifespan in <snip> human PD
>> patients.
> ### Quote them and show they are more reliable and trustworthy than
DATATOP.
I think I have already posted several that make that claim, and I don't know
why I should even bother to report more of them. I have quoted at least
half a dozen abstracts here, Rafal, and you have failed to address the data
and claims in those abstracts in any detail whatsoever! Instead you just
keep restating the same old argument (that selegiline is only helps with
symptoms rather than with neuroprotection, as if I didn't hear it the first
time), and you base that argument on the *single* study that *you*
personally prefer to recognize as the *only* valid study, as if I and
everyone here should consider you to be the world's leading authority on the
subject.
You've given us no reason to believe that you have assessed the evidence
better than other experts who specialize in this field and who still
currently believe that the preponderance of the evidence supports the view
that selegiline is neuroprotective in PD. Maybe they are right or maybe they
are wrong, but you Rafal certainly don't have a monopoly on such knowledge.
I will however for the moment concede that the evidence for neuroprotection
in PD is not unequivocal, and in fact I sincerely do agree that isn't, just
so that we can get past this point. Okay? Nevermind PD for now.
Here above is again is the abstract I posted in my last message, which you
ignored like most others I have posted. Please respond to it in
detail.Specifically, please explain why this research does not support my
contention that selegiline is neuroprotective *in general* -- setting aside
for the moment any specific contradictions that might be present in the PD
literature. (Perhaps PD is not a good model for general life-extension
purposes. After all neither you nor I have clinical PD (I hope) -- and as
stated in the header this discussion is really about performance enhancement
with selegiline for normal transhumanist folks like you and me.)
I'd like to think you are not so closed-minded, Rafal. You have often
criticized me for such, yet on this matter you are speaking from the same
conservative perspective as do those who criticize the entire subject of
anti-aging medicine -- your hard-line skepticism about this subject is
hardly in the spirit of transhumanism or extropianism.
Note that the abstract is dated 1999, far more recent than the study that
you've stated is "the last word."
Tell us why we should not accept this research as valid.
-gts
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 08 2003 - 04:00:55 MST