Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

basmwklz OP t1_j95qa3x wrote

Abstract: >Pharmacological vitamin C (VC) is a potential natural compound for cancer treatment. However, the mechanism underlying its antitumor effects remains unclear. In this study, we found that pharmacological VC significantly inhibits the mTOR (including mTORC1 and mTORC2) pathway activation and promotes GSK3-FBXW7-mediated Rictor ubiquitination and degradation by increasing the cellular ROS. Moreover, we identified that HMOX1 is a checkpoint for pharmacological-VC-mediated mTOR inactivation, and the deletion of FBXW7 or HMOX1 suppresses the regulation of pharmacological VC on mTOR activation, cell size, cell viability, and autophagy. More importantly, it was observed that the inhibition of mTOR by pharmacological VC supplementation in vivo produces positive therapeutic responses in tumor growth, while HMOX1 deficiency rescues the inhibitory effect of pharmacological VC on tumor growth. These results demonstrate that VC influences cellular activities and tumor growth by inhibiting the mTOR pathway through Rictor and HMOX1, which may have therapeutic potential for cancer treatment.


crazyhadron t1_j95r2zu wrote

So vitamin C might be a viable and safe alternative to rampamycin for cleaning out your cells, nice.


KetosisMD t1_j95rx8w wrote

Probably not as thorough as rapamycin.


Sculptasquad t1_j95v8i1 wrote

"Thorough" always comes at a price.


KetosisMD t1_j95w9me wrote

Agreed. I’m not saying rapamycin is safe. I’m tempering the comparison of C and rapamycin


fanghornegghorn t1_j97ij4i wrote

What's wrong with rapamycin?


erebos290696 t1_j9a0txa wrote

It has several functions which include immunosuppression and fungicide.

The immunosuppressive effects allowed it to be used in organ transplants I believe. And the low rate of cancer in patients using it, lead to the discovery of the mTOR pathway. And it's use in cancer treatment.

I think. Verify everything I've said as it's been a minute since I learned this.


CrateDane t1_j96s3pv wrote

Well, Rapamycin mainly inhibits mTORC1, while this seems to target RICTOR for degradation and thus preventing assembly of mTORC2. So they would have complementary roles if you wanted inhibition of both complexes.


[deleted] t1_j96rbdr wrote

What exactly is rampamycin and how does it "clean out you cells" and why do you want that?


basementreality t1_j97vgw8 wrote

IRC Rapamycin is a drug given to organ transplant recipients that is also used by people trying to extend lifespan. It has been shown in studies to extend the lifespan of pretty much every organism it has been tested on.

It's mechanism of action is too complicated for me to recal but there are lots of explanations online.

It's a super interesting molecule that has a very interesting history as it was discovered next to a statue on Easter Island.


IAmWeary t1_j98xkw2 wrote

I believe it promotes autophagy and reduces senescence. Probably other things too, but those are big ones.


A_Dragon t1_j99davh wrote

So if I take liposomal vitamin C it might also extend my lifespan?


someone_actually_ t1_j97bjv0 wrote

Linus Pauling must be feeling vindicated


Xw5838 t1_j981yy0 wrote

Just like William Colby with bacterial immunotherapy before it even had a name. Ignored then vindicated.

And back in the 70's Pauling found that intravenous Vitamin C significantly extended the lifespans of cancer patients in studies.

The Mayo Clinic in a fake attempt to "replicate" the findings only used the pill version of Vitamin C in their own study to the tune of around 10 grams. The results were negative and they crowed that Vitamin C doesn't work. And that was that.

Other researchers though who properly replicated the findings got positive results.

Now the science behind it is that Vitamin C produces Hydrogen Peroxide in cancer cells which basically shreds them via oxidation because they don't have as much catalase in them like normal cells which neutralizes the H202.

As for why doctors don't prescribe it to all cancer patients. It's obvious. Vitamin C can't be patented. So there's no money in it.


discretion t1_j98x25t wrote

This can't be true, can it? Oncologists everywhere are so beholden to pharmaceutical companies that they won't prescribe vitamin C intravenously? This sounds like a thing I would've heard of by now, a vast global conspiracy to deny cancer patients across the globe a simple and cheap cure.


SaltZookeepergame691 t1_j9a94us wrote

No, it is not true. There are some elements of truth (eg, the patentability of vitamin C [and any unpatentable agent] does hinder research, but that ignores that a lot of research is done/funded by not-for-profit/governmental agencies around the world), but it is not a 'global conspiracy' to suppress a miracle cure.

I think it's also worth pointing out that enthusiasm in medicine in general is pretty tempered because with vitamin C we've been here quite a lot before. Eg, IV doses were heavily promoted by some fringe medics as being a revolutionary cure (ie, reducing death by nearly 90%) in sepsis ICU patients, but we now know that risk of death is at the very least not decreased and in is often increased by high doses. I think IV vitamin C is a difficult sell to funders, when there are many such potential avenues to investigate. There is some promising preclinical evidence, eg in this study, and it may be that there will be a new wave of trials as that evidence accumulates to convince people.


Daaru_ t1_j99rwsw wrote

It's like the plot of Dallas Buyers' Club, if any research suggests that something expensive is better then it will be used regardless of how efficacious it is. It's not black and white like a conspiracy and instead varying shades of grey. Vitamin C gave mixed results without toxicity instead of chemotherapy drugs giving mostly positive results with toxicity being a common side effect, so the latter is more medically sound for treating the issue for doctors. You learn pretty quickly that many doctors accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated at the expense of the patients.


rdizzy1223 t1_j9amn5n wrote

If I have cancer I will also gladly accept harmful side effects if the issue is treated, at the expense of myself. You'd have to be a dolt not to.


vipw t1_j9ecjbh wrote

In a palliative setting, it makes a lot of sense to use treatments with fewer side effects even if the effectiveness is worse.

The cytotoxic chemotherapy drugs have truly horrible side effects.


Appropriate_Banana t1_j96atzt wrote

I'm kinda confused. How antioxidant elevates ROS level intracellularly?


guystarthreepwood t1_j96tye4 wrote

Preface: it has been a minute since I studied these systems in detail, this is the jist of it. Vitamine c is a redox active molecule existing in an equilibrium between reduced and oxidized forms tending to favor the reduced form. Ascorbic acid (reduced vitamin c) gets oxidized by taking on a single electron from a radical (molecule with an unpaired electron) to form oxidized vitamin c. If it is exposed to oxygen or other oxidants for long periods of time it will exist largely in the oxidized form and end up being a prooxidant rather than antioxidant in order to re-establish the equilibrium. Your body is able to reduce oxidized vitamin c via various intracellular antioxidants (glutathione etc) but that initial exposure will produce some ROS.
Also in cell culture, there's often a high concentration of free iron floating around (5mM) which is totally unnatural. The free iron/vitamin c combo is able to create a Fenton reaction and produce huge amounts of ROS.