Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'rodents'.
Found 3 results
[Admin Note: The first few posts of this thread, starting with this one by Sthira, are from the Exercise thread, but deserve their own discussion, here in chitchat --Dean] I don't wish suffering upon anyone or any creature. But if karma exists, researchers who shock rats for ego gratification and career advancement or wtf should repay in their next lives as electroshocked rats.
Dean Pomerleau posted a topic in CR Science & TheoryAll, It has been thought that CR lifespan benefits are likely to linearly increase with degree of CR, up to very severe CR, based on rodent data like the famous Weindruch study , data from which is highlighted on the CR Society home page, and reproduced in this graph: As you can see, compared with ad-lib fed mice, 25% CR provided some benefits. But severe CR, where mice ate 55% or even 65% less food than the AL group, lived much longer than the 25% restricted group. And note that this benefit was seen across the board. No sign of early mortality in the severely restricted mice - the survival curves for the 55% & 65% CR mice are completely to the right of the 25% CR mice survival curve, which in turn is completely right of the AL mice survival curve. From this it looks like the more CR the better. But the recent NIA/Wisconsin monkey data doesn't look so cut and dried. In fact, one plausible interpretation of the NIA monkey results (as we've discussed elsewhere, e.g. here), is that if eating a healthy diet, restricting calories beyond that required to avoid obesity doesn't provide additional longevity benefits. So how much CR is required to garner the benefits? Perhaps this new rodent study  sheds some light on the topic, as far as rodent studies can be extrapolated to humans (more on that below). What they did was restrict the calories of a common strain of rats (F344 - all male) in two groups - 10% and 40% restriction relative to AL-fed controls. Then they let them all live out their natural lifespan to see how longevity and causes of death compared between the 3 groups (AL, CR25, CR40). Here are the two important graphs and the most important table from the paper, illustrating the main lifespan results, image originally from this analysis of the study on crvitality.com, red annotations are mine. As you can see from the survival curves and Table 1, both the CR10 and CR40 groups had mean longevity that was significantly longer than the AL group, but they did not significantly differ from each other, at 796 days for AL, 918 days for CR10 and 947 days for CR40. One way to look at this result is that on average, restricting enough to avoid obesity (i.e. CR10), resulted in a 15% increase in mean lifespan. Bumping it up to severe restriction (CR40) bought the rats an additional (non-significant) 4% of mean lifespan relative to obesity-avoiding 10% CR (15% vs. 19% increased lifespan, respectively). That seems like a pretty modest (if any - given its non-significance) lifespan gain for a lot more severe restriction. On the other hand, the longest lived 10% of the CR40 rats did indeed significantly outlive the CR10 rats, as can be seen from both the graph on the left above, and from the longevity table. Quantitatively, the longest lived 10% of the CR10 rats enjoyed a 37% longer life than the average AL rat, while the longest lived 10% of the CR40 rats enjoyed a 54% longer life than the average AL rat, a gain of 17% in lifespan from CR10 to CR40. That sounds pretty good, as long as you are one of the lucky, few longest-lived CR40 rats. From the survival graph, it looks like it was only the top ~20% of CR40 rats that enjoyed any longevity benefits relative to the CR10 rats, and it looks like this was almost (but perhaps not quite) fully counterbalanced by the bottom 20% of the CR40 rats dying before the CR10 rats (see red annotations on graph above for places where CR40 had an advantage and a disadvantage for lifespan relative to CR10). The Gompertz graph on the right above shows that rate of aging in the CR40 group appeared to be slowed relative to the other two groups, which didn't appear to differ from each other. In short, if you're lucky (and the rat data in  translates to humans - see below), this data suggests that going for severe CR might gain you an extra ~14 years relative to obesity avoiding mild CR. But if you're unlucky, severe CR might kill you off early by almost an equivalent amount. If you are average (mean or median), you can expect to do about the same in terms of lifespan with either mild CR (i.e. enough to avoid obesity) or severe CR. But wait a minute - one thing Michael always cautions about is the need to make sure the animal husbandry in a study is good, and the strain being used isn't one of those f**cked up ones that dies early, or is particularly fragile and therefore not a good candidate for CR research. From  (and from memory), it is apparent that the F344 strain of rats is one that is commonly used in CR research. Below is the mortality curves for F344 rats fed AL or 40% CR diets from . The mortality curve for the AL-M (ad lib fed male) group looks about the same in  as in study we've been looking at , with median lifespan around 800 days and max around 1000 days. But if anything the 40% CR group of F344 (male) rats looks better in  than in  below - where (eyeballing it) the median lifespan looks to be around 900 days (vs. nearly 1000 in ) and max is around 1150 days (vs. 1400 in ). Note also that unlike in the mortality curves above from , the mortality curve for the 40% CR rats from  spends time below the AL curve from around 400 to 600 days (see red annotations below), representing early mortality in the CR rats, likely due to the stress of severe CR. So it doesn't look like there was any problem with strain or husbandry in  that might invalidate its results. In fact, based on the results of , it would seem that  may be overestimating the (max) longevity upside of severe CR, and underestimating the early mortality risk of severe CR, making severe CR in  seem like a better deal relative to a milder, obesity-avoiding level of CR that it actually may be. Unfortunately 10% CR wasn't tested in  - only AL and CR40. The author's of  seemed surprised by the modest benefits of severe CR40 relative to mild, obesity-avoiding CR10, saying: The data from this study clearly demonstrate that a 10% restriction of food signiﬁcantly increases the lifespan of male F344 rats and, surprisingly, that the increase in lifespan is comparable to what was observed for rats that were restricted 40%. These data were surprising because of the general view that increasing the level of DR up to 40% would result in a continuous increase in lifespan, as reported by Weindruch et al. for female C3B10RF1 mice in which a signiﬁcant increase (over 20%) in the mean survival occurred between approximately 25% and 55% DR. ... These data in combination with the data from Duffy et al., which reported that feeding rats 10% and 25% DR was as effective as 40% DR in reducing the early mortality of male Sprague–Dawley rats, demonstrate that the lifespan of certain strains of rats and mice does not increase linearly up to 40% DR. Most of the extension of lifespan appears to be achieved by levels of DR much lower than 40% DR. But what about translatability of such rodent data to humans? - a topic currently under discussion over on this thread, where just last night Michael said: So how good a model of human aging is the natural aging of these critters? Not very good it seems to me, if this study is typical of rodent causes of death (which I think it is), based on this table from the full text: As you can see from the table above, like most rodents, a clear majority died from various forms of cancer, with leukemia being by far the most common single cause. As we all know (and which is graphically illustrated here) cardiovascular disease in its various forms is the #1 killer of humans (at least in the US and other developed nations) - cancer only accounts for 23% of human death. Further, leukemia is only the 6th most common cancer killer in people, accounts for only 5% of all cancer deaths and only ~1% of all causes of death in the US. Based on this cause-of-death mismatch, these leukemia-prone rats, and cancer-prone rodents in general, don't seem like a very good model of the "diseases of aging" that kill people. As a corollary, the fact that CR40 significantly reduced leukemia deaths relative to CR10 in  seems unlikely to "move the bar" for human longevity, even if these results would translate directly to people. So the takeaway message from this one seems to be that even CR rodent results, which have always been the best data we have to support large additional lifespan benefits of 'serious' CR relative to simply avoiding obesity, may be open to question both in terms of the magnitude of the benefit, and their translatability to humans. Michael, if I'm missing something I'm sure I'll hear from you. --Dean -------  Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2015 Dec 22. doi: 10.1111/nyas.12982. [Epub ahead of print] Significant life extension by ten percent dietary restriction. Richardson A(1,)(2), Austad SN(3), Ikeno Y(4), Unnikrishnan A(1), McCarter RJ(5). Free full text: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12982/epdf Although it is well documented that dietary restriction (DR) increases the life span of rodents and other animals, this increase is observed at relatively high levels of DR, in which rodents are typically fed 40% less than that consumed by rodents fed ad libitum. It is generally assumed that lower levels of DR will have a lesser impact on life span; however, there are very little published data on the effect of low levels of DR on life span. In this study, we show that 10% DR increased life span to almost the same extent as 40% DR. While both 10% and 40% DR resulted in similar changes in non-neoplastic lesions, 10% DR had no significant effect on the incidence of neoplasia (except for pituitary adenoma), and 40% DR resulted in a significant reduction (40%) in neoplasia. These data clearly demonstrate that the life span of F344 rats does not increase linearly with the level of DR; rather, even a low level of DR can substantially affect life span. This rodent study has important translational implications because it suggests that a modest reduction in calories might have significant health benefits for humans. PMID: 26695614 ---------  Weindruch R, et al. (1986). "The retardation of aging in mice by dietary restriction: longevity, cancer, immunity and lifetime energy intake." Journal of Nutrition, April, 116(4), pages 641-54. ---------  J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 1999 Nov;54(11):B492-501. Growth curves and survival characteristics of the animals used in the Biomarkers of Aging Program. Turturro A(1), Witt WW, Lewis S, Hass BS, Lipman RD, Hart RW. PMID: 10619312 The collaborative Interagency Agreement between the National Center for Toxicological Research (NCTR) and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) was aimed at identifying and validating a panel of biomarkers of aging in rodents in order to rapidly test the efficacy and safety of interventions designed to slow aging. Another aim was to provide a basis for developing biomarkers of aging in humans, using the assumption that biomarkers that were useful across different genotypes and species were sensitive to fundamental processes that would extrapolate to humans. Caloric restriction (CR), the only intervention that consistently extends both mean and maximal life span in a variety of species, was used to provide a model with extended life span. C57BI/6NNia, DBA/2JNia, B6D2F1, and B6C3F1 mice and Brown Norway (BN/RijNia), Fischer (F344/NNia) and Fischer x Brown Norway hybrid (F344 x BN F1) rats were bred and maintained on study. NCTR generated data from over 60,000 individually housed animals of the seven different genotypes and both sexes, approximately half ad libitum (AL) fed, the remainder CR. Approximately half the animals were shipped to offsite NIA investigators internationally, with the majority of the remainder maintained at NCTR until they died. The collaboration supplied a choice of healthy, long-lived rodent models to investigators, while allowing for the development of some of the most definitive information on life span, food consumption, and growth characteristics in these genotypes under diverse feeding paradigms. ------------  Duffy, P.H., J.E. Seng, S.M. Lewis, et al. 2001. The effects of different levels of dietary restriction on aging and survival in the Sprague–Dawley rat: implications for chronic studies. Aging Clin. Exp. Res. 13: 263–272.
I stumbled across an new paper  which contrasts the impact of calorie restriction vs. protein restriction (PR) in C57BL/6 mice. Interestingly, and contrary to some other studies I've seen (e.g. see Dr. Greger's video on CR vs. PR), it didn't find that PR induced the same kind of changes to hormone levels (e.g. < IGF-1) or improvements in glucose regulation as CR. The protein restricted mice were restricted to get the same percent of calories from protein from their diet as the CR mice, but their absolute level of protein intake (i.e. grams of protein) was nonetheless a lot higher than the CR mice, because the PR mice were eating an ad lib number of calories (and as a result didn't lose weight). Plus, the percent of protein wasn't all that low (the PR groups were 16%, 14% and 12% protein vs. 20% protein for control diet). Plus the protein in the chow fed to all the rats was all casein, which is high in the two amino acids thought to be inversely related to the CR-effect - methionine and cysteine. Not only that, but the mice chow used in the study had additional cystine, which is in very closely related to cysteine (in fact metabolically interchangeable to some extent). So it seems to me this wasn't a very good test of the hypothesis that restricting specific amino acids (methionine and cysteine) has similar effects on health markers (and lifespan) as CR. But I thought it was an interesting study nonetheless. It would seem to bolster the hypothesis (as outlined in Dr. Greger's video) that it is restriction in protein high in these two amino acids (i.e. animal products), and not protein restriction in general, that could mimic CR. Go vegan :) . --Dean -----------------------------------------------  The effects of graded levels of calorie restriction: II. Impact of short term calorie and protein restriction on circulating hormone levels, glucose homeostasis and oxidative stress in male C57BL/6 mice Sharon E. Mitchell1, Camille Delville1, Penelope Konstantopedos1, Jane Hurst2, Davina Derous1, Cara Green1, Luonan Chen3, Jackie J.D. Han4, Yingchun Wang5, Daniel E.L. Promislow6, David Lusseau1, Alex Douglas1, John R. Speakman1,5 Keywords: calorie restriction, protein restriction, glucose homeostasis, oxidative stress, adipokines Received: April 01, 2015 Accepted: May 20, 2015 Published: June 01, 2015 Link: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Lusseau/publication/277688862_The_effects_of_graded_levels_of_calorie_restriction_II._Impact_of_short_term_calorie_and_protein_restriction_on_circulating_hormone_levels_glucose_homeostasis_and_oxidative_stress_in_male_C57BL6_mice/links/5572be2c08ae75215868be71.pdf ABSTRACT Limiting food intake attenuates many of the deleterious effects of aging, impacting upon healthspan and leading to an increased lifespan. Whether it is the overall restriction of calories (calorie restriction: CR) or the incidental reduction in macronutrients such as protein (protein restriction: PR) that mediate these effects is unclear. The impact of 3 month CR or PR, (10 to 40%), on C57BL/6 mice was compared to controls fed ad libitum. Reductions in circulating leptin, tumor necrosis factor-α and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) were relative to the level of CR and individually associated with morphological changes but remained unchanged following PR. Glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity were improved following CR but not affected by PR. There was no indication that CR had an effect on oxidative damage, however CR lowered antioxidant activity. No biomarkers of oxidative stress were altered by PR. CR significantly reduced levels of major urinary proteins suggesting lowered investment in reproduction. Results here support the idea that reduced adipokine levels, improved insulin/IGF-1 signaling and reduced reproductive investment play important roles in the beneficial effects of CR while, in the short-term, attenuation of oxidative damage is not applicable. None of the positive effects were replicated with PR.