Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Sugar Not Only Makes You Fat, It May Make You Sick (CNN)


I have been preaching the health risks of sugar for years, not simply arguing that it will make you fat and cause diabetes, but that it is a toxin for many organs in the body. New research looked at the health issues around added sugar (sugars not naturally occurring in fruits or grains) and found those who consume 17-21% of daily calories from added sugar have 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed approximately 8% of calories from added sugar. Further, "This relative risk was more than double for those who consumed 21% or more of calories from added sugar,” according to the authors.

In 1999, Americans consumed, on average, 107.7 lbs/person/year - some estimates suggest that number is now down to a mere 99 lbs/person/year. However, other estimates place the number as high 130 lbs/person/year.

Research published last year (Aug. 2013) suggested that the added sugar from as few as 3 cans of soda each day (added to a normal healthy diet) can decrease life span and decrease fertility in mammals. That would be about 135 grams of high-fructose corn syrup. Based on the 130 lbs/person/year average, each American is already consuming about 219-220 grams of sugar a day. It's no wonder we are so sick and obese as a nation.

Sugar not only makes you fat, it may make you sick

February 3rd, 2014
Post by: Ben Tinker - CNN Medical News Senior Producer 
In recent years, sugar - more so than fat - has been receiving the bulk of the blame for our deteriorating health.

Most of us know we consume more sugar than we should. Let's be honest, it's hard not to.

The (new) bad news is that sugar does more damage to our bodies than we originally thought. It was once considered to be just another marker for an unhealthy diet and obesity. Now sugar is considered an independent risk factor for cardiovascular disease, as well as many other chronic diseases, according a study published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine.

“Sugar has adverse health effects above any purported role as ‘empty calories’ promoting obesity,” writes Laura Schmidt, a professor of health policy in the School of Medicine at the University of California at San Francisco, in an accompanying editorial. “Too much sugar doesn’t just make us fat; it can also make us sick.”

But how much is too much? Turns out not nearly as much as you may think. As a few doctors and scientists have been screaming for a while now, a little bit of sugar goes a long way.

Added sugars, according to most experts, are far more harmful to our bodies than naturally-occurring sugars. We're talking about the sugars used in processed or prepared foods like sugar-sweetened beverages, grain-based desserts, fruit drinks, dairy desserts, candy, ready-to-eat cereal and yeast breads. Your fruits and (natural) fruit juices are safe.

Recommendations for your daily allotment of added sugar vary widely:

  • The Institute of Medicine recommends that added sugars make up less than 25% of your total calories
  • The World Health Organization recommends less than 10%
  • The American Heart Association recommends limiting added sugars to less than 100 calories daily for women and 150 calories daily for men
The U.S. government hasn't issued a dietary limit for added sugars, like it has for calories, fats, sodium, etc. Furthermore, sugar is classified by the Food and Drug administration as "generally safe," which allows manufacturers to add unlimited amounts to any food.

"There is a difference between setting the limit for nutrients or other substances in food and setting limits for what people should be consuming," an FDA spokesperson wrote in an e-mail to CNN. "FDA does not set limits for what people should be eating."

"With regard to setting a regulatory limit for added sugar in food, FDA would carefully consider scientific evidence in determining whether regulatory limits are needed, as it would for other substances in food."

There is some good news. While the mean percentage of calories consumed from added sugars increased from 15.7% in 1988-1994 to 16.8% in 1999-2004, it actually decreased to 14.9% between 2005 and 2010. But most adults still consumed 10% or more of their calories from added sugar and about 1 in 10 people consumed 25% or more of their calories from sugar during the same time period.

Participants in the study who consumed approximately 17 to 21% of their calories from added sugar had a 38% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, compared with those who consumed approximately 8% of calories from added sugar, the study authors concluded.

“This relative risk was more than double for those who consumed 21% or more of calories from added sugar,” they wrote.

Schmidt writes that these new findings “provide physicians and consumers with actionable guidance. Until federal guidelines are forthcoming, physicians may want to caution patients that, to support cardiovascular health, it’s safest to consume less than 15% of their daily calories from added sugar.”

That’s the equivalent, Schmidt points out, of drinking one 20-ounce Mountain Dew soda in a 2,000-calorie diet.

“From there, the risk rises exponentially as a function of increased sugar intake,” she writes.

Despite our changing scientific understanding and a growing body of evidence on sugar overconsumption as an independent risk factor in chronic disease, sugar regulation remains an uphill battle in the United States. This is contrasted by the increased frequency of regulation abroad, where 15 countries now have taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages.

“‘Sin taxes,’ whether on tobacco, alcohol, or sugar-laden products, are popular because they are easy to enforce and generate revenue, with a well-documented evidence base supporting their effectiveness for lowering consumption,” writes Schmidt.

But forget about the short-term monetary cost. Before you reach for that next sugary treat, think long and hard about the long-term cost to your health.
* * * *

Here is another take on the sugar problem in this country - courtesy of OnlineNursingPrograms.com.

Nursing Your Sweet Tooth

Monday, February 03, 2014

Omnivore - The Americanization of the Devil

This is a devilishly fun new collection of links from Bookforum's Omnivore blog on all things satanic (no caps for satan, as is the case for god on this blog).

Oh, and by the way, if you thought the young people in the millennial generation were our hope for a better future, think again. A majority of them believe in demon possession
Over one half (63 percent, to be exact) of young Americans 18-29 years old now believe in the notion that invisible, non-corporeal entities called "demons" can take partial or total control of human beings, revealed an October 2012 Public Policy Polling survey that also showed this belief isn't declining among the American population generally; it's growing.
Okay then . . . . If we are going to retreat to living in a pre-Enlightenment world again, do I have to give up internet and indoor plumbing?

The Americanization of the Devil

Feb 3 2014  
9:00AM

Interview with Professor and Psychoanalyst Mark Solms

Mark Solms is a psychoanalyst and a lecturer in neurosurgery at the St Bartholomew's Hospital and the Royal London School of Medicine, Chair of neuropsychology, University of Cape Town, South Africa, and Director of the Arnold Pfeffer Center for Neuro-Psychoanalysis at the New York Psychoanalytic Institute.

I am familiar with his work through his book, The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of the Subjective Experience (2002), an excellent attempt to unite some of the surviving ideas of psychoanalytic theory with what we have been learning about the mind-brain through neuroscience and neurobiology.

Interview with Professor Mark Solms, Chair of the IPA Research Committee


This video was shot at the recent IPA congress in Prague, August 2013. Interview by Kevin Billinghurst.




“The psychoanalytic method, for all of its faults, is the best method we have for dealing with all the shifting sands and subtle complexities of subjectivity.

The single biggest mistake that’s been made in brain science is to think that we can study the brain only as an object"
Here is some info from his university web page.

Mark Solms, Ph.D. (WITS)




Research interests
  • Brain mechanisms of dreaming, emotion, motivation.
  • Psychological mechanisms of confabulation and anosognosia syndromes.
Teaching Interests
  • Neuropsychology – Research and Clinical.
Selected Publications
  • Solms, M (2013) The conscious id. Neuropsychoanalysis, 15: In Press.
  • Panksepp, J. & Solms, M. (2012) What is neuropsychoanalysis? Clinically relevant studies of the minded brain. Trends in Cognitive Science, 16: 6-8.
  • Solms, M. (2011) Neurobiology and the neurological basis of dreaming. In P. Montagna & S. Chokroverty (eds.) Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 98 (3rd series) Sleep Disorders – Part 1. New York: Elsevier, pp. 519-544.
  • Solms, M. & Panksepp, J. (2010) Why depression feels bad. In E. Perry, D. Collerton, F. LeBeau & H. Ashton (eds.) New Horizons in the Neuroscience of Consciousness. John Benjamins, pp 169-179.
  • Turnbull, O. & Solms, M. (2007) Awareness, desire, and false beliefs. Cortex., 43: 1083-90 [Target paper, with 10 open peer commentaries].
  • Fotopoulou, A., Conway, M.A., & Solms, M. (2007) Confabulation: Motivated Reality Monitoring. Neuropsychologia, 45: 2180-2190.
  • Solms, M. (2006) “Freud” and Bullitt: A previously unknown manuscript by Freud. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 54: 1263-1298.
  • Gamwell, L. & Solms, M. (2006) From Neurology to Psychoanalysis: Sigmund Freud’s Drawings and Diagrams of the Mind. Binghampton: State University of New York.
  • Solms, M. & Turnbull, O. (2002) The Brain and the Inner World: An Introduction to the Neuroscience of Subjective Experience. London & New York: Other/Karnac.
  • Solms, M. (2001) ‘The neurochemistry of dreaming: cholinergic and dopaminergic hypotheses’. In Perry, E., Ashton, H. & Young, A. (eds.) The Neurochemistry of Consciousness. Advances in Consciousness Research series (M. Stamenov, series ed.). John Benjamin’s Publishing Co., pp. 123-131.
  • Solms, M. (2000) Dreaming and REM sleep are controlled by different brain mechanisms. Behav. Brain Sci., 23: 843-50 [Target paper with 39 peer commentaries].
  • Kaplan-Solms, K. & Solms, M.(2000) Clinical Studies in Neuro-Psychoanalysis: Introduction to a Depth Neuropsychology. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association Monograph Series, No 5. Madison CT: International Universities Press; London: Karnac Books.

Brian Greene — Reimagining the Cosmos (On Being)

Dr. Brian Greene is a professor of physics and mathematics at Columbia University. He is also co-founder of the World Science Festival. His books include The Elegant Universe: Superstrings, Hidden Dimensions, and the Quest for the Ultimate Theory, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time, and the Texture of Reality, and The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos.

He is one of the most entertaining science writers and television hosts (he has done several programs on physics and cosmology). This week he was the guest on NPR's On Being with Krista Tippett.

Brian Greene — Reimagining the Cosmos


January 30, 2014| On Being
Hosted by Krista Tippett


The discoveries which the physicist Brian Greene spends his life pondering lead to a thrilling, mind-bending view of the cosmos, and of the human adventure of modern science. Think of the certainties many of us grew up learning in school - now overtaken by the constant reimagining of the cosmos that is modern physics. The word “space” to describe what we now understand as a sphere teeming with mysterious energy and matter. In our lifetime the science fiction scenario of parallel universes has become a compelling mathematical possibility. Brian Greene works on this frontier, and he increasingly believes that the deepest realities are hidden from human senses and defy our best intuition.

A thrilling, mind-bending view of the cosmos and of the human adventure of modern science. In a conversation ranging from free will to the meaning of the Higgs boson particle, physicist Brian Greene suggests the deepest scientific realities are hidden from human senses and often defy our best intuition.

Listen


Radio Show/Podcast - (mp3, 51:00)
Unedited Interview - Brian Greene - (mp3, 84:55)
Transcript



Voices on the Radio



Pertinent Posts from the On Being Blog



Nobel Prize for ‘God Particle’ Discovery Prompts Deeper Questions

Would the Higgs boson exist without our thinking it existed in the first place. Is it possible that by thinking differently – about ourselves, about others, about our universe – we might begin to see things differently?

****


The Higgs Boson (The "God Particle") Explained in Comics

With the important news about the the Higgs boson particle, this excellent video explainer with comic sketches may even help us understand it one day!

****


Superstring Theory as a Unifier for the Laws of Physics

Writing script explaining string theory isn't so easy. Thankfully, Brian Greene's TED talk provided just the right language. A revelatory video that will excite your imagination.

****


Quarks and Creation: On the Complementary Nature of Science and Religion

Krista Tippett reflects on her conversation with John Polkinghorne on quarks, creation, and God.

****


Quantum Biology and the Hidden Nature of Nature (live video)

Put an astrobiologist and a mechanical engineer on the same stage and what do you get? One heck of an exciting conversation about how quantum physics realm holds sway and plays a pivotal role in our everyday experiences — in everything from bird navigation to our sense of smell.

****


Mathematics, Purpose, and Truth: The World Feels More Spacious

Of all the ideas Janna Levin presents, the most provocative and disturbing, perhaps, is her doubt that there is free will in human existence at all. She cannot be sure that we are not utterly determined by brilliant principles of physics and biology. Yet she cleaves more fiercely in the face of this belief to the reality of her love of her children and her hopes and dreams for them.

****


Black Holes and the Sonic Song of the Universe (video)

Listen to these sounds of black holes merging and falling into one another and the "white noise" of the Big Bang. A TED Talk with Janna Levin that stirs the mind.

****


Symbols of Power: Adinkras and the Nature of Reality

Physicists have long sought to describe the universe in terms of equations. Now, James Gates explains how research on a class of geometric symbols known as adinkras could lead to fresh insights into the theory of supersymmetry — and perhaps even the very nature of reality.

Sunday, February 02, 2014

Curtis White - Your Brain on Neuroscience (Tricycle)

From the Tricycle Magazine blog, Curtis White examines the reductionist model of neuroscience and how it conceives of creativity. Cool article.

Your Brain on Neuroscience


In Silicon Valley's geek culture, creativity is currency.

Curtis White | January 30, 2014

“We (the undivided divinity operating within us) have dreamt the world. We have dreamt it as firm, mysterious, visible, ubiquitous in space and durable in time; but in its architecture we have allowed tenuous and eternal crevices of unreason which tell us it is false.” — Jorge Luis Borges

FREED AT LAST from the limits imposed by religion, science has extended its ambitions beyond the debunking of Christian dogma. It has now turned its attention to another old competitor, the secular world of the humanities and the arts. This second front in the American culture war has its roots in the decades just after the Enlightenment era, especially in the quickly matured world of post-Enlightenment scientism led by “Darwin’s bulldog,” Thomas H. Huxley. It was Huxley who first sought to describe human mental characteristics, including emotions and social organization, as neurological aspects of evolution.

The recent works I will look at all contend in one way or another that now that science has finished with the last vestiges of religious thought and answered its last objection to the scientific worldview (“why is there something rather than nothing?”), they are free to investigate the artists and all of their delusions about human consciousness and the human capacity for creativity. After all, science contends, art has its own gospel of revelation—the quasi-spiritual experience of “inspiration”—and its own messiah: the genius.

Steven Pinker claims in his widely cited book How the Mind Works that the mind is a “biologically selected neural computer.” He writes:

I want to convince you that our minds are not animated by some godly vapor or single wonder principle. The mind, like the Apollo spacecraft, is designed to solve many engineering problems, and thus is packed with high-tech systems each contrived to overcome its own obstacles.
And this is just prelude to his later conclusion that art is a “biologically frivolous and vain” activity interested only in critical obscurantism, social status, and the tickling of the brain’s dopamine reward system (like cheesecake).

The idea that creativity is a problem for scientists, not poets, is frequently made in the New York Times “Science Times.” There we find the (often droll) attempt to mechanize consciousness and creativity by laying out its relation to areas of the brain and to chemicals, especially neurotransmitters. Of particular interest at the moment is the neuroscience of creativity. Some scientists now claim to know what parts of the brain are responsible for it, and, using fMRI technology, they can even show it to us in the very act of creation, the brain in genius mode, all lit up like a conch shell with a little Christmas light inside.

The problem is that they haven’t said a word about the most ordinary aspect of their work: what is creativity? Or, at least, how are they using the word? So:

“What are you researching?”
“Creativity.”
“What do you mean by creativity?”
“You know, creativity. We’ve found the part of the brain that is its origin.”
“Yeah, but what do you mean by creativity?”
“Like, you know, coming up with the answers to crossword puzzles.”
For example, in the December 7, 2010 issue of the New York Times, the featured science articles focused on “creative problem-solving.” Puzzles, one article explained, are about “more than mere intellect” (we don’t get a definition of “intellect” either). According to Marcel Danesi, professor of anthropology at the University of Toronto, “It’s imagination, it’s inference, it’s guessing, and much of it happens subconsciously.”

Such a claim should require a little unpacking. The study of creativity takes place near the intellect and in something called the imagination? And imagination functions in something called the subconscious? And buzzing around on the periphery of all this is a housefly called guessing? Such an account is as much like neo-Platonism as it is empiricism. The only reason we are open to such claims is because we don’t think to ask what these words mean, because the words are so familiar we assume that we already know what they mean. “Oh, sure, creativity, the imagination, the subconscious, go on.” Frankly, we the people have no clue what these words mean, not with any precision, and neither do the scientists.

Now, it’s one thing to say that these terms are a loose-fitting and very provisional organization of words, a heuristic cluster of notions intended to help us discern the outlines and force fields of this we-know-not-what that we call creativity. There are very real philosophic and social stakes in that discussion. But it is a very different thing to say that “creativity” is nested in among other parts of the brain and in the interaction in the brain of neurons and chemicals.

The real purport of such research is the following message, offered with a straight face and the driest possible wit, and wordlessly consumed by the general public: “The problem of creativity will find its truth in the scientific method. We can say this because everything finds its truth in the scientific method. We have not quite got it all down, but please rest assured that with patience and a lot of money we will solve this mystery. In the meantime, enjoy these pictures of luminous brain parts."

Deprived of its cynical bonhomie, neuroscience’s assumption that there is no need to justify—beyond the prettiness of it all—its claim that the brain is a machine is like the reasoning of an ancient army to a city it has overwhelmed: “Sure, we’ve broken every common law of decency, but we are vindicated by the Right of Conquest. As for the idea that you have a grievance, that’s quite impossible because, this may come as a nasty shock to you, but ‘you’ don’t exist anymore.” As I discussed earlier, for science the perspectives offered by philosophy, poetry, art, and certainly any kind of spirituality don’t exist. For science, the idea that nature, humans, and even formerly intimate things like creativity are all mechanical goes without saying. So, if you would-be philosophers or artists have a problem with scientists treading on your turf, or with their use of undefined terms and breathtaking lapses in logic, you’re out of luck. In fact, in most popular presentations, science is reluctant to acknowledge that the humanities ever existed, except as an embarrassment. They are no more than the residue of some long-defeated enemy: the ignorant past.

And yet, the claims by neuroscience to have the best possible explanation for that thing we call creativity has demonstrated enormous popular appeal in a series of popular books and presentations, some of which have been best sellers. Notable among these works is Jonah Lehrer’s Imagine: How Creativity Works (2012). According to Lehrer, the consensus among neurophysicists is that creativity is not something that comes to us from the outside (from Muses or from a magical “Eureka!” factory). As Lehrer expresses it:

[T]he material source of the imagination: the three pounds of flesh inside the skull . . . for the first time, we can see the cauldron itself, that massive network of electrical cells that allow individuals to form new connections between old ideas. We can take snapshots of thoughts in brain scanners and measure the excitement of neurons as they get closer to a solution. The imagination can seem like a trick of matter—new ideas emerging from thin air—but we are beginning to understand how the trick works.
This is recognizably the sort of popular science journalism over which the media goes doe-eyed with admiration. So deferential are these organs to such claims that it is as if no other credible points of view existed, or that the only other points of view, like religious faith, have already been so completely discredited that they don’t need to be mentioned. So riveting are the most recent technical advances in science that skepticism is unneeded and mostly unwelcome.

Nonetheless, there are problems, and Lehrer’s book is full of them. First, the language of Lehrer’s basic description of what he and neuroscience are claiming is riddled with unsupportable, even unfathomable, claims. The claim at the heart of the book is that creativity is “that massive network of electrical cells that allow individuals to form new connections between old ideas.” In short, creativity is rewiring. Now, it is obviously true that human brains created integrated circuitry and they created the wonder of microchips, but Lehrer and, from what I can see, most others in neuroscience and in the Artificial Intelligence community feel comfortable in reversing the relationship and claiming that, actually, the human brain is simply a reflection of the super-complex electrical circuits it has created. Unfortunately, it seems never to occur to these good people that the brain-as-computer is only a metaphor.

Metaphor in place, Lehrer is free to state things that would be laughable out of the context of his book. Lehrer states that scientists can “take snapshots of thoughts in brain scanners.” They can? Snapshots of thoughts? What kind of thought can have its picture taken? Sure, as Lehrer says next, you can capture images of the “excitement of neurons,” put them in the family photo album if you want, but that is not a thought, at least not when I’m thinking.

Lehrer himself exposes the problem with supposing that brain scans provided by fMRI reveal the origin of creative thinking. He writes of Mark Beeman’s research into higher brain function at the National Institutes of Health:

Beeman was now ready to start looking for the neural source of insight. He began by having people solve the puzzles while inside an fMRI machine, a brain scanner that monitors changes in blood flow as a rough correlate [my emphasis] for changes in neural activity.
A correlate. Not a “snapshot” of the thing-itself surprised in deshabille, just a correlate. But a correlate of what? That’s the hard question that Lehrer simply ignores. Is it correlated with another unseen part of the three pounds of flesh?, to something spiritual?, or to something that is simply unknown or unknowable? The fMRI provides a ghostly trace, not the Thing wriggling on the end of a pin. Lehrer wants to assume as fact that the mechanical origin of insight (“squirts of acetylcholine,” as he says later of the inventions of dream) has been found and that all the old mythologies—which, at least, had the modesty of knowing themselves as metaphors, as correlates—are dead to us. But the truth is that neuroscience is wonderful in the way that the Hubble telescope is wonderful. Its investigations into the structure and organization of the brain are fascinating, but it no more tells us of the origins of consciousness (or creativity) than the Hubble tells us of the origins of Being.

I wonder if that’s what Lehrer felt as he created his book: a squirt of chemical here, a little quiver in the old ASTG (anterior superior temporal gyrus), a flicker of electricity between the moving parts, and, voilá, a happy shower of gamma rays. Is that what he was thinking when he pulled himself back from his work, celebratory IPA in hand? Or was there a moment in which Lehrer suspected that the very performance of his book was an argument against its conclusions? Did he never ask, “Can this expression of my will, my production, my book, be a mere chemical squirt?” It is profoundly saddening, even more saddening than his journalistic sins, that he never once paused in order to encourage his reader to ask such a question.

* * *

Lehrer emphasizes that creative brain function is not just reserved for artists and “creative types,” even though he frequently mentions artists like Beethoven, Bob Dylan, and the poet W. H. Auden. Creativity is a shared human capacity. (No argument there.) But, like so many other books in recent years (in particular, Richard Florida’s The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life [2002]), Lehrer’s best examples tend to come from creativity as it works within corporations, whether Procter & Gamble, 3M, or Pixar. As a Fresh Air segment on NPR put it, Imagine (with its egregiously inappropriate association with the John Lennon song) is about “Fostering Creativity in the Workplace.” Lehrer begins his book by describing the process that led to the creation of the Swiffer mop at Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble accomplished their product coup, the revolutionizing of the mop, by outsourcing its creative needs to creativity specialists, the “envisioneers” at Continuum Innovations, a design firm in Boston and LA. Continuum CEO Harry West said of the Swiffer project, “They told us to think crazy.” They did, and they came up with “one of the most effective floor cleaners ever invented.”

This is not satire. No one is laughing about the absurdity of a notion of “creativity” that links Bob Dylan to Swiffer mops. We are truly meant to be excited about the liberation of creativity in the workplace, and we are certainly meant to be excited that leading the way is the ever-enlarging world of neuroscience that has set aside old illusions about the Muses and put in their place the softly glowing illumination of the human brain firmly held in its creative harness. One gets the feeling that for Lehrer the work of these neuroscientists is itself an example, maybe the supreme example, of discovery and creativity.

The logic of this science would seem to be this: because brain scanners can measure the “excitement of neurons” in the same parts of the brain for both artists and mop inventors, the activities of artists and mop inventors are the same so far as science is concerned. Best yet, science offers the possibility of learning how to engage and train these creative areas of the brain. In the “workplace” of the future, we’ll all be geniuses. The cutting-edge, high-def stereo system will be playing “Maggie’s Farm” at just the volume that neuroscience has determined to be maximally conducive to bubbling invention. The techno-hip will be circulating in the commons, freed from their cubicles at last, ideas flowing from them like colorful robes. Thus the ideal corporate ambience, where it need never be doubted that the neuroscience, the rock ’n’ roll, and the mops of the future will find a warm home.

But there’s something missing in Lehrer’s triumphant account. The polite way of identifying this something missing would be to say “social context.” The more agonistic way would be to say that for the last two centuries artists have hated mop inventors. Beethoven, one of Lehrer’s favorite examples of human creativity, seemed to hate just about everyone, and wrote his music against them, against his father, against Haydn, against “innkeepers, cobblers, and tailors,” and against the philistine nobility that paid his wages. In short, Lehrer either has never heard of or simply dismisses the role of social alienation as a driving force for what he blandly calls creativity.

Lehrer has nothing at all to say about the obvious fact that most historical change in the arts, the movement of art movements, has been social in character and not simply change for creativity’s sake, just for the pleasure of setting the old neurons buzzing, let alone for the sake of boosting a corporation’s bottom line. To read Lehrer’s version of things one would think that creativity happens simply because our brains have fun finding “solutions” and when they do find solutions they get all lit up like an Xbox action game. (Actually, it’s worse than that: according to Lehrer’s logic, the lighting up of neurons is the solution.) I’m sure that at Continuum Innovations, as at the hipper Silicon Valley ventures, the employees have dreadlocks and pierced tongues and tats and company-provided skateboards and cruiser bikes for lunch breaks. This fake bohemian geek culture acknowledges the essentially dissident character of art even while betraying it.

But the corporate types, the suits, are under no illusions about the bohemian substance of its “creatives.” Lehrer approvingly quotes Dan Wieden, founder of the advertisement agency Wieden + Kennedy:

“You need those weird fucks. You need people who won’t make the same boring, predictable mistakes as the rest of us. And then, when those weirdos learn how things work and become a little less weird, then you need a new class of weird fucks. Of course, you also need some people who know what they’re doing. But if you’re in the creative business, then you have to be willing to tolerate a certain level of, you know, weirdness.”
Of course, it’s not all about weirdos in the workplace. Lehrer devotes a chapter (“Bob Dylan’s Brain”) to music. Lehrer is particularly interested in the moment in which the folkie Dylan reinvented himself as the rock ’n’ roll Dylan. How did this transformation happen? Lehrer writes:
The question, of course, is how these insights happen. What allows someone to transform a mental block into a breakthrough? And why does the answer appear when it’s least expected? This is the mystery of Bob Dylan, and the only way to understand the mystery is to venture inside the brain, to break open the black box of the imagination.
The moment in question is the creation of the song “Like a Rolling Stone,” the hit single from Dylan’s album Highway 61 Revisited. According to Lehrer’s version of the story, Dylan was bored with what he’d been doing, trapped between his own public image as the writer of protest songs and the lame platitudes of Top 40 music. So, he retreated to Woodstock and began to let his unconscious do the work, from which emerged “Like a Rolling Stone.” Lehrer writes, “The story of ‘Like a Rolling Stone’ is a story of creative insight. The song was invented in the moment, then hurled into the world.” The song would “revolutionize rock ’n’ roll.”

I have a simple question for Lehrer: So what? Why is it good to revolutionize rock ’n’ roll? Who cares? For Lehrer it’s just another instance of the human capacity for “insight.” It is also, as with the Swiffer mop, another example of “success”; the song leads to the creation of more songs by other artists, like Jimi Hendrix, that are popular and make everyone a lot of money. Why, people become famous!

The creation of the song is not about the history of rock, and not about the brain’s need for insight, and certainly not about being successful like the proud people at Continuum Innovations. Well, what should we say, then? Without discounting the deeply pleasurable and ineffable je ne sais quoi of Dylan’s musical self-invention, for me the song is “about” its formal freedom, its raw difference from pop and folk music. It is also about the thrilling invention of a self, this new Dylan, who can walk away from the wreck of the culture of that moment, taking his “fans” with him. In short, as Friedrich Schiller put it in 1795, Dylan’s song “models freedom.” Dylan proposes, “Hey, this is what freedom feels like to me. This is what being alive feels like to me. What do you think?” The song is a proposition, a seduction, and its triumph is that it was such a wildly successful seduction. In other words, Dylan’s music (especially, for me, “Visions of Johanna” and “Desolation Row”) argues, “Can you return to being in the world in the way you were in the world before you heard this song?”

For those, like Lehrer, who do return to the world, Dylan’s judgment is this: “Your sin is your lifelessness.”

All of the “real thing” rock bands of the last forty years asked this same question. The Dead asked it, the Ramones asked it, XTC and the Pixies asked it, Radiohead asked it, and the Elephant Six bands of Athens, GA, continue to ask it (especially Kevin Barnes of Of Montreal). The answer to the question is not necessarily a yes or a no. More than anything else, the question’s purpose is to create yearning: the recognition of our own dissatisfaction with things as they stand and the creation of the possibility of a future happiness. Because now we know, thanks to this music, something about what that happiness might feel like.

As Morse Peckham writes in The Romantic Virtuoso:

One of the most common themes of German Romanticism is . . . yearning. To the question, Yearning for what? We have already encountered the answer: yearning for a condition of existence that transcends the present one, more specifically yearning for a culture that transcends the failures of the culture then available.
But, for Lehrer, Dylan is just another famous example of a “creative problem solver” no different from Milton Glaser, creator of the insipid “I ♥ NY” logo. He throws out the social, ethical, and aesthetic dimension of art for a few full-color brain scans and the instruction: go to work.

~ Curtis White is interviewed in the Spring 2014 issue of Tricycle, available online on Monday. If you enjoyed this article, please consider subscribing.

~ Curtis White is the author of the novels Memories of My Father Watching TV and Requiem. A widely acclaimed essayist, he has had work appear in Harper’s, Context, Lapham’s Quarterly, Orion, and Playboy. This essay is an excerpt from his most recent book, The Science Delusion, courtesy of Melville House.

Further reading: "A Gray Matter: Another look at Buddhism and neuroscience" | "'Neuroscience Under Attack' in the New York Times" | "Neuroscience Fiction in the New Yorker" | "The Scientific Buddha: Why do we ask that Buddhism be compatible with science?"

Co-Administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid Enhances Neuroprotection in Ischemia/Reperfusion


Ischemia is a restriction of blood supply to tissues, causing a shortage of oxygen and glucose needed for cellular metabolism (to keep tissue alive). Ischemia is generally caused by problems with blood vessels, with resultant damage to or dysfunction of tissue. When this happens in the brain, it is commonly known as a stroke,

Related to this is the condition of reperfusion, the tissue damage caused when blood supply returns to the tissue after a period of ischemia or lack of oxygen. The absence of oxygen and nutrients from blood during the ischemic period creates a condition in which the restoration of circulation results in inflammation and oxidative damage through the induction of oxidative stress rather than restoration of normal function.

New research published in PLoS ONE shows that a combination of Alpha Lipoic Acid and Resveratrol prior to ischemia-reperfusion can provide significant neuroprotection likely resulting from inflammation, oxidative stress, and other concurrent effects on multiple pathways. The study also suggested that these two compounds given after an ischemic event can help mitigate the damage.

Of course, the researchers have synthesized a unique combination of lipoic acid and resveratrol (UPEI-201 - a 1:1 ratio) that they have most likely patented and will market as a drug.

Meanwhile, I would suspect that those of us who take these supplements already will have inherent protection against damage generated by ischemic events. And I would guess that supplementation is much cheaper.

Full Citation:
Saleh MC, Connell BJ, Rajagopal D, Khan BV, Abd-El-Aziz AS, et al. (2014, Jan 31). Co-Administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid, or Their Synthetic Combination, Enhances Neuroprotection in a Rat Model of Ischemia/Reperfusion. PLoS ONE 9(1): e87865. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865


Co-Administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid, or Their Synthetic Combination, Enhances Neuroprotection in a Rat Model of Ischemia/Reperfusion

 
Monique C. Saleh, Barry J. Connell, Desikan Rajagopal, Bobby V. Khan, Alaa S. Abd-El-Aziz, Inan Kucukkaya, Tarek M. Saleh 
Published: January 31, 2014
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087865


Abstract

The present study demonstrates the benefits of combinatorial antioxidant therapy in the treatment of ischemic stroke. Male Sprague-Dawley rats were anaesthetised and the middle cerebral artery (MCA) was occluded for 30 minutes followed by 5.5 hours of reperfusion. Pretreatment with resveratrol 30 minutes prior to MCA occlusion resulted in a significant, dose-dependent decrease in infarct volume (p<0.05) compared to vehicle-treated animals. Neuroprotection was also observed when resveratrol (2×10−3 mg/kg; iv) was administered within 60 minutes following the return of blood flow (reperfusion). Pretreatment with non-neuroprotective doses of resveratrol (2×10−6 mg/kg) and lipoic acid (LA; 0.005 mg/kg) in combination produced significant neuroprotection as well. This neuroprotection was also observed when resveratrol and LA were administered 15 minutes following the onset of MCA occlusion. Subsequently, we synthetically combined resveratrol and LA in both a 1:3 (UPEI-200) and 1:1 (UPEI-201) ratio, and screened these new chemical entities in both permanent and transient ischemia models. UPEI-200 was ineffective, while UPEI-201 demonstrated significant, dose-dependent neuroprotection. These results demonstrate that combining subthreshold doses of resveratrol and LA prior to ischemia-reperfusion can provide significant neuroprotection likely resulting from concurrent effects on multiple pathways. The additional protection observed in the novel compound UPEI 201 may present opportunities for addressing ischemia-induced damage in patients presenting with transient ischemic episodes.



Introduction


Despite ongoing advances in the arena of stroke research, the worldwide consequences of death and disability remain considerable and delivery of successful therapeutics continues to present a challenge. The application of combinatorial drug therapy in treating stroke has become increasingly attractive in recent years. As researchers uncover the complexity of disease progression following stroke which includes both immediate as well as delayed neuronal effects at multiple levels [1], it has become evident that multi-targeted drug therapy may hold more promise in the treatment and/or prevention of stroke than conventional single class drug regimens. In addition, there is evidence that some drug combinations display pharmacological potentiation (ie synergism) which optimistically translates into lower doses, fewer adverse side effects and an extended treatment window. Treatment outcomes for ischemic events involves the reestablishment of blood flow to compromised tissue, with the reintroduction of oxygen transiently adding to the injury due to generation of inflammatory mediators and toxic levels of oxidative free radicals [2] culminating in lipid peroxidation, protein synthesis arrest, and ultimately cell death [3]. Successful treatment options are therefore required to address several critical mediators of neuronal death simultaneously.

With the increasing popularity of natural products, science has sought to exploit the medicinal potential of common extracts as is evident in the growing literature of natural product drug discovery. In the current study, we test 2 novel compounds combining resveratrol (3, 5, 4′-trihydroxystilbene), a naturally-occurring component of grapes, and α-lipoic acid (LA), a potent anti-oxidant found in common foods, for neuroprotective effects in 2 animal models of ischemic stroke. Separately, resveratrol and LA possess potent anti-oxidant and anti-inflammatory activities and have been shown to produce neuroprotection in several animal models of neurological disease via complementary pathways [4] [5].

Resveratrol possesses multiple biological activities [6] [7], including being a potent antioxidant [8] and anti-inflammatory [9] agent. These therapeutic uses of resveratrol have led researchers to investigate its protective effects in several animal models of neurological disease, particularly those with unknown etiology, or where inflammation and oxidative stress may play a role in the pathogenesis. Consequently, resveratrol has shown promise as a neuroprotectant in animal models of cerebral ischemia through its ability to attenuate ischemia-induced cell death [10].

Also a powerful antioxidant, α-lipoic acid (LA) is characterized by high reactivity towards free radicals [11] and demonstrates potent neuroprotective effects in several animal models of stroke including models of reperfusion injury [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. Further, the co-administration of LA with other compounds has been shown to enhance the protective effect of the drug in various animal models of pathology [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Our own research has shown that co-administration of non-protective (sub-threshold) doses of both LA and apocynin, an NADPH oxidase inhibitor, provided significant neuroprotection against ischemic injury [23].

Thus, the current study investigated the potential for enhanced neuroprotective effects with LA by combining it with resveratrol in a rodent model of acute stroke and reperfusion injury [24]. In addition, the effects of resveratrol and lipoic acid were compared to UPEI-200 and UPEI-201, two novel synthetic compounds linking resveratrol with LA in both a transient occlusion-reperfusion model (tMCAO) as well as in a permanent occlusion model (pMCAO). Lastly, the feasibility of delayed treatment intervention was investigated for all drug combinations.

Methods

Ethics Statement

All experiments were carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the Canadian Council on Animal Care and were approved by the University of Prince Edward Island Animal Care Committee (protocol #11-045 and 13-036).


General Surgical Procedures for in vivo Studies

All experiments were conducted on male Sprague-Dawley rats (250–350 g; Charles Rivers; Montreal, PQ, CAN). For all animals, food and tap water were available ad libitum. Rats were anaesthetized with sodium thiobutabarbital (Inactin; Sigma-Aldridge; St.Louis, MO, USA; 100 mg/kg; ip) and supplemented as needed. For intravenous administration of drugs, a polyethylene catheter (PE-10; Clay Adams, Parsippany, NJ, USA) was inserted into the right femoral vein. An endotracheal tube was inserted to facilitate breathing. Body temperature was monitored and maintained at 37±1°C using a feedback system (Physitemp Instruments; Clifton, NJ, USA).

A separate group of animals were instrumented for the recording of blood pressure and heart rate via an indwelling catheter (PE-50; ; Clay Adams, Parsippany, NJ, USA) placed inside the right femoral artery. Arterial blood pressure was measured with a pressure transducer (Gould P23 ID, Cleveland, OH) connected to a Gould model 2200S polygraph. Heart rate was determined from the pulse pressure using a Gould tachograph (Biotach). These parameters were displayed and analyzed using PolyviewPro/32 data acquisition and analysis software (Grass Technologies, Warwick, RI).
 

Transient and Permanent Middle Cerebral Artery Occlusions (tMCAO and pMCAO)

We have previously published the detailed methodology for transient occlusion of the middle cerebral artery [24]. Briefly, animals were placed in a David Kopf stereotaxic frame (Tujunga, CA, USA) and the right middle cerebral artery (MCA) approached through a rostra-caudal incision of the skin and frontalis muscle at the approximate level of bregma. Blood flow through the MCA was impeded by the placement of surgical suture behind the MCA at 3 designated positions along the exposed vessel for 30 minutes in the transient model (tMCAO), or left in place for a total of 6 hours in the permanent model (pMCAO). The sutures were positioned such that the middle of each suture applied pressure to the underside of the MCA and impeded blood flow (ischemia) as previously confirmed using laser Doppler flowmetry (OxyFlo, Oxford-Optronix, Oxford, UK) (Connell and Saleh 2010). This 3-point placement of surgical sutures produced a highly reproducible and consistent focal ischemic lesion restricted to the prefrontal cerebral cortex. Blood flow in the tMCAO model was re-established (reperfusion) for an additional 5.5 hours following removal of the sutures.
 

Drug Preparation

Resveratrol (trans-3,5,4′-trihydroxy stilbene; Sigma Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) stock solutions were prepared in 40% propylene glycol and diluted 10,000X in 0.9% saline The concentration of propylene glycol in each solution was 4×10−3% (v/v). Lipoic acid (LA; Sigma-Aldridge; St. Louis, MO, USA; 0.005 mg/ml) was prepared in physiological saline (0.9% sodium chloride) and the pH was adjusted to 7.0–7.4 with sodium hydroxide. The concentration of LA used was previously determined to be non-neuroprotective in our tMCAO model [12]. Appropriate vehicle solutions were prepared for each drug and dose.


Synthesis of UPEI-200

The chemical synthesis of UPEI-200 was performed as follows; resveratrol (0.01 M) was combined with 0.05 M LA and 0.04 M of dimethylaminopyridine (DMAP) in 80 ml of anhydrous dichloromethane (CH2Cl2). 1-Ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl) carbodimide hydrochloride (EDCI; 0.05 M) was added in small quantities over a period of 2 hours. The entire reaction was performed under nitrogen atmosphere at room temperature. After stirring overnight, the crude mixture of compounds was quickly purified by passing through a silica column following an aqueous work up. The product was again purified on a Chromatotran silica plate using 2 mm pre-coated UV active plate. Appropriate fractions were mixed and concentrated in a rotary evaporator keeping the water bath temperature at 45°C. The final pure compound was obtained as a pale yellow viscous solid in very low yield and was characterized by proton nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy and mass spectrometry.


Synthesis of UPEI-201

Resveratrol (1 mmol) in 20 ml dimethylformamide (DMF) was combined with DMAP (10 mmol) and LA (1 mmol). Dicyclohexylcarbodimide (DCC; 1 mmol) was added to the reaction mixture at 0°C under nitrogen atmosphere, which is then stirred for 5 min at 0°C and 3 h at 20°C. Precipitated urea is then filtered off and the filtrate evaporated down in vacuo. The residue was taken up in dichloromethane (CH2Cl2) and, if necessary, filtered free of any further precipitated urea. The solvent was removed by evaporation and the crude compound was purified by silica column chromatography (Eluent, Hexanes:Ethylacetate (1:1; yellow oil), Yield; 57%.1H NMR (300 MHz, Acetone) δ 7.40 (2H, d, J = 8.6 Hz), 7.05–6.79 (4H,m), 6.52 (2H, d, J = 2.1 Hz), 6.25 (1H, t, J = 2.1 Hz), 3.58 (1H, tt, J = 12.7, 6.4 Hz), 3.24–3.04 (2H, m), 2.45 (1H, tt, J = 12.3, 6.2 Hz), 2.28 (1H, t, J = 7.2 Hz), 1.95–1.80 (1H, m), 1.79–1.52 (4H, m), 1.45 (2H, dtd, J = 11.1, 7.1, 4.1 Hz).
 

Effect of Resveratrol on tMCAO Model

In the first experiment, resveratrol (2×10−3 (n = 5), 2×10−4 (n = 5), 2×10−5 (n = 6), 2×10−6 (n = 5), 2×10−7 (n = 5) mg/kg; 1 ml/kg; i.v.) or vehicle (propylene glycol; 4×10−3% (v/v); 1 ml/kg; i.v.; n = 5) was administered 30 minutes prior to the onset of MCAO. The sutures were left in place for 30 minutes, followed by 5.5 hours of reperfusion.

The feasibility of extended treatment options was investigated by administering the highest dose of resveratrol (2×10−3 mg/kg; i.v.) or vehicle (propylene glycol; 4×10−3% (v/v); 1 ml/kg; i.v.) at the following intervals during the I/R protocol; 15 minutes (n = 5/group) following the onset of MCAO, and 0, 30, 60, 90 minutes (n = 5,6,7,4 respectively) following the onset of reperfusion.


Co-administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid (tMCAO)


To examine neuroprotection following co-administration of various doses of resveratrol (2×10−5 (n = 5), 2×10−6 (n = 5), 2×10−7 (n = 6), 2×10−8 (n = 6), or 2×10−9 (n = 6) mg/kg) with LA (0.005 mg/kg) on ischemia-reperfusion injury in our tMCAO model, resveratrol and LA were combined into a single solution and administered (1.0 ml/kg; iv) 30 minutes prior to MCAO. The MCA was occluded for 30 minutes followed by 5.5 hours of reperfusion.

Delayed treatment effects were also studied by co-injecting resveratrol (2×10−5 mg/kg) and LA (0.005 mg/kg; i.v) at the following intervals during the I/R protocol; 15 minutes (n = 8) following the onset of MCAO, and 0, 30, 60, 90 minutes (n = 6,6,7,4 respectively) following the onset of reperfusion.


Co-administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid and Permanent Occlusion (pMCAO)
To determine if the co-administration of resveratrol and LA was neuroprotective on ischemia-induced cell death only, co-injection of resveratrol and LA (2×10−5 mg/kg and LA, 0.005 mg/kg; i.v.; n = 4) or vehicle (propylene glycol; 4×10−3% (v/v); 1 ml/kg; i.v.; n = 4) were made 30 minutes prior to pMCAO. The experiments were terminated at the end of 6 hours of occlusion with no reperfusion period.


UPEI-200 or 201 Effects in tMCAO or pMCAO

The effects of UPEI-200 and UPEI-201 on infarct volume in both transient and permanent MCAO models were investigated. Dose-response curves were generated for both entities (n = 4–7/group). UPEI-201 was further studied for its effectiveness in delayed intervention by administering a neuroprotective dose (1×10−6 mg/kg) 15 minutes post-occlusion as well as 0, 30 and 60 minutes into the 5.5 hr reperfusion period (n = 4–7/group).


Histological Procedures

At the end of each experiment, in which infarct volume was measured, animals were transcardially perfused with phosphate buffered saline (PBS; 0.1 M; 200 mL). The brains were removed and sliced into 1 mm coronal sections with the aid of a rat brain matrix (Harvard Apparatus; Holliston, MA, USA). Sections were incubated in a 2% solution of 2,3,5-triphenol tetrazolium chloride (TTC; Sigma-Aldrich; St. Louis; MO, USA) for 5 minutes. Infarct volumes were calculated with measurements taken from scanned digital images of each brain section. The infarct area for opposing views of each brain section was calculated using a computer-assisted imaging system (Scion Corporation; Frederick, MD, USA), averaged and multiplied by section thickness (1 mm) to give a measure of infarct volume for each section. The sum total of the individual infarct volumes provided the infarct volume for each rat.


Co-administration of Resveratrol - Lipoic Acid and Apoptosis

In a separate set of experiments, the co-administration of resveratrol (2×10−5 mg/kg) and LA (0.005 mg/kg; i.v.; n = 4) or vehicle (propylene glycol; 4×10−3% (v/v); 1 ml/kg; i.v.; n = 4) were made 30 minutes prior to tMCAO. The sutures were left in place for 30 minutes followed by 5.5 hours of reperfusion. Animals were transcardially perfused with 200 mL of 0.1 M phosphate buffered saline (pH 7.4), the brains removed and the ipsilateral cerebral cortex isolated by careful dissection. A biopsy needle having an internal diameter of 8 mm was used to collect tissue from the region of infarct. The region of infarct was visually identified as that area which displayed a grayish hue and was slightly swollen compared to the surrounding healthy tissue. The biopsy needle was centered on this area and the tissue sample removed.

The tissue was weighed and homogenized (20% w/v) in ice cold PBS. The homogenate was centrifuged 12 000×g for 15 min at 4° C. Aliquots of the supernatant were stored at −80°C until assayed for protein. Apoptotic cell death was quantified using an ELISA based assay for determination of cytoplasmic histone-associated DNA fragments (Roche Diagnostics, Montreal, QC, CAN).


Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using a statistical software package (SigmaStat and SigmaPlot; Jandel Scientific, Tujunga, CA). All data are presented as a mean ± standard error of the mean (S.E.M). Differences were considered statistically significant if p≤0.05 by an analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by a Bonferroni post-hoc analysis. When only two groups were being compared the Student’s t-test was used.

Results

Resveratrol and tMCAO

Pre-administration of resveratrol provided dose-dependent neuroprotection in our model of ischemia-reperfusion. This was evident by a reduction in mean infarct volume with increasing doses of resveratrol (Figs. 1A and B). A significant difference in infarct volume between resveratrol treated animals and vehicle treated controls was observed at the 2 highest doses tested (2×10−3 and 2×10−4 mg/kg; p≤0.05).



Figure 1. Dose-dependent effect of resveratrol on infarct volume following transient ischemia/reperfusion. (A) Representative photomicrographs of TTC-stained, 1 mm thick coronal slices illustrating the extent of infarct within the prefrontal cortex following pretreatment (30 minutes prior to MCAO; i.v.) with either Vehicle (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) or Resveratrol (2×10−7 and 2×10−3 mg/kg) following ischemia/reperfusion (tMCAO). (B) Bar graph summarizing the dose-response relationship between increasing doses of resveratrol and infarct size (mm3) calculated from TTC-stained, 1 mm thick coronal sections following tMCAO. Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–6/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g001
Resveratrol or vehicle was injected during MCAO or during the period of reperfusion (Figure 2). There were no significant differences in the mean infarct volumes when vehicle was injected during MCAO or at any time point during reperfusion (p≥0.05), therefore, the vehicle data for all time points was pooled (n = 29). However, all statistical comparisons were made between the infarct volumes measured following resveratrol and vehicle administration for each time point. When resveratrol treatment (2×10−3 mg/kg; i.v.) was delayed until 15 minutes into the ischemic period or 90 minutes into the reperfusion period (120 min post occlusion) there was no effect on infarct volume when compared to vehicle injected controls (p≥0.05; Fig. 2). However, significant neuroprotection was observed when resveratrol (2×10−3 mg/kg) was administered at the start of the reperfusion period (30 minutes post-occlusion), or at 30 and 60 minutes into the reperfusion period (60 and 90 minutes post-occlusion; p≤0.05 at each time point; Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Time course of resveratrol-induced neuroprotection. Bar graph summarizing the effect of resveratrol injected 15 minutes into middle cerebral artery occlusion (15), or at 30 min intervals post-reperfusion. Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–6/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the pooled vehicle-treated (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) control group. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g002

Co-administration of Resveratrol and Lipoic Acid

The combined pre-administration of resveratrol and LA 30 minutes prior to tMCAO produced a dose-dependent reduction in infarct volume compared to vehicle injected controls when measured following 5.5 hrs of reperfusion (Fig. 3). This effect was significant at the 2 highest doses of resveratrol (2×10−6 and 2×10−5 mg/kg; p≤0.05; Fig. 3). Delaying treatment of resveratrol (2×10−5 mg/kg) and LA (0.005 mg/kg) until 15 minutes following the onset of tMCAO was neuroprotective however no significant effect was observed when the same combination of resveratrol and LA was injected immediately prior to suture removal and the onset of reperfusion (30 minutes post occlusion; Fig. 4).



Figure 3. Effect of increasing doses of resveratrol in combination with lipoic acid on infarct volume. Bar graph summarizing the effect of co-administration of a sub-threshold dose of lipoic acid (0.005 mg/kg) with increasing doses of resveratrol on infarct volume following ischemia/reperfusion. Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–6/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g003

Figure 4. Time course of effect of combining lipoic acid and resveratrol on infarct volume. Bar graph summarizing the effect on infarct volume of administering a non-protective dose of lipoic acid in combination with a protective dose of resveratrol 15 minutes during the occlusion (15 min), or immediately after reperfusion (30 min). Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–8/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g004
Tissue sampled from the infarct region of rats injected with resveratrol (2×10−5 mg/kg) and LA (0.005 mg/kg) 30 minutes prior to tMCAO displayed lower levels of cytoplasmic histone-associated-DNA fragmentation. This biomarker suggests decreased apoptotic cell death (p≤0.05; Fig. 5).


Figure 5. Effect of lipoic acid and resveratrol combination on a marker of apoptotic cell death. Bar graph of the quantified cytoplasmic histone-associated-DNA fragmentation (an indicator of apoptotic cell death) as obtained from a tissue sample (see methods for detailed description). Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g005
Co-injection of resveratrol (2×10−5 mg/kg) and LA (0.005 mg/kg) 30 minutes prior to 6 hours of permanent MCAO did not produce significant neuroprotection (p≥0.05; data not shown). The average infarct volumes following 6 hrs of permanent MCAO in the vehicle and resveratrol - LA treated groups were 25.3±6 and 19.9±5 mm3 respectively.

UPEI-200 and UPEI-201in tMCAO and pMCAO

UPEI-200 is a chemical construct composed of 3 LA moieties bonded to a single resveratrol molecule (3:1). When administered 30 minutes prior to MCA occlusion in either tMCAO or pMCAO models, there was no significant neuroprotection observed at any of the doses tested (p≥0.05; Fig. 6A, 6B).



Figure 6. Lack of an effect of UPEI-200 on ischemic or reperfusion injury-induced cell death. (A1) Representative photomicrographs of TTC-stained sections from vehicle and UPEI-200-treated animals prior to either ischemia/reperfusion (tMCAO; A1) or permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion (6 hr pMCAO; B1). Bar graphs illustrating the lack of effect on infarct volume of UPEI-200 (3:1 ratio of lipoic acid to resveratrol) at increasing doses or a vehicle (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) injected 30 minutes prior to either tMCAO (A2) or pMCAO (B2). Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 4–6/group). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g006
Conversely, UPEI-201, which is composed of a single LA moiety bound to resveratrol (1:1), displayed potent neuroprotection when administered 30 minutes prior to MCA in tMCAO (Fig. 7A; p≤0.05). Delayed intervention with UPEI-201 (1×10−6 mg/kg) was successful in reducing infarct volume when administered 15 minutes into the occlusion period (15 min; p≤0.05, Fig. 8), but not when administered at the start or reperfusion or 30 minutes into the 5.5 hr reperfusion period (30, 60 min; Fig. 8).


Figure 7. Dose-dependent effect of UPEI-201 on ischemic but not reperfusion injury-induced cell death. (A1) Representative photomicrographs of TTC-stained sections from vehicle and UPEI-201-treated animals prior to either ischemia/reperfusion (tMCAO; A1) or permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion (6 hr pMCAO; B1). Bar graph illustrating the effect on infarct volume of UPEI-201 (1:1 ratio of lipoic acid to resveratrol) at increasing doses or a vehicle (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) injected 30 minutes prior to either ischemia/reperfusion (tMCAO; A2) or permanent middle cerebral artery occlusion (6 hr pMCAO; B2). Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–7/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g007

Figure 8. Time course of the effect of UPEI-201 on infarct volume. (A) Bar graph illustrating the effect on infarct volume of UPEI-201 (1:1 ratio of lipoic acid to resveratrol) at a dose of 1×10−6 mg/kg or a vehicle (propylene glycol 4×10−3% (v/v)) injected during the occlusion (15) or at 30 minute intervals immediately following reperfusion. Each bar represents the mean ± S.E.M. (n = 5–7/group) and * indicates significance (p≤0.05) from the vehicle-treated control group. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0087865.g008

Effects of UPEI-201on Blood Pressure and Heart Rate

Since UPEI-201 was observed to provide neuroprotection in the tMCAO model, the following experiment was designed to determine the effect of UPEI-201 on arterial pressure and heart rate for a period of 2 hrs following administration. Baseline MAP and mean HR prior to drug administration were 109±9 mm/Hg and 378±27 bpm, respectively. Intravenous administration of UPEI-201 (1×10−6 mg/kg; n = 4) did not significantly alter mean arterial blood pressure or mean HR at any time point during the 2 hrs of continuous recording compared with vehicle (n = 4; P≥0.05; data not shown).

Discussion


Dietary plant phenolics such as resveratrol are being widely used in supplement form to prevent and treat common health concerns. Potential safety issues exist as high doses of resveratrol have been shown to cause renal toxicity [25] and contribute to hepatic oxidative stress [26]. In the presence of peroxidase and/or transition metals, resveratrol may function as a pro-oxidant ultimately contributing to DNA damage and mitochondrial dysfunction [27] [28]. As well, resveratrol has been shown to inhibit cytochrome P450 enzyme CYP1A1 [29], an interference which may render other drugs in a patient’s treatment plan ineffective at therapeutic doses. Clearly, the health benefits of resveratrol are extensive and hence, finding ways to harness the potency of resveratrol in the absence of adverse side effects is desirable.

To this end, we show in this study that resveratrol on its own produced dose-dependent neuroprotection against neuronal cell death in a rodent model of transient ischemia-reperfusion injury [24]. Combined injection of resveratrol with a non-neuroprotective dose of α-lipoic acid [12] prior to tMCAO produced neuroprotection at doses of resveratrol 100 fold less than when injected alone. By chemically bonding resveratrol to lipoic acid in a 1:1 ratio (UPEI-201), we were able to show a further dose reduction (ten-fold lower) coincident with significant neuroprotection which supports the advantage of combination therapy in stroke treatment.

Numerous studies have proven the efficacy of treatment with lipoic acid in disease states reflective of pro- and antioxidant imbalance such as diabetes, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer and cerebrovascular disease [30] [31] [32]. The chemical characteristics of LA, as well as its reduced form dihydrolipoic acid, qualify it as an effective scavenger of hydroxyl radicals, nitric oxide, peroxyl radicals and peroxynitrites, singlet oxygen species and hypochlorous acid [33]. Previously in our laboratory, we showed that LA pretreatment was effective as a neuroprotectant in both reperfusion injury following tMCAO [12] as well as in permanent ischemia (pMCAO) [13]. In the present study, combination of LA with resveratrol did not protect against neuronal death in a model of pMCAO. Prolonged ischemia is characterized by glutamate-induced neuronal toxicity ultimately leading to necrosis [3]. Generation of oxidative radicals is minimal owing to the lack of blood flow and dampening of mitochondrial activity, thereby rendering anti-oxidant therapy ineffectual. In contrast, anti-oxidants are highly effective in combating the oxidative stress generated during reperfusion injury which is demonstrated in the current study in our model of tMCAO. The reduction in infarct volume associated with resveratrol-LA treatment correlates with fewer necrotic cells at the ischemic core as evidenced with TTC staining, as well as reduced apoptotic cell death in the area of the penumbra as demonstrated by reduced oxidative DNA damage.

Other potential implications of combining resveratrol treatment with LA include their complementary participation in cell preserving pathways. For example, resveratrol and LA have both been shown to enhance aldehyde dehydrogenase-2-mediated detoxification of aldehydes in models of ethanol toxicity and ischemia-reperfusion injury respectively [4] [5]. Both compounds influence antioxidant status, in part through direct reduction of reactive oxygen species, but also as modulators of endogenous anti-oxidant systems. Resveratrol was shown to induce MnSOD activity in isolated rat liver mitochondria while LA inhibited glutathione peroxidase activity and induced mitochondrial uncoupling in the same model [34]. It is also noteworthy, that the LA/dihyrolipoate system is highly efficient in the reduction of the oxidized forms of antioxidants essentially aiding in their recycling allowing them to work more effectively without saturation [35]. Its dual solubility in water and lipid allows LA to interact with antioxidants in extracellular (blood) as well intracellular (both cytoplasmic and mitochondrial) compartments and to effectively cross the blood-brain barrier [36].

To utilize the strategy of combinatorial therapy, we created 2 new chemical entities, UPEI-200 and 201 and determined that a 1:1 ratio of resveratrol-LA moieties (UPEI-201) was preferred in providing neuroprotection following ischemia-reperfusion (tMCAO). UPEI-201 effectively provided neuroprotection when injected 15 minutes into the period of occlusion but not when injected during reperfusion. With dosing in the nanomolar range providing significant neuroprotection in our model of transient ischemia, UPEI-201 is clearly a potent neuroprotectant against oxidative damage. Future studies will be necessary to address mechanism of action, bioactivation, plasma stability, and pre-conditioning applications. Recent figures estimate medication non-compliance at around 50% at a cost of $300 hundred billion a year [37]. Novel compounds such as UPEI-201 which aim to provide multi-level care in a single dose, may improve compliance and could make a significant contribution to global health initiatives in treating and/or preventing cerebrovascular disease. In contrast, the ineffectiveness of UPEI-200 to provide neuroprotection in either tMCAO or pMCAO paradigms clearly demonstrates the utility of bioassay-guided optimization to achieve the ideal ratio of newly synthesized bioactive molecules.

In conclusion, the results presented above support the notion that combining antioxidants at subthreshold doses can produce equal or enhanced neuroprotective effects. In addition, creation of novel chemical entities via the synthetic bonding of these antioxidants can produce comparable effects to those observed by the co-administration of the 2 compounds, but at lower doses. The clear advantage to lowering the dose required to gain therapeutic effect is to minimize off-target effects on other organ systems which may lead to side effects as is seen in so many of the prescription drugs on the market today.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: TS MS BC AA BK DR IK. Performed the experiments: BC MS DR IK. Analyzed the data: BC TS MS IK DR. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: DR IK AA BK. Wrote the paper: MS TS AA IK.



References available at the PLoS ONE site.