It appears I was mistaken about structure there is variety in both natural and synthetic. But from my understanding there is more uniformity in the biological version. IIRC, when producing molecules with different chirality, nature can create most of its output in a particular structure due to the use of enzymes that produce consistent structure, while chemical means of synthesis tend to produce 50-50 output for each possible location of structural variability.
I’d assume nature given its ability to effectively produce select structures optimally, would choose the best form for production. Though I could be wrong.
For instance, the astaxanthin produced by H. pluvialis is naturally present at 73% as trans-astaxanthin and 27% as cis-astaxanthin
Below it says that synthetic is racemic mix of two enantiomers, and meso structures.
Checked on chatgpt to confirm
Chiral molecules are a fundamental concept in chemistry, especially organic chemistry, and they have significant implications in biological systems and pharmaceuticals. A chiral molecule is one that cannot be superimposed on its mirror image; the two forms are called enantiomers. Here’s how chiral molecules are relevant in the context of enzyme output versus chemical synthesis:
Enzymatic Reactions:
Enzymes are highly specific biological catalysts that typically produce a single enantiomer when they catalyze reactions involving chiral molecules.
This specificity arises because enzymes have active sites with a particular three-dimensional shape that only fits one enantiomer (the substrate).
Enzymatic reactions are generally considered to be more environmentally friendly and efficient as they often occur under mild conditions and can be highly selective.
Chemical Synthesis:
Traditional chemical synthesis can produce chiral molecules but often results in a racemic mixture—a 50/50 mix of both enantiomers.
Specialized chemical synthesis techniques, such as asymmetric synthesis, are required to produce a single enantiomer. These methods can involve the use of chiral catalysts, chiral auxiliaries, or starting materials that are already enantiomerically pure.
Chemical synthesis can sometimes be less selective and might require harsher conditions or more steps to achieve the desired enantiomeric purity.
The difference between the two methods is particularly important in pharmaceuticals, as the different enantiomers of a chiral drug may have different biological activities. One enantiomer might be therapeutic, while the other could be ineffective or even harmful. Consequently, the ability to produce a single enantiomer—which enzymes can do inherently and chemists strive to achieve through asymmetric synthesis—is crucial.
@RapAdmin in looking at the AstaSana PDF document shown below, I see that there is only 5% astaxanthin present….so when you quote for humans, the 3.5g per day of astaxanthin needed to match the ITP study, is the 5% figure taken into account ?
This seems incorrect to me. There is synthetic astraxanthin available for research purposes, but this is generally not what is found in supplements (from what I’ve been able to determine) likely because it is expensive. The astraxanthin in supplements appears to be ground algae suspended in some oil, in the amounts so the mg of astraxanthin meets the desired capsule amount. So the astraxanthin that the vast number of us are taking is “natural” (from algae).
I’ve written about this previously: do we really want to be taking all the other stuff in the algae that comes with the astraxanthin? — I’m really ignorant about what these other compounds are.
That’s entirely possible, unfortunately given the state of the science right now we really don’t know. All we know is that the synthetic astaxanthin from Astasana increased the lifespan of male mice significantly.
Hope you don’t mind my flagging up the possibility of a discrepancy in projected human doses. Like you say we’ll just have to wait for full details of the study to be published.
Yes you’re calculation is right, please disregard what I said. It was late at night and I was tired.
It just threw me when I saw the 5% purity, I assumed AstaSana was 100% pure astaxanthin and that the diet formulation was done on site at the animal facility. We used to mix our own diets.
Possible. I hadn’t even considered micro plastics. I had naively assumed that algae would be grown in farming ponds and didn’t think about real-world environmental toxins. I was more considering that algae has been promoted as a bulk food source (for some nutrients — I’m picturing the blue oatmeal from The Matrix) and I can’t remember it being tested for longevity.
I was more concerned with two possibilities (neither with a paper as background):
when I have glycine or taurine/etc by itself, I have a “flush” or some kind of reaction. But when I eat a steak (with glycine in it) I don’t feel anything. There seems to be a “signalling” aspect to many of these “supplements” which have a specific impact (or you just ram a specific pathway’s constituents until you get when you want). I’d consider algae more like the steak, and less like an isolated dose of synthetic astraxanthin.
what’s in the algae? How do they make it? Is it a clean environment? Are there heavy metals? Toxic molds? Lead painted pool sides? Do they use clean water? Pesticides? Enhancers? Are the algae unhealthy and have the output of an unhealthy organism? Etc.
Sorry:addition: there seems to be an impact of pure astraxanthin which I haven’t seen in the algae derived astraxanthin. Maybe it is the same and hasn’t been tested. I’m taking 12mg per day from algae derived astraxanthin. I’ll of course let you know if I like 15% longer, but this has been in the back of my mind.
The comparison that comes to mind is: if Rapamycin wasn’t isolated and produced (or rapalogs) would it work as well to eat a pound of Easter island dirt every two weeks to get your 10mg or Rapamycin? (Kidding of course)
“The mean life span for the mice given supplementary calcium pantothenate was 653.1 days and that for the control mice was 549.8 days.” In other words, all the mice in this study were absurdly short-lived, whether they got Ca pantothenate or not. This kind of result means nothing for normally-aging mice or people.
Calcium pantothenate supplement/pantothenic acid (Vitamin B5) is a fraction of the cost of astaxanthin.
Majority of person do not have/are willing to spend $$$$ for 3 to 5 grams of oral astaxanthin per day.
Right: if you would otherwise be absurdly short-lived, like these mice (and for similar reasons — not familial hypercholesterolemia, alcohol abuse, or a nasty set of BRCA1/2 mutations), it might benefit you. “This kind of result means nothing for normally-aging mice or people.”
These results indicate that dietary synthetic astaxanthin has a better effect than natural astaxanthin on growth promotion, body color enhancement and n-3 PUFA deposition in muscle of black tiger prawn.
Diet supplementation with H. pluvialis (natural astaxanthin) enhanced the resistance to transportation stress better than synthetic astaxanthin.
