Caffeine And Bone Loss

High daily caffeine intake can put people, especially women, at risk for bone loss,  Caffeine may decrease expression of the Vitamin D receptor and this may contribute to problems for bone formation and maintenance.  Abstract:

Of the various risk factors contributing to osteoporosis, dietary/lifestyle factors are important. In a clinical study we reported that women with caffeine intakes >300 mg/day had higher bone loss and women with vitamin D receptor (VDR) variant, tt were at a greater risk for this deleterious effect of caffeine. However, the mechanism of how caffeine effects bone metabolism is not clear. 1,25-Dihydroxy vitamin D(3) (1,25(OH)(2)D(3)) plays a critical role in regulating bone metabolism. The receptor for 1,25(OH)(2)D(3), VDR has been demonstrated in osteoblast cells and it belongs to the superfamily of nuclear hormone receptors. To understand the molecular mechanism of the role of caffeine in relation to bone, we tested the effect of caffeine on VDR expression and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) mediated actions in bone. We therefore examined the effect of different doses of caffeine (0.2, 0.5, 1.0 and 10mM) on 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) induced VDR protein expression in human osteoblast cells. We also tested the effect of different doses of caffeine on 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) induced alkaline phosphatase (ALP) activity, a widely used marker of osteoblastic activity. Caffeine dose dependently decreased the 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) induced VDR expression and at concentrations of 1 and 10mM, VDR expression was decreased by about 50-70%, respectively. In addition, the 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) induced alkaline phosphatase activity was also reduced at similar doses thus affecting the osteoblastic function. The basal ALP activity was not affected with increasing doses of caffeine. Overall, our results suggest that caffeine affects 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) stimulated VDR protein expression and 1,25(OH)(2)D(3) mediated actions in human osteoblast cells.

MUFAs And Longevity

Here is a paper from several years ago showing a link between mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs) and longevity in the worm Caenorhabditis elegans.  A molecular mechanism is given - worms deficient in a particular enzyme that modifies DNA and hence affects gene expression exhibit accumulation of MUFas and a longer lifespan. Dietary MUFAs were shown be able to enhance lifespan.  Perhaps this applies to mammals, including humans? Abstract:

Chromatin and metabolic states both influence lifespan, but how they interact in lifespan regulation is largely unknown. The COMPASS chromatin complex, which trimethylates lysine 4 on histone H3 (H3K4me3), regulates lifespan in Caenorhabditis elegans. However, the mechanism by which H3K4me3 modifiers affect longevity, and whether this mechanism involves metabolic changes, remain unclear. Here we show that a deficiency in H3K4me3 methyltransferase, which extends lifespan, promotes fat accumulation in worms with a specific enrichment of mono-unsaturated fatty acids (MUFAs). This fat metabolism switch in H3K4me3 methyltransferase-deficient worms is mediated at least in part by the downregulation of germline targets, including S6 kinase, and by the activation of an intestinal transcriptional network that upregulates delta-9 fatty acid desaturases. Notably, the accumulation of MUFAs is necessary for the lifespan extension of H3K4me3 methyltransferase-deficient worms, and dietary MUFAs are sufficient to extend lifespan. Given the conservation of lipid metabolism, dietary or endogenous MUFAs could extend lifespan and healthspan in other species, including mammals.

Phyiscal Activity and Pregnancy

First article looked at today concludes:

This meta-analysis suggests that higher leisure-time activity is associated with reduced risk of preterm birth. 

So, there is a possibility that a certain degree of physical activity reduces the chances that the mother will have  a preterm birth.  

What about gestational diabetes?  See here, abstract:

Physical activity has been inconsistently associated with risk of gestational diabetes mellitus in epidemiological studies, and questions remain about the strength and shape of the dose-response relationship between the two. We therefore conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies and randomized trials on physical activity and gestational diabetes mellitus. PubMed, Embase and Ovid databases were searched for cohort studies, and randomized controlled trials of physical activity and risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, up to August 5th 2015. Summary relative risks (RRs) were estimated using a random effects model. Twenty-five studies (26 publications) were included. For total physical activity the summary RR for high versus low activity was 0.62 (95 % CI 0.41-0.94, I2 = 0 %, n = 4) before pregnancy, and 0.66 (95 % CI 0.36-1.21, I2 = 0 %, n = 3) during pregnancy. For leisure-time physical activity the respective summary RRs for high versus low activity was 0.78 (95 % CI 0.61-1.00, I2 = 47 %, n = 8) before pregnancy, and it was 0.80 (95 % CI 0.64-1.00, I2 = 17 %, n = 17) during pregnancy. The summary RR for pre-pregnancy activity was 0.70 (95 % CI 0.49-1.01, I2 = 72.6 %, n = 3) per increment of 5 h/week and for activity during pregnancy was 0.98 (95 % CI 0.87-1.09, I2 = 0 %, n = 3) per 5 h/week. There was evidence of a nonlinear association between physical activity before pregnancy and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus, pnonlinearity = 0.005, with a slightly steeper association at lower levels of activity although further reductions in risk were observed up to 10 h/week. There was also evidence of nonlinearity for physical activity in early pregnancy, pnonlinearity = 0.008, with no further reduction in risk above 8 h/week. There was some indication of inverse associations between walking (before and during pregnancy) and vigorous activity (before pregnancy) and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. This meta-analysis suggests that there is a significant inverse association between physical activity before pregnancy and in early pregnancy and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus. Further studies are needed to clarify the association between specific types and intensities of activity and gestational diabetes mellitus.

So it seems physical activity can be helpful there as well. Of course, for both articles, this is for the general population; there may be individual cases where physical activity is restricted during pregnancy for health reasons.  

Sedentary Lifestyle And Your RNA

Take a look at this paper from several years ago, abstract:

Pioneering epidemiological work has established strong association of sedentary lifestyle and obesity with the risk of colorectal cancer, while the detailed underlying mechanism remains unknown. Here we show that Hotair (HOX transcript antisense RNA) is a pro-adipogenic long non-coding RNA highly expressed in gluteal-femoral fat over other fat depots. Hotair knockout in adipose tissue results in gluteal-femoral fat defect. Squeeze of the gluteal-femoral fat induces intestinal proliferation in wildtype mice, while not in Hotair knockout mice. Mechanistically, squeeze of the gluteal-femoral fat induces exosomal Hotair secretion mainly by transcriptional upregulation of Hotair via NFκB. And increased exosomal Hotair in turn circulates in the blood and is partially endocytosed by the intestine, finally promoting the stemness and proliferation of intestinal stem/progenitor cells via Wnt activation. Clinically, obese subjects with sedentary lifestyle have much higher exosomal HOTAIR expression in the serum. These findings establish that sedentary lifestyle promotes exosomal Hotair release from the gluteal-femoral fat, which in turn facilitates intestinal stem and/or progenitor proliferation, raising a possible link between sedentary lifestyle with colorectal tumorigenesis.

So, there is a link between a sedentary lifestyle, and release of this HOTAIR RNA from fat, which in turn promotes the growth of intestinal stem cells and/or progenitors - cells that form the target population for mutation leading to colorectal cancer.  The importance of an active lifestyle and a lean physique is underscored by these findings, in my opinion.

Myoststin Knockout Improves Cachexia And Inhibits Tumor Growth

Cachexia- induced muscle wasting is a problem in cancer. This paper tests the hypothesis that knocking out myostatin expression could help with this problem, since myostatin inhibits muscle growth and differentiation.  In mice, this hypothesis proved correct and also some inhibition of tumor growth was also observed - these are all encouraging findings.  The abstract of the paper:

Cachexia is a muscle-wasting syndrome that contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality of many patients with advanced cancers. However, little is understood about how the severe loss of skeletal muscle characterizing this condition occurs. In the current study, we tested the hypothesis that the muscle protein myostatin is involved in mediating the pathogenesis of cachexia-induced muscle wasting in tumor-bearing mice. Myostatin gene inactivation prevented the severe loss of skeletal muscle mass induced in mice engrafted with Lewis lung carcinoma (LLC) cells or in Apc(Min) (/+) mice, an established model of colorectal cancer and cachexia. Mechanistically, myostatin loss attenuated the activation of muscle fiber proteolytic pathways by inhibiting the expression of atrophy-related genes, MuRF1 and MAFbx/Atrogin-1, along with autophagy-related genes. Notably, myostatin loss also impeded the growth of LLC tumors, the number and the size of intestinal polyps in Apc(Min) (/+) mice, thus strongly increasing survival in both models. Gene expression analysis in the LLC model showed this phenotype to be associated with reduced expression of genes involved in tumor metabolism, activin signaling, and apoptosis. Taken together, our results reveal an essential role for myostatin in the pathogenesis of cancer cachexia and link this condition to tumor growth, with implications for furthering understanding of cancer as a systemic disease.

More research is needed.