snowathlete
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,374
- Location
- UK
I'm pretty sure this has coincided with starting methylation a few months back. Any idea why that would be?
More ammonia in Urine since started methylation
- Thread starter snowathlete
- Start date
Hi, snow.
One possibility might be one or more upregulating polymorphisms in the CBS enzyme (cystathionine beta synthase). Dr. Amy Yasko has argued that this can cause an increase in ammonia production if the methylation cycle is supported without first treating to limit the flow into the transsulfuration pathway. She recommends lowering B6 supplementation and considering her "ammonia support RNA formulation." In the clinical study that Dr. Nathan and I carried out, there were some people who had such polymorphisms. We ignored them and gave all the patients the same basic protocol. Our lab testing showed that the recovery of the methylation cycle was slower in the people who had these polymorphisms, but by 6 to 9 months they had caught up with the others.
Best regards,
Rich
Pea
Senior Member
- Messages
- 124
Ah, this answers my B6 question.
Can you get rid of ammonia another way other than getting methylation to work better? Can methylation work better without enough B6?
Snow, seems like a good sign!
Can you get rid of ammonia another way other than getting methylation to work better? Can methylation work better without enough B6?
Snow, seems like a good sign!
Hi, Pea.
Ammonia is produced in the body in three ways that I know of. Normally, the main one is the burning of amino acids for fuel by the mitochondria. When this is done, the nitrogen has to be disposed of, and that is done by carrying it, mostly in glutamine, via the blood to the liver, where the urea cycle converts it into urea. The urea is put back into the blood and is extracted by the kidneys, which excrete it into the urine.
Ammonia can also be produced via the transsulfuration pathway, which is why Dr. Yasko recommends lowering the B6 intake if a person has an upregulated CBS enzyme.
The third way ammonia is produced is by anaerobic bacteria in the gut. If this gets too high, and the liver cannot deal with it, so that the ammonia level rises in the blood, it can cause trouble in the brain, called hepatic encephalopathy.
If the urine tends to be too much on the acid side, because of a person's diet or another cause, the kidneys can produce ammonia from glutamine and put it in the urine to balance the acid. This prevents frying one's nether parts!
-)
If the bacteria in the gut are producing too much ammonia, they will need to be dealt with. The treatment for high ammonia in the blood coming from the gut includes giving oral levulose. Bacteria in the gut will convert this to lactic acid, pushing the pH in the gut in the acid direction. That will cause ammonia (NH3), which is a gas, to shift more to NH4+, ammonium ion, which will stay in solution and pass out in the stools rather than diffusing from the gut into the bloodstream.
The situation involving B6 is complicated. If a person has a CBS upregulating SNP, it's a good idea not to go too high on B6 until this is dealt with. Later on, it is important to have enough B6 so that the transsulfuration pathway can proceed at a normal rate. Also, B6 is needed to make some of the neurotransmitters, and it's also very important in the metabolism of the amino acids, to name a few. So in the longer term, B6 needs to be brought up, and B2 is needed also, to convert B6 to its active form, P5P.
Best regards,
Rich
Ammonia is produced in the body in three ways that I know of. Normally, the main one is the burning of amino acids for fuel by the mitochondria. When this is done, the nitrogen has to be disposed of, and that is done by carrying it, mostly in glutamine, via the blood to the liver, where the urea cycle converts it into urea. The urea is put back into the blood and is extracted by the kidneys, which excrete it into the urine.
Ammonia can also be produced via the transsulfuration pathway, which is why Dr. Yasko recommends lowering the B6 intake if a person has an upregulated CBS enzyme.
The third way ammonia is produced is by anaerobic bacteria in the gut. If this gets too high, and the liver cannot deal with it, so that the ammonia level rises in the blood, it can cause trouble in the brain, called hepatic encephalopathy.
If the urine tends to be too much on the acid side, because of a person's diet or another cause, the kidneys can produce ammonia from glutamine and put it in the urine to balance the acid. This prevents frying one's nether parts!
-)If the bacteria in the gut are producing too much ammonia, they will need to be dealt with. The treatment for high ammonia in the blood coming from the gut includes giving oral levulose. Bacteria in the gut will convert this to lactic acid, pushing the pH in the gut in the acid direction. That will cause ammonia (NH3), which is a gas, to shift more to NH4+, ammonium ion, which will stay in solution and pass out in the stools rather than diffusing from the gut into the bloodstream.
The situation involving B6 is complicated. If a person has a CBS upregulating SNP, it's a good idea not to go too high on B6 until this is dealt with. Later on, it is important to have enough B6 so that the transsulfuration pathway can proceed at a normal rate. Also, B6 is needed to make some of the neurotransmitters, and it's also very important in the metabolism of the amino acids, to name a few. So in the longer term, B6 needs to be brought up, and B2 is needed also, to convert B6 to its active form, P5P.
Best regards,
Rich
snowathlete
Senior Member
- Messages
- 5,374
- Location
- UK
Thanks Rich,
That would fit my results at anyrate:
CBS A360A +/- (AG)
CBS C699T +/- (AG
I get 20 mg of B6 via the B-complex I take, and anyting else from my diet, which would be fairly high in B6 - lots of meat.
It would be hard for me to change my diet that much. I could stop taking the B complex, but then that might mean less of the other B's that perhaps I need.
Hummm, well, its reasuring that the study you and Dr Nathan did, showed that people with ammonia symptoms caught up. Right now my methylation feels stalled. Its hard to be more specific than that, but thats how it feels, like there is a door shut somewhere, or perhaps only open a crack.
Do you know how Dr Yasko's ammonia support is supposed to help?
I might try a couple of her other RNA support products off the back of my gene results.
Best
Joel
That would fit my results at anyrate:
CBS A360A +/- (AG)
CBS C699T +/- (AG
I get 20 mg of B6 via the B-complex I take, and anyting else from my diet, which would be fairly high in B6 - lots of meat.
It would be hard for me to change my diet that much. I could stop taking the B complex, but then that might mean less of the other B's that perhaps I need.
Hummm, well, its reasuring that the study you and Dr Nathan did, showed that people with ammonia symptoms caught up. Right now my methylation feels stalled. Its hard to be more specific than that, but thats how it feels, like there is a door shut somewhere, or perhaps only open a crack.
Do you know how Dr Yasko's ammonia support is supposed to help?
I might try a couple of her other RNA support products off the back of my gene results.
Best
Joel
Hi, Joel.
No, I don't. Dr. Yasko does not release much information about her RNA formulations. My guess is that they contain selected RNAs that will influence the metabolism of the cells in such a way as to correct a situation that is not optimum. I would guess that the RNAs in the ammonia support RNA formulation must downregulate the CBS enzyme, but I'm only guessing.
Best regards,
Rich
This thread has aged a little, but I just discovered this forum and would like to discuss this particular topic...
Dr. Yasko’s NutriSwitch RNA supplements are... interesting. Unapologetically $85/bottle, with not much immediate explanation as to why, or what they are, or how they differ from the $13 bottle I can get at LEF.
It was difficult to locate answers to this. This is the story I’ve managed to pull out of the web. I’m hoping Rich (or anyone else with this kind of knowledge?) can correct the errors I’m sure are contained below.
From what I can tell, she explains that NutriSwitch costs this much because she (or her colleagues) isolates particular RNA for particular functions, and concentrates them into the bottle -- and this process isn't cheap. You can buy “RNA” from other sources, but they’re generalized – i.e., represent genes expressed throughout the body.
However, from what I can tell, true encoded RNA degrades at room temperature; to keep a strand intact, you need to mostly keep it under -20C. They don't require users of NutriSwitch to do this. Dr. Yasko (and her colleague Dr. Gordon) acknowledge it will degrade, but say that doesn’t matter. They suggest this is because it’s the “nucleotide molecule” that matters, not the RNA strand.
I’m not an expert in biochemistry... but it seems to me that the genetic information is in the strand, not the molecule? If “a nucleotide” is an A, G, C, or T, then wouldn’t allowing the RNA to degrade into a soup of individual A/G/C/T causes the “speciality” of the RNA to get lost? How then can you have specialties of “stress”, “kidney”, “liver”, etc. ? Maybe the nucleotides are still useful to the body, but only in re-encoding my own genes (polymorphed or otherwise).
Maybe Dr. Yasko’s patent is relevant: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...34".PGNR.&OS=DN/20030207834&RS=DN/20030207834 I see things in here that seem to suggest specific ways in which they can “render the nucleic acid molecules substantially resistant to endogenous nuclease activity” (where “nuclease” is what otherwise degrades RNA). In contrast to the comments she and Dr. Gordon have made, the patent seems to suggest that the key is in a new way to prevent degradation, not that degradation doesn’t matter? Which is it?
Rich, have you studied this patent before? Given your expertise, does it help you understand what she’s doing? Patents don’t prove much, but it reveals something about their thinking, and you could do a much betterjob evaluating it than I could.
Dr. Yasko’s NutriSwitch RNA supplements are... interesting. Unapologetically $85/bottle, with not much immediate explanation as to why, or what they are, or how they differ from the $13 bottle I can get at LEF.
It was difficult to locate answers to this. This is the story I’ve managed to pull out of the web. I’m hoping Rich (or anyone else with this kind of knowledge?) can correct the errors I’m sure are contained below.
From what I can tell, she explains that NutriSwitch costs this much because she (or her colleagues) isolates particular RNA for particular functions, and concentrates them into the bottle -- and this process isn't cheap. You can buy “RNA” from other sources, but they’re generalized – i.e., represent genes expressed throughout the body.
However, from what I can tell, true encoded RNA degrades at room temperature; to keep a strand intact, you need to mostly keep it under -20C. They don't require users of NutriSwitch to do this. Dr. Yasko (and her colleague Dr. Gordon) acknowledge it will degrade, but say that doesn’t matter. They suggest this is because it’s the “nucleotide molecule” that matters, not the RNA strand.
I’m not an expert in biochemistry... but it seems to me that the genetic information is in the strand, not the molecule? If “a nucleotide” is an A, G, C, or T, then wouldn’t allowing the RNA to degrade into a soup of individual A/G/C/T causes the “speciality” of the RNA to get lost? How then can you have specialties of “stress”, “kidney”, “liver”, etc. ? Maybe the nucleotides are still useful to the body, but only in re-encoding my own genes (polymorphed or otherwise).
Maybe Dr. Yasko’s patent is relevant: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph...34".PGNR.&OS=DN/20030207834&RS=DN/20030207834 I see things in here that seem to suggest specific ways in which they can “render the nucleic acid molecules substantially resistant to endogenous nuclease activity” (where “nuclease” is what otherwise degrades RNA). In contrast to the comments she and Dr. Gordon have made, the patent seems to suggest that the key is in a new way to prevent degradation, not that degradation doesn’t matter? Which is it?
Rich, have you studied this patent before? Given your expertise, does it help you understand what she’s doing? Patents don’t prove much, but it reveals something about their thinking, and you could do a much betterjob evaluating it than I could.
Found this thread upon doing a search... thought I'd way in and get some advice.
As far as I know I do not have any CBS defects (signature should include known methylation and detox defects).
I noticed the increased amonia smell while taking methyl B12 (after my own research identifying it was the best but before discovering MTHFR), and taking B6 (the wrong form - and becoming toxic on it), and taking folic acid (yep, wrong fom here again). I stopped b6 immediately when the toxic results came back - but was still taking folic acid (per the doctor, you can't get too much of it - ha! and that it's good for folks with previously high homocysteine).
Now, I am taking L-5-methylfolate, ALA, NAC, methyB12 as well as vitamin D drops, and Opticleanse dietary supplement.
I know that my genes tend me towards high amonia - but is it remotely possible that I've had high amonia all along and just didn't eliminate it? And now that I'm processing it properly I'm smelling it? Or do I need to shake things up?
As far as I know I do not have any CBS defects (signature should include known methylation and detox defects).
I noticed the increased amonia smell while taking methyl B12 (after my own research identifying it was the best but before discovering MTHFR), and taking B6 (the wrong form - and becoming toxic on it), and taking folic acid (yep, wrong fom here again). I stopped b6 immediately when the toxic results came back - but was still taking folic acid (per the doctor, you can't get too much of it - ha! and that it's good for folks with previously high homocysteine).
Now, I am taking L-5-methylfolate, ALA, NAC, methyB12 as well as vitamin D drops, and Opticleanse dietary supplement.
I know that my genes tend me towards high amonia - but is it remotely possible that I've had high amonia all along and just didn't eliminate it? And now that I'm processing it properly I'm smelling it? Or do I need to shake things up?