Metabolic features and regulation of the healing cycle—A new model for chronic disease pathogenesis and treatment, Robert K Naviaux, 2018

Indigophoton

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Not specifically about ME, but includes CFS in the list of conditions considered.

Highlights for Mitochondrion
•Four stages of the healing cycle are defined in bioenergetic and metabolic terms.

•Progression through the healing cycle is controlled by metabokines and mitochondria.

•Three differentiation states of polarized mitochondria are described. These include anti-inflammatory M2, pro-inflammatory M1, and uncommitted M0 organelles.

•The pathophysiology of chronic disease is reframed as a problem resulting from abnormalities in metabokine signaling that cause the normal stages of the cell danger response (CDR) to persist abnormally, creating blocks in the healing cycle.
Abstract
Without healing, multicellular life on Earth would not exist. Without healing, one injury predisposes to another, leading to disability, chronic disease, accelerated aging, and death. Over 50% of adults and 30% of children and teens in the United States now live with a chronic illness. Advances in mass spectrometry and metabolomics have given scientists a new lens for studying health and disease. This study defines the healing cycle in metabolic terms and reframes the pathophysiology of chronic illness as the result of metabolic signaling abnormalities that block healing and cause the normal stages of the cell danger response (CDR) to persist abnormally. Once an injury occurs, active progress through the stages of healing is driven by sequential changes in cellular bioenergetics and the disposition of oxygen and carbon skeletons used for fuel, signaling, defense, repair, and recovery. >100 chronic illnesses can be organized into three persistent stages of the CDR. One hundred and two targetable chemosensory G-protein coupled and ionotropic receptors are presented that regulate the CDR and healing. Metabokines are signaling molecules derived from metabolism that regulate these receptors. Reframing the pathogenesis of chronic illness in this way, as a systems problem that maintains disease, rather than focusing on remote trigger(s) that caused the initial injury, permits new research to focus on novel signaling therapies to unblock the healing cycle, and restore health when other approaches have failed.

1-s2.0-S1567724918301053-gr1_lrg.jpg

Fig. 1. A metabolic model of the health and healing cycles. Health is a dynamic process that requires regular cycling of wakeful activity and restorative sleep. The healing or damage cycle is activated when the cellular stress exceeds the capacity of restorative sleep to repair damage and restore normal cell-cell communication. CDR1 is devoted to damage control, innate immunity, inflammation, and clean up. CDR2 supports cell proliferation for biomass replacement, and blastema formation in tissues with augmented regeneration capacity. CDR3 begins when cell proliferation and migration have stopped, and recently mitotic cells can begin to differentiate and take on organ-specific functions. Abbreviations: eATP; extracelllular ATP; CP1–3: checkpoints 1–3; DAMPs: damage-associated molecular patterns; DARMs: damage-associated reactive metabolites.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567724918301053#tf0005
 
Fascinating and thought-provoking article. Very long and has some highly technical bits way over my head. However, well worth skimming over them to get to more interesting bits further down.

If Naviaux is onto something with his theory there would be two major plusses:
1/ It would apply to many, many other diseases including very common ones with much more research funding than ME. And research into any new treatments based on this theory would likely benefit both these other diseases and ME so we may be able to coattail on research elsewhere.
2/ The diseases affected, including ME, would be reversible.

But it's only a hypothesis, albeit a fascinating one, and proof of it or otherwise will likely be a long time off, let alone actual useful treatments.
 
Smart but in my case I will keep saying the causing agent is still present and can be activated by any stressor.

But isn’t the point of this article hypothesising that the causal agent becomes the stuck on CD-R which is then activated by any stressor ( so there is no need for the originating agents to be present to make the new system vulnerable to worsening from ongoing stressors
 
I have no hope of wading through all the detail of this paper - my knowledge of biochemistry and cell biology is insufficient. But I have scanned my eyes over it and dipped into bits that looked readable.
There are a couple of sections specifically about ME.

And I found these paragraphs from near the end interesting:
28. A new pharmacology
In the past, student physicians and pharmacologists have been taught that drugs work by mechanisms that are the same in health and disease. While this was true for drugs designed to treat acute illneses, the treatment of chronic disease forces a revision of the old teaching. The health cycle and the healing cycle represent different biological states that have different bioenergetics, and different governing dynamics (Fig. 1, Table 2). Biology and pathobiology are qualitatively distinct states of function. Both are normal. However, the functional state associated with pathobiology (the healing cycle) is only normal when it occurs transiently. Pathological persistence of the stages of the healing cycle lead to chronic illness and the inability to heal. Drugs that will work best for treating chronic illness will target receptors like those illustrated in Fig. 5A that play key roles in the healing cycle, but remain virtually unused, or are used differently in health.

Personalized pharmacogenomics will help refine the new pharmacology as it has the old (Caudle et al., 2016), once the best targets in the healing cycle have been identified. A goal of the new pharmacology will be to discover new treatments for chronic illness that have targets that are active in disease, but are dormant in health, and therefore have little or no effect in healthy children and adults. Like Paul Ehrlich's magic bullet (Tan and Grimes, 2010), the new drugs will have fewer side effects because once the disease is cured and the patient has recovered, the target of the drug will have disappeared, and the bullet can pass without causing harm. The need for chronic drug use is then eliminated. While the simile is evocative, it is important to remember that “magic” bullets are not really magic. They just work by scientific mechanisms that have not yet been discovered, or are not yet well understood.

31. Summary
Interruptions in the molecular stages of the healing cycle may be at the root of many complex, chronic illnesses. Three stages of the cell danger response (CDR1, 2, and 3) comprise the healing cycle. These stages are triggered by stress or injury and controlled by changes in mitochondrial function and metabolism (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, Table 2). Many metabolites are metabokines that bind to dedicated receptors and signal when a cell is ready to enter the next stage of healing (Fig. 4, Fig. 5). Purinergic signaling from the release and metabolism of extracellular nucleotides plays an important role in all stages of the healing cycle (Fig. 1). Programmed changes in the differentiation state of mitochondria, known as M0, M1, and M2-polarized organelles, and corresponding changes in cellular redox and the repurposing of cellular energy for cell defense and healing, also play fundamental roles (Fig. 2, Table 3) (Naviaux, 2017). When a stage of the healing cycle cannot be completed, dysfunctional cells accumulate that contain developmentally inappropriate forms of mitochondria, organ function is compromised, and chronic illness results (Fig. 3). Over 100 chronic illnesses can be classified according to the stage of the CDR that is blocked (Table 1). Unblocking therapies directed at stimulating the completion of the healing cycle by regulating metabokine signaling hold promise as a new approach to treatment. A small clinical trial of the antipurinergic drug suramin in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has shown promise for this approach (Naviaux, 2017; Naviaux et al., 2017). Metabolic addiction to the chemistry produced by different stages of the CDR can occur. When this happens, it can create a life-long risk of relapse or slow return to chronic illness if diet and lifestyle interventions are not maintained.

Prevention and treatment of chronic illness require distinctly different, but complementary approaches. New cases of chronic illness can be prevented by reducing the environmental risks that trigger the damage cycle of the CDR, and by promoting nutritional and life-style changes that promote resilience and maintain the health cycle (Fig. 1). However, once illness has occurred in a given patient, the opportunity for prevention is lost, and a perfect storm of multiple triggers can usually be identified. Many triggers are remote and no longer present. Once any remaining triggers have been identified and removed, and any symptoms or primed sensitivities caused by the metabolic memory of those triggers have been treated, a new approach to treatment is required to improve the chances of completing the healing cycle and achieving a full recovery. By shifting the focus away from the initial causes, to the metabolic factors and signaling pathways that maintain chronic illness by blocking progress through the healing cycle, new research will be stimulated and novel treatments will follow.
 
What I don't understand: Are these shown concepts, or are the authors showing proof of these concepts, or are they presenting a hypothesis about the "healing cycle"? The introduction reads like a textbook, but I am not sure if what he writes is really reality or thought.
Does someone know?
 
>100 chronic illnesses can be organized into three persistent stages of the CDR.

I don't have enough background to make any meaningful comment on the biochemistry, and perhaps that's cause enough not to comment at all. That said, my perception of Naviaux's Cell Danger Response model is that it's something of a pet hypothesis that he has sought to apply to other poorly understood conditions, including autism. The fact that he lists toxins and adjuvants at the 'CDR on' stage of his cycle in the context of applying CDR to autism gives me serious pause.
 
What I don't understand: Are these shown concepts, or are the authors showing proof of these concepts, or are they presenting a hypothesis about the "healing cycle"? The introduction reads like a textbook, but I am not sure if what he writes is really reality or thought.
Does someone know?

This is the presentation of a pet hypothesis that makes use of some reasonably well established steps but in a conceptual framework that is entirely homemade. In general teleological theories like this should be avoided in science. 'Healing' is a loaded term that implies good. But what we need is a theoretical framework that sticks to the actual events involved.

The idea that all diseases are somehow explained by this hypothesis is to me meaningless. They are explained by the pathological events we have discovered and in most cases these have nothing much to do with healing.
 
Regarding ME, healing seems to be an odd term - I'm not sure what there is to heal. It seems like one of the distinguishing features is that nothing is actually damaged. (Which is kind of nice because if we can figure out the actual 'blockage' - if it is a blockage - or 'mis-signaling' or whatever, and address that, maybe we'll all get turned right back on!)

This diagram reads similar to those that tout central sensitization; or 'conceptual frameworks' of some phenomenon in a psychology or sociology textbook that contain some solid aspects strung together with speculative yarn to suit a certain intuition about things.

Maybe you can overlay lots of illnesses onto this and say 'oh, yeah, that sort of fits, hmmm, yes...', but I'm not sure what good that does unless the framing provides a structure that helps people to work out the specifics of a given disease and to develop interventions - I guess I can't comment on if there is any potential promise in this or not, but it seems like it's not at a level of specificity where it could yield anything yet.
...Otherwise you're just hoping for a panacea and that seems soppy.
 
Very woolly and undisciplined...a sure sign that this will probably go nowhere unless he decides to gather actual proof by testing at least some aspects of this rather amorphous hypothesis.

There are a lot of papers I’ve noticed recently that are merely literature surveys with loose conjecture. This is not very helpful unless there are practical further studies that the authors or others can pick up.

I’m beginning to ignore what this guy writes....his style seems very self indulgent and with no sense of real life application. I have a feeling that he prefers writing and thinking to objective/goal based work with tangible results (unless it’s a necessity to get more money to do more paper churning of course)
 
Regarding ME, healing seems to be an odd term - I'm not sure what there is to heal. It seems like one of the distinguishing features is that nothing is actually damaged.

@James Morris-Lent, you might try telling that to Jamison Hill and Whitney Dafoe.

Also not sure where you're getting the info that one of 'the distinguishing features is that nothing is actually damaged'. Could you provide a link for that rather odd claim?

Thanks in advance.
 
I agree with everyone else that’s mentioned it...”healing” is just a pants term and drips with woo and mystical clap trap ...

Perhaps something more specific would be appropriate? ...he’s a biochemist no?.....but I get the feeling that this is deliberately vague and ambiguous ...sigh

Pops another Mrs sowester magic bean ...just to heal my gut and cleanse my aura you understand...I will definitely need to wear a healing colour tomorrow and select my best mitochondrial healing crystal to wear to work.
 
@dannybex do you have candidates in mind? The only thing I'm aware of that might qualify is the recent brainstem findings (here).

Last I heard Ron Davis et. al were exploring, among other things, a 'metabolic trap' hypothesis to which any notion of 'damage' seems pretty tangential.

Look, here's my thinking on this, which is absolutely not the gospel:
-Clearly ME bodies are profoundly dysfunctional. So much so that quality of life can be much worse than for some other very nasty chronic diseases.
-Tests notably don't reveal damage to patients' bodily structures. Surely some individual patients have abnormal findings but there isn't anything consistent between patients.
-This combination seems 'distinctive' to me. It is my understanding that the tools/methods/frameworks we have available to us are pretty adequate for finding what could be reasonably called damage. So we should heed the findings. Certainly we are not there yet when it comes to identifying 'changes' that lead to profound symptoms, so maybe we should keep working on that. In the end, though, many things are possible because we're all in the dark.

you might try telling that to Jamison Hill and Whitney Dafoe.
I sincerely don't appreciate this.
 
Also not sure where you're getting the info that one of 'the distinguishing features is that nothing is actually damaged'. Could you provide a link for that rather odd claim?

That seems a very reasonable claim, @dannybex. The whole ME scientific community is pretty much agreed that we do not find any damaged structures in the sense that might 'heal'. Do you have a suggestion as to what might be damaged?

Looking at the diagram in detail it is a mish mash of all sorts of words that adds up to nothing as far as I can see. And inflammation and immunity was my field of work.
 
@Jonathan Edwards

We may have a higher prevalence of Liver Fibrosis, increased Total Bile Acids (=Cholestasis), NAFLD in ME/CFS Patients.(list not inclusive) .

I am trying to have Researchers investigate this.

Interestingly, despite the millions being spent in testing, a simple test such as Total Bile acids has never been performed in any of the studies to the best of my knowledge.
 
Back
Top Bottom