Science geeks/boffs et al.

[Jesstickle]

I was just thinking that
Being a bit sad (and bored) I just looked up the patent they refer to which seems to be primarily based on preparing chicken cartilage as a dietary supplement - with a note that the same technology can be applied to collagens.
Of course it is possible for the collagen to pass undigested into the intestine but I can't find any evidence that is is actually bioavailable or has any beneficial effect on the joints...

weevil, you live near me That is all!

 

[JFTDWS]

Undenatured, I ask you! What is wrong with native? There is a word that means this, why make up another one?

Vile vile vile vile vile.

 

[oxgrove]

Hi folks - my vet recommend that i use UCII on tracker for his joints i'v never heard of any type of collagen product before this and iv googled UCII reviews just to see what other people are saying about it, to be honest i found the concept of UCII difficult to get my head around, but thankfully i got my vet on a quiet monday afternoon and he kindly wrote down how it works plus a few diagrams - which i cant copy and paste but i'll write exactly what he printed on UCII to help more people understand - GET READY!! its a long one!

Biochemical changes in cartilage lead to a Loss of proteoaminoglycans (chains in cartilage) it decreased number and length
1. Change in collagen type (from healthy type II to type I + others)
2. Decrease in tensile strength of cartilage
3. Poor function (less flexible)

The changes in cartilage lead to changes in bone structure around the joint and the joint capsule.
The Collagen story:
In a healthy joint we have type II in its UNdenatured form (triple helix)
Denatured collagen is a different molecular structure
In supplements, you need to look for an UNdenatured collagen –becasue it is more effective than denatured form against arthritis

At the beginning
When the foal is developing as a fetus, it learns to recognise ‘self’ cells/tissues so the immune system doesn’t attack them
But any ‘foreign’ material entering the body will be tagged as foreign and attacked
The exception to this rule is FOOD - if a person eats an onion, your body will sample it in the gut (via Peyers patches – immune areas), it knows it is foreign material but DOESN’T attack it as it has been eaten and therefore the body accepts it as food and switches off the immune response (the exception to this is in food allergies where the tolerance breaks down but this is the exception not the rule!)

This process is known as oral tolerisation and can be used to reduce the reaction of the body to particular substances when they are eaten

1. Antigens are proteins and sit on the outside of every cell/tissue – plant or animal
2.Food particles have antigens on them which are recognised by the immune system
3. Collagen also has antigens (known as ‘epitopes’) on it
4. Collagen is in an area of the body which is normally ‘avascular’ (no blood supply)
5.This means that when the fetus was detecting all the ‘self’ tissues, it didn’t recognise collagen
JOINT DISEASE:
In joint disease, the inflammatory process leads to increased blood supply to the joint and the gathering of immune cells – these then recognise and ‘tag’ (with antibody) the collagen molecules as foreign (as they haven’t seen them before); they are then destroyed by killer T cells and this leads to destruction of the cartilage and worsening of the disease process
UCII story:
o UCII contains undenatured collagen
o It is eaten by the horse and the epitopes are recognised by the peyers patches in the gut as foreign
o However, because it was eaten, the immune system treats it like food and therefore doesn’t attack it - the immune response against undenatured collagen is switched off (T cells are deactivated) and therefore there is less destruction of cartilage in the joint
in summary:
UCII Contains undenatured collagen (shown to be the most effective form for arthritis)
Oral tolerisation principle actually means that UCII stops the immune system attacking and damaging its own cartilage and therefore helps the body
a. Reduce pain & inflammation
b. Stop cartilage erosion
c. Have potential for repairing & re-building cartilage
4. Also contains MSM and manganese
Ive got tracker on it for 8 weeks - he will be another 4 weeks on the loading dose im sceptical but kind of impressed his flexion tests have improved a lot in 8 weeks now i dont know if it is ALL UCII or UCII with mother nature (im voting the latter) but then to be fair iv never gotten this response from cosequin or synequine. will see does it last once i take him off the loading dose. - sorry for the long winded rant but iv jst copied the text from my vet!!
Tracey

 

[fburton]

Hi Oxgrove,

Thanks for taking the time to type all that in! What your vet says makes sense and, doing a bit of reading around, it seems that this is all above board. In particular, I found the following reference:

Therapeutic efficacy of undenatured type-II collagen (UC-II) in comparison to glucosamine and chondroitin in arthritic horses.

Gupta RC, Canerdy TD, Skaggs P, Stocker A, Zyrkowski G, Burke R, Wegford K, Goad JT, Rohde K, Barnett D, DeWees W, Bagchi M, Bagchi D.

J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Dec;32(6):577-84.

Toxicology Department, Murray State University, Murray/Hopkinsville, KY 42240, USA.

Abstract
The present investigation evaluated arthritic pain in horses receiving daily placebo, undenatured type II collagen (UC-II) at 320, 480, or 640 mg (providing 80, 120, and 160 mg active UC-II, respectively), and glucosamine and chondroitin (5.4 and 1.8 g, respectively, bid for the first month, and thereafter once daily) for 150 days. Horses were evaluated for overall pain, pain upon limb manipulation, physical examination, and liver and kidney functions. Evaluation of overall pain was based upon a consistent observation of all subjects during a walk and a trot in the same pattern on the same surface. Pain upon limb manipulation was conducted after the walk and trot. It consisted of placing the affected joint in severe flexion for a period of 60 sec. The limb was then placed to the ground and the animal trotted off. The response to the flexion test was then noted with the first couple of strides the animal took. Flexion test was consistent with determining clinically the degree of osteoarthritis in a joint. Horses receiving placebo showed no change in arthritic condition, while those receiving 320 or 480 or 640 mg UC-II exhibited significant reduction in arthritic pain (P < 0.05). UC-II at 480 or 640 mg dose provided equal effects, and therefore, 480 mg dose was considered optimal. With this dose, reduction in overall pain was from 5.7 +/- 0.42 (100%) to 0.7 +/- 0.42 (12%); and in pain upon limb manipulation from 2.35 +/- 0.37 (100%) to 0.52 +/- 0.18 (22%). Although glucosamine and chondroitin treated group showed significant (P < 0.05) reduction in pain compared with pretreated values, the efficacy was less compared with that observed with UC-II. In fact, UC-II at 480 or 640 mg dose was found to be more effective than glucosamine and chondroitin in arthritic horses. Clinical condition (body weight, body temperature, respiration rate, and pulse rate), and liver (bilirubin, GGT, and ALP) and kidney (BUN and creatinine) functions remained unchanged, suggesting that these supplements were well tolerated.

(My emphasis.) So there you go. I apologize for being dismissive earlier - it just shows how wrong you can be.

 

[oxgrove]

Hi there- im VERY sceptical about all these supplements to be brutally honest and would very easily dismiss a lot of what they " - i read on the advert for animal life product vetroflex states it regenerates cartilage - they jst make such outrageous claims and you sit there and think WHAT???
I had to get my vet to write it out and go through it with me step by step jst to get it straight so just copied and pasted it to make it a bit clearer the ads are very vague about what UCII does.
the only comfort i take from Flexadin UCII is that it comes from the veterinary company Vetoquinol so im half happy that at least the product will have a pretty high level of quality.
I saw the £10 money off voucher for UCII in the horse and hound but i had it bought from my vet in october only saw the voucher last week
ah well - i think i owe him the tenner for all the writing and explaining!

do you use any joint supplement or will you try the UCII stuff? would love to know what other people that are on it think of it ,

 

[ester]

thanks oxgrove that makes much more sense, so basically it is not absorbed but because of its interaction in the gut prevents the further destruction of the bodies own cartilage.

These companies really do themselves a disservice by not providing this sort of information on their websites or titles of relevant papers.

 

[oxgrove]

Hi Ester,hope it helped a bit - I dont think they can say a lot because its not a drug and they are not allowed to make claims - i think - but then again some of these companies make outrageous claims oh its confusing to say the least its a mindfield , would love to know what other people think of UCII versus Glucosamine and Chondroitin

 

[ace87]

I dont reallly understand the science involved in this product, (i do buildings not bio-whatsits!) but I did have a horse in my care (on livery) who was put on this by her vet who explained that the Collagen works because of how it re-acts in the gut and prevents further joint disease..

I have to say, the mare in question was hobbling and disunited and just horrifically uncomfortable before being prescribed this product, and 3 months on she's actually built up some muscle in her back end as her hocks/fetlocks (the joints affected by the joint disease) now actually move instead of her movement being from the stifle alone. She's 16yrs old and really wont last much longer as a riding horse but she's so much more comfortable now on the Flexadin, and is enjoying her ridden work again.

 

[hollyandivy123]

Flexadin has devils claw in it, may be the effect people are seeing is due to pain relief?

 

[oxgrove]

Hi there, UCII has no devils claw in - the original Flexadin gluc and chondroitin supplement did have but the new Flexadin UCII just has type II collagen, MSM and Manganese, which Flexadin were you on Ace?

 

[rhino]

Oxgrove, sorry but I'm the suspicious type. Do you have any links to the company behind this product? There is an awful lot of stealth advertising that goes on here

It's just a bit strange for a new poster to only post on threads regarding one product (and your name seems to have changed from Melanie to Tracey in that time ).

If not, huge apologies and your vet sounds brilliant, most of the vets I have worked with would not have had as deep a knowledge of a nutraceutical

 

[sprite1978]

Oxgrove.....What your vet says sounds plausable, but it makes the assumption that the joint damage is caused by some sort of auto immune response such as Rheumatoid arthritis. The fact is that most joint damage is caused by Osteoarthritis. A mechanical failing of the joint space cartiledge.

With this in mind, I have the following beleif. In an otherwise healthy body, there are enough of the basic "building blocks" required to repair and restore damaged tissue. This doesnt happen at a suffiecent level or speed, because the body doesnt have the ability to do so. In essence, suppliments will not work by simply loading the systemic availabilty of these "building blocks".

 

[oxgrove]

nope fraid not rhino maybe i should ask them for ajob!! Thats actually my full name Melanie Tracey, apologies i didnt sign it off properly along with probably a load of spelling mistakes in my long winded vet explanation!

to be honest the only reason im posting about UCII is because i just started using the product when it was launched first and couldnt find any info anywhere on it, no reviews of whether it was any good, or what people thought about it and i didnt know anyone using the product other than my vet who gave me that info but i was buying it him and of course as much as he's a good vet and good at explaining he was getting my hard earned cash for consultation and for product so i presume he would have been a little more biased!!
before buying the product my friend suggested the H&H forum to see if people had spoken about it,
i havent been posting on anything else because this is the first "new" product iv tried everything else iv tried other people have recommended,
hope that clears up the confusion
Melanie T

 

[rhino]

nope fraid not rhino maybe i should ask them for ajob!! Thats actually my full name Melanie Tracey, apologies i didnt sign it off properly along with probably a load of spelling mistakes in my long winded vet explanation!

Thanks for replying, and sorry to have been so suspicious I would be interested to know how Tracker gets on with the supplement over the next few months

 

[JFTDWS]

There is a big flaw in the explanation oxgrove gives - other than the fact that it would target RA not OA, as above - which is the assumption that exposing the immune system in the GIT to native TII collagen would somehow switch off the immune response to it.

When a protien is recognised as non-self - and potentially dangerous - the immune system mounts a reaction to that protein - hence recognition of (e.g.) bacterial toxins causes diarrhoea. If manipulating the immune response were that simple, there would be far fewer autoimmune conditions, allergies and so on.

As for the article you ref, fburton, I wonder if it may fall into the alarming statistical trap of claiming that this supplement is better than gluco (etc) without genuine statistical support for it - I will dig out the full paper later and have a look. (in the sense of this problem, as explained here: http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/)

 

[oxgrove]

no worries hope ol Tracker keeps eating it!
JustFindingTheDecorations Re - Hi I dont fully understand the science to be brutally honest - am i better off giving gluc/chon instead?
fully confused!

 

[fburton]

As for the article you ref, fburton, I wonder if it may fall into the alarming statistical trap of claiming that this supplement is better than gluco (etc) without genuine statistical support for it - I will dig out the full paper later and have a look. (in the sense of this problem, as explained here: http://www.badscience.net/2011/10/what-if-academics-were-as-dumb-as-quacks-with-statistics/)

I'd be very interested to hear what you discover. For now I'm keeping an open mind (though not so open my brain falls out).

 

[JFTDWS]

JustFindingTheDecorations Re - Hi I dont fully understand the science to be brutally honest - am i better off giving gluc/chon instead?
fully confused!

No definitely not - it's reasonably widely known that gluco etc don't actually work (afaik). I am just retaining some reservations about all of them

I'd be very interested to hear what you discover. For now I'm keeping an open mind (though not so open my brain falls out).

Ah the trouble with an open mind is that anyone can just walk right in and set up shop

 

[JFTDWS]

Oh rats, I just screwed up replying a long ramble about that paper... Oh well...

I have a few issues with it - not least that I can't see anywhere in the M&Ms where it states the number of horses in each cohort - we could be looking at something ridiculous like 3 horses/group! - and a general lack of clarity (e.g. publication of the outcome data isn't easy to interpret other than to take their word for it ).

Specifically, I find it concerning that they imply in both abstract and discussion that UCII is superior to gluco/chond. Only at one time point in their study was this statistically supported - 90days - before and after this time (>150d) there was no signifcant difference between UCII and g/c treatments.

They also imply that UCII was most effective at higher doses - they don't include stats to back this up, but from their highly analysed data, it would appear that after 90d there was no significant benefit to the use of higher doses of UCII. I find that suspect, since the only people benefitting from using a higher dosage are the manufacturers

Clinical outcomes, progression and efficacy were only measured by lameness scoring and flexion testing. This is both highly subjective and not indicative of the actual changes they claim are occuring in the joint itself - from lameness scoring alone, a powerful analgesic is likely to look more effective than a drug which "cures" OA (imagine a miracle drug which restores cartilage etc) over the reasonably short time course of the trial. Not that there's any reason UCII would act as an analgesic - I'm just suggesting it's not the best way to "prove" it's the best treatment.

Finally, more of an anomaly than a scientific objection, they appear to claim in the methods that they are riding and working horses who are 6/10s lame, which seems somewhat irregular...

As I say, I will retain my reservations about this one

 

[ester]

JFTD thanks for bothering to read it!

 

[JFTDWS]

JFTD thanks for bothering to read it!

I only read the M&Ms/results (and scanned the rest for cohort size ). I'm sitting in the office waiting for DNA to digest so the only alternative was to do some writing / reading on my actual work. This isn't exactly interesting, but at least it's different from my project

 

[ester]

pmsl snap I want to sequence the undigested, tho I think I have too much gunk in my sample as the primers aren't terribly specific so am trying once more before declaring its impossibility!

 

[JFTDWS]

pmsl snap I want to sequence the undigested, tho I think I have too much gunk in my sample as the primers aren't terribly specific so am trying once more before declaring its impossibility!

I'm trying to clone a gene for complementing a mutant (a pointless exercise anyway) and it just doesn't want to play ball. It's really frustrating as there's no reason for it not to work really (except that I think my plasmid's mismapped and everything's harder with a 70% GC rich genome ). Oh well, nth time lucky?

good luck with the sequencing

 

[fburton]

As I say, I will retain my reservations about this one

As I see it, there are two separate issues here. One is how trustworthy is the data and its analysis described in this paper. The other is whether the mechanism for UCII is credible. I agree one can be critical of the Gupta et al. paper on a number of point which you mention. I think the study could have been done better, though it would be true to say that of a lot of equine research. As for the mechanism aspect, they cite quite a few papers from the human literature, published in quite reputable peer-reviewed journals (e.g. PNAS, Arthritis and Rheumatism, Science) and, while I haven't checked the veracity of the citations or the cited articles, it seems to me plausible that UCII works in way at least similar to that described. On that basis, I'm not prepared to revert my opinion to assuming it is "pseudoscience" (or "nonsense") quite yet!

I have a few issues with it - not least that I can't see anywhere in the M&Ms where it states the number of horses in each cohort - we could be looking at something ridiculous like 3 horses/group!

The paper states 5-6 horses in each group in the M&Ms and 5-7 horses in the results section (Tables 1&2). Not great n numbers, but better than 3 and at least amenable to the statistics mentioned.