The Evolution of the Antioxidant

[Armatus]

The evolution of the Antioxidant, no it's not a new book I'm writing... it's a question I came to after pondering if the reason antioxidants exist. And so I ask about this partnership which flourishes between uniquely different species.

Antioxidants are known to be beneficial to humans, humans get them from consuming fruits and vegetables. It would seem that not only the sweetness has returned our kinds together again and again, but that the plant has looked out for us in it's own interest by keeping us healthy enough to desire her bounty.

So what do you think? Is this reasonable?

[Elfdude]

Antioxidants exist due to necessity. There's hundreds of antioxidants. The ones which come from fruits and vegetables tend to be the key ingredients in both flavinoids and colorings. The more colorful the fruit the more antioxidants. This explains for example why the tomato's antioxidant, lycopene has understandable effects on the resistance of sun damage. Plants are unique in their evolution of antioxidants because unlike animals plants can't move where the environment is more favorable, this means they've evolved a huge number of antioxidants to counter just about any environmental effect. A 2,000 year old tree has to have some pretty good antioxidants to prevent progressive errors from free radicals from building up to the point of death (especially since progressive damage is currently thought to be responsible for human aging and death in only a hundred years). Tomato plants frequently get too much sun but their adaptability to it is what makes them a popular beginning garden plant. This survivability is due in large part to their ability to resist the sun's radiation. Eating a diet high in tomatoes can reduce the radiation sensitivity of your skin by 10-20%.

Which is to say most plant's antioxidants evolved in response to being unable to flee the environment. However animals also have a need for antioxidants. Free radicals are essentially an electron missing molecule. As the body breaks and creates new bonds it does so through hydration (adding one H+ and one OH- to split the protein) or dehydration (removing the H+ and OH- as H20 from the proteins to join them) most of the time these are done in controlled situations where any potential free radicals are easily snapped up by antioxidants.

While these bonds are typically very strong not all chemicals are created equally, at the same time not all chemicals are split equally occasionally creating unbalanced molecules called free radicals which are missing electrons. As chemicals do to restore stability they steal the electron from whatever nearby molecule or structure they can. This isn't necessarily bad. Free radicals are a natural by-product of our metabolism. Without them we would die. Free radicals are also part of the armory your white blood cells use to defeat invaders. Like most of our body's products and wastes they have several roles in maintaining homeostasis. When they do it inside of a fragile environment however they may cannibalize the cells essential machinery and functions. If the environment is lacking in antioxidants such as vitamin C and vitamin E the damage can be doubly damning. Free radicals can even create new free radicals and since many chemicals/structures rely upon relatively weak hydrogen bonds free radicals can easily cause a chain reaction of damage before they are finally nullified by antioxidants.

It is little wonder that free radicals are implicated perhaps most severely in cancer. As we take in free radicals into our bodies such as many of the constituents to pollutions, our body's reaction to stress, radiation, and diseases our body is constantly loaded with more and more free radicals. These radicals have the effect of actively destroying the body around them. Worse some free radicals we get from the outside are much more powerful than those that result naturally allowing them to cause even more severe and direct damage such as carbon monoxide. Although in low dosages carbon monoxide will cause cancer too.

Basically, they are a natural part of the balancing mechanism in our body. If you were to perhaps over indulge on antioxidants you could potentially die a very non violent death as your chemical process simply slow down and stop all together. Luckily our kidneys and liver tightly regulate how much we have in our body. If you want to improve your health consume a variety of antioxidants (each has specific function and specific places of activation such as lycoprene in the skin). Yes vitamin C & E are the common 'natural' animal antioxidants but we can make use of really any antioxidant. Thiol groups, many other vitamins, enzymes (superoxide dismutase) and various perioxidases. The chemicals which give foods taste and color are also frequently also antioxidants.

P.S: if you do intend to supplement your diet do not exceed the daily recommended intake, this is especially important for fat soluble nutrients such as vitamin E which your kidneys cannot filter and you can overdose on.

[Ludicus]

Good post. Well done.
In fact, vitamins and supplements are not always completely benign, for instance, beta carotene supplementation can cause an increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoke.

[Armatus]

beta carotene supplementation can cause an increased risk of lung cancer in people who smoke.

What??

[Elfdude]

What??

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, December 1, 2004

The human body is about balance, skewing that balance any direction is not healthy. I'm rather annoyed to hear that my sister is taking 5000 IU's of vitamin D recommended to her by her doctor.

[Ludicus]

I'm rather annoyed to hear that my sister is taking 5000 IU's of vitamin D recommended to her by her doctor.

May I ask, for a brief period of time?

[Armatus]

Is it even possible to get antioxidants from dried vitamin pills?

[Elfdude]

Is it even possible to get antioxidants from dried vitamin pills?

Yes it is more than possible. Antioxidants aren't simply things you get from raw fruits and vegetables. Vitamin E and C are antioxidants and can exist in dried pills indefinitely. Plants and animals both produce (as in synthesize)antioxidants and most of the animal ones we've put into pills. It's the plant ones that we're realizing have novel uses beyond simply antioxidants. Still it's theoretically possible to put any antioxidant into a supplement. Humans have to get their vitamin C from plants because we broke our genome during evolution and can no longer synthesize it like most animals can. Some antioxidants are best cooked, others are best raw, some evaporate quickly others will never evaporate. Really the number of chemicals which are antioxidants is infinite, it's essentially any chemical that can donate an electron(s) and remain stable.

May I ask, for a brief period of time?

Her next appointment is in 2 months. I don't trust such high dosages and have been pressuring her to reduce it to half pills.

But fruits are rich in antioxidants which seem to be wasted if not specifically come about to benefit the consumers since we ensure the continuation of the next generations by spreading the seeds in our excrement or crumbs.

Did you miss my post? Antioxidants in plants protect PLANTS. The fact that animals can benefit from them is nothing more than a happy evolutionary coincidence. Plants absolutely require antioxidants and a vast variety of antioxidants because plants cant flee from pollution or radiation or disease. Antioxidants arose before multicellular organisms arose because free radical damage has been a worry for life since day one. Antioxidants probably came even earlier but there's no possible way for multicellular organisms to exist without them.

Further most plants only have a small selection of antioxidants each with their own unique uses, you're almost certain to get more variety of antioxidants by eating an animal. Hence why eating a variety of fruits and vegetables is necessary. This also prevents you from getting too much of any bad aspects of the fruits and vegetables.

So my thoughts were that the tree or plants producing sweet fruits full of the AO's have some evolutionary bond with the consumers.

This is sort of the reverse. We are evolutionaryily programmed to be able to vaguely tell what looks appetizing. Bright and vibrant colored food attracts us heavily, these foods are packed with antioxidants. Hence when we grow food today for mass use we prefer to grow food that looks as absolutely perfect and vibrant as we can. Do you notice how when you cut into something and it smells mouth watering? A lot of those smells are controlled purely through flavinoids many of which are also antioxidants. Our tastes for these fruits as responded to what we need. For example it's very difficult to get a cat or a dog to eat a citrus fruit. They have no need of the vitamin C and to them it doesn't smell delicious yet we can detect its presence in very small amounts and love its taste.

For example if we look at an apple tree. The apples have thin very vulnerable skin. However they need access to the sunlight to mature. How do you remove your bark from your fruit yet still protect it? Concentrate the antioxidants already naturally existing into your flowers and eventually your fruit.

As far as attracting animals plants do that too and that's a major factor in the success of flowering plants but it's unlikely that these trace chemicals were added specifically to increase animals eating their fruit but rather they are necessary to protect the plant itself (they are).

This of course would have to happen over a long period of time since the direct results of a mutation that produced AO's in fruit wouldn't be something that wouldn't instantly change things or would it?

Like I said AO's probably arose very early in life's history. Probably near the origins of metabolism because radicals become a major issue with metabolism if not earlier. All life needs them. Without antioxidants you will die. Without antioxidants plants will die.

So I could be all wrong and the AO's could be their for the seeds or some other more self beneficial reason rather than to keep the patron's healthy and coming back for more.

It was an interesting idea but given plants need it and all life uses them and produces them it seems unlikely also most of them probably arose much earlier in life's history.

[Ludicus]

I don't trust such high dosages and have been pressuring her to reduce it to half pills.

Don´t worry. As you should know, for instance, no significant toxic effects have been observed in adults (over 18) with retinitis pigmentosa on 15,000 IU/day. Doses greater than 25,000 IU/day are potentially toxic over the long term.
(By the way, beta-carotene , precursor of vitamin A, is not a suitable substitute for vitamin A palmitate, as it is not predictably converted into vitamin A)

[Elfdude]

Don´t worry. As you should know, for instance, no significant toxic effects have been observed in adults (over 18) with retinitis pigmentosa on 15,000 IU/day. Doses greater than 25,000 IU/day are potentially toxic over the long term.
(By the way, beta-carotene , precursor of vitamin A, is not a suitable substitute for vitamin A palmitate, as it is not predictably converted into vitamin A)

Actually dosages above 2500 IU's have been known to result in spontaneous calcification of tissue to the point where an extended long term study had to be terminated because of the high incidence of this.

[Ludicus]

Actually dosages above 2500 IU's have been known to result in spontaneous calcification of tissue to the point where an extended long term study had to be terminated because of the high incidence of this.

What study?...
------
Retinal Physician, 2008, Management of Retinitis Pigmentosa
Excerpt:

Patients who take vitamin A palmitate 15,000 IU/day should have a fasting serum vitamin A and liver function profile prior to treatment and annually thereafter. Women who are pregnant or planning to become pregnant should not take vitamin A palmitate at this dose because of the increased risk of birth defects. Postmenopausal women and men over age 49 on this treatment should monitor their bone health because of the slight (0.5% to 1%) increased risk of hip fractures among patients who take vitamin A over the long term.5,6 Patients who have had a renal transplant should not take this dose of vitamin A as they have excessive renal reabsorption of vitamin A and are more susceptible to toxicity. Patients on chronic doxycycline should not take vitamin A because the combination has been associated with increased intracranial pressure. In adults with retinitis pigmentosa, doses of vitamin A palmitate less than 15,000 IU/day have not been found to be therapeutic and doses greater than 25,000 IU/day are potentially toxic over the long term. Beta-carotene, the precursor of vitamin A, is not a suitable substitute for vitamin A palmitate in the context of this treatment, as it is not predictably converted into vitamin A. No significant toxic effects have been observed in adults with retinitis pigmentosa on 15,000 IU/day.7 (1)
Children with retinitis pigmentosa were not included in this trial; therefore, no formal recommendation can be made for patients under age 18. However, with the agreement of the parents and pediatrician, if liver function is normal and children are above the lower fifth percentile of weight for their height and gender, a trial of vitamin A palmitate 5,000 IU/day can be considered for those age 6 to 10 years; 10,000 IU/day for those age 10 to 15 years, and 15,000 IU/day for those age 15 and older

The full article :

http://www.google.pt/url?sa=t&source...pbWN3KE1Z4AEbQ
-----
(1) A particular aspect of the subject:
This study, (Berson EL, Rosner B, Sandberg MA, Hayes KC, Nicholson BW, Weigel-DiFranco C, Willett W. A randomized trial of vitamin A and vitamin E supplementation for retinitis pigmentosa. Arch Ophthalmol. 1993;111:761-772) occured between 1984 and 1991. It was a randomized, double-mask, prospective study to determine the effects of oral vit. A and E. on the course of the more common forms of RP.
Ninety-five percent (596) of adult patients completed at least 4 years of follow-up. No adverse effects of vitamin use were found in the cases studied.
----

According to,
Retina volume I, fourth edition, Sephen J. Ryan, chapter 17, ( Retinitis pigmentosa and Allied disorders) pages 474/475.
" ..the fact that similar results of such high dose supplements of vit A on RP have yet to be reproduced led ophthalmologists in many parts of the world to adopt the view that vit A may be of marginal benefit, at best, in patients with RP and that this must be weighted against the somewhat uncertain risks associated with its use.
...Although no serious problems of safety in the recommended dose were encountered in the above-mentionated study, the long-term safety of taking high-dose Vit A supplements for many decades is still uncertain. Sibuleski and al have reported no clinical symptoms or signs of liver toxicity in 146 otherwise healthy adult 18-to 54 years of age with RP who took 15,000 IU/day of vit. A. for equal or less 12 years"

[Angrychris]

grape fruits

[Armatus]

raisins?

[Adar]

The evolution of the Antioxidant, no it's not a new book I'm writing... it's a question I came to after pondering if the reason antioxidants exist. And so I ask about this partnership which flourishes between uniquely different species.

Antioxidants are known to be beneficial to humans, humans get them from consuming fruits and vegetables. It would seem that not only the sweetness has returned our kinds together again and again, but that the plant has looked out for us in it's own interest by keeping us healthy enough to desire her bounty.

So what do you think? Is this reasonable?

Antioxidants are useful to the plants too. Oxygen molecules spontaneously separate into two free atoms with an unpaired electron. So the human-plant relation is just the norman predator-prey relationship, they have something useful and we eat it.

[Armatus]

Antioxidants are useful to the plants too. Oxygen molecules spontaneously separate into two free atoms with an unpaired electron. So the human-plant relation is just the norman predator-prey relationship, they have something useful and we eat it.

But fruits are rich in antioxidants which seem to be wasted if not specifically come about to benefit the consumers since we ensure the continuation of the next generations by spreading the seeds in our excrement or crumbs. So my thoughts were that the tree or plants producing sweet fruits full of the AO's have some evolutionary bond with the consumers. This of course would have to happen over a long period of time since the direct results of a mutation that produced AO's in fruit wouldn't be something that wouldn't instantly change things or would it?

So I could be all wrong and the AO's could be their for the seeds or some other more self beneficial reason rather than to keep the patron's healthy and coming back for more.

[Adar]

But fruits are rich in antioxidants which seem to be wasted if not specifically come about to benefit the consumers since we ensure the continuation of the next generations by spreading the seeds in our excrement or crumbs. So my thoughts were that the tree or plants producing sweet fruits full of the AO's have some evolutionary bond with the consumers. This of course would have to happen over a long period of time since the direct results of a mutation that produced AO's in fruit wouldn't be something that wouldn't instantly change things or would it?

So I could be all wrong and the AO's could be their for the seeds or some other more self beneficial reason rather than to keep the patron's healthy and coming back for more.

I don't think the advantage of AO's is significant enough to increase our survivability so much that it is beneficial to the plants. The fact that fruits are nutritious and sweet is enough to make us eat them ;-).

[Armatus]

Well why does a fruit require antioxidants? I assume they protect the seeds?

Still I think it's more than reasonable to believe that evolution isn't just one sided, after all if mobile creatures didn't exist to pick the fruit and pass it along evolution for the tree/planet might be different in some way. I think that every action which produces an effect contributes to evolution.

How significant that is, well that's my question really.

[Elfdude]

Well why does a fruit require antioxidants? I assume they protect the seeds?

Antioxidants are required to fight free radicals. The solar radiation for example creates free radicals. Pollution creates free radicals. Disease creates free radicals. Stresses such as not enough nutrients also create free radicals; even basic metabolism and synthesis of biological chemicals inside of the organisms (animals and plants) produce free radicals. All life requires antioxidants. I've already said this. You can't have life without production of free radicals, you can't have life survive without antioxidants to fight those free radicals.

[Phier]

While the concept of a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is not far fetched, it requires more than just simple usefulness of their parts.

There are nutrients I can only get from meat, but nothing has evolved specifically for me to eat it. Me eating it does nothing for its own genes.

One could easily argue there is a symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers and that flowers have evolved with pollination by bees in mind. On the other hand there is no evolved symbiotic relationship between in bees and humans, we take their honey, we need them to pollinate our crops, but they don't really need us.

[Armatus]

Antioxidants are required to fight free radicals. The solar radiation for example creates free radicals. Pollution creates free radicals. Disease creates free radicals. Stresses such as not enough nutrients also create free radicals; even basic metabolism and synthesis of biological chemicals inside of the organisms (animals and plants) produce free radicals. All life requires antioxidants. I've already said this. You can't have life without production of free radicals, you can't have life survive without antioxidants to fight those free radicals.

Then explain to me why a grape has so much more AO's verses the stem on which it is attached? There seems to be a disproportionate amount between the fruit and the rest of the planet or maybe it's a different type of AO specifically found in the fruit for the specific reason of...? Protecting the seeds? Or something additional?

While the concept of a symbiotic relationship between plants and animals is not far fetched, it requires more than just simple usefulness of their parts.

There are nutrients I can only get from meat, but nothing has evolved specifically for me to eat it. Me eating it does nothing for its own genes.

One could easily argue there is a symbiotic relationship between bees and flowers and that flowers have evolved with pollination by bees in mind. On the other hand there is no evolved symbiotic relationship between in bees and humans, we take their honey, we need them to pollinate our crops, but they don't really need us.

I think in these terms all the time because it helps me come to possible solutions for things that seem beyond belief. I'm more than happy to learn the actual known facts about the evolutionary process because it will help me clarify or alter my solutions to these symbiotic speculations.

For example I was just thinking of the evolution of the humanity, I understand that concept isn't anything knew, but how interesting would it be to find out that in the future humans may not be looked upon as individual, but as a collective mass, a living blob under someone else's microscope.

Anyway back to Antioxidants.