• N&PD Moderators: Skorpio | thegreenhand

Monoamine secondary metabolism pathway (question about a quote)

Cotcha Yankinov

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
2,952
Speaking on MDMA a psychiatrist said the following taken from a news-ish article

"If there’s too much neurotransmitters for the body to handle in the way it typically metabolizes those chemicals, the body uses a secondary pathway,” one that can leave toxic metabolites that accumulate over time, said Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, Chairman of Psychiatry for the Columbia University Medical Center at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital. The danger is that these toxic metabolites have the potential to destroy brain cells in a way that’s similar to how Parkinson’s Disease works, Lieberman said.


Is he talking about "metabolism" (clearance; I assume he might be simplifying things for the public) switching from being more SERT mediated to MAO mediated? Or is there another metabolism pathway I'm just painfully unaware of?
 
The implication seems to be that the body only uses the primary pathway during metabolism under normal circumstances; this isn't the case. I think what he's referring to is that some metabolic pathways tend to saturate at high levels of monoamines, transitioning from 2nd order to 0th order. In these cases the relative proportion of secondary metabolites will increase because those tend to be much slower in rate and hence are less effected by high substrate levels. Like the MAO oxidation pathway (conversion from amine to aldehyde/acid - dopamine -> DOPAC) versus the competing beta-hydroxylation, free radical oxidation or O-methylation of dopamine. Presumably at levels where the dopamine can't be chopped up by MAO fast enough, you will probably see much higher levels of NE and O-methyldopamine as well as transient quinone metabolites.
 
So I think the author is talking in the context of DA being picked up 5HT neurons. 5HT neurons express MAO-b (which only metabolises dopamine to DOPAC) maybe for this purpose, to remove any dopamine symported into 5HT neurons. I think COMT might be expressed in some of these neurons as well as another method of terminating DA in these neurons. As sekio said, if there's too much DA in 5HT neurons, these pathways get saturated and stuff like free radical oxidation (which is probably the culprit) takes over and leads to toxicity.

For your last question, there is no replacement for SERT mediated transport into the cell as all these enzymes I have talked about are cytosolic (I think) unlike for example acetylcholinesterase which exists in the cleft.
 
Thanks for the input guys! What's the deal with MAO-B inhibitors inhibiting serotonin nerve terminal loss then, if it is these secondary pathways that seem to take over and result in the toxic metabolites?

Those DOPA metabolites of MDMA (sorry I'm horribly chemistry deficient lol) that have been shown to play a role in nerve terminal loss - can they only be metabolized by MAO-B and not be metabolized by beta-hydroxylation and such very much?

So I guess what I'm asking is, why does the psychiatrist make it seem like the secondary metabolism pathways are a big source of toxicity when MAO-B is probably the real source (depending on how you interpret the MAO-B inhibition study) Maybe he just isn't well read on specifically MDMA?
 
Thanks for the input guys! What's the deal with MAO-B inhibitors inhibiting serotonin nerve terminal loss then, if it is these secondary pathways that seem to take over and result in the toxic metabolites?

Those DOPA metabolites of MDMA (sorry I'm horribly chemistry deficient lol) that have been shown to play a role in nerve terminal loss - can they only be metabolized by MAO-B and not be metabolized by beta-hydroxylation and such very much?

So I guess what I'm asking is, why does the psychiatrist make it seem like the secondary metabolism pathways are a big source of toxicity when MAO-B is probably the real source (depending on how you interpret the MAO-B inhibition study) Maybe he just isn't well read on specifically MDMA?

Is this in the context of MDMA neurotoxicity? Could you find a ref if possible?

Are we assuming toxicity only results from the radical metabolites (a fair assumption I reckon)? Maybe someone more knowledgeable in cell biology could chime in here. If so then I don't see how MAO metabolism (which simply converts the amine functionality into an aldehyde) can contribute to neurotoxicity.
 
The snippet was from here but I got pretty much all the important stuff http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/7503500/what-ecstasy-does-to-your-body-edm

http://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/38/10203.full.pdf - MAO-B is playing an important role in MDMA induced neurotoxicity in these author's eyes, although I've seen other MAO-B inhibiton studies supporting that view as well, even an old Ricaurte study I believe.

So with uptake of dopamine and uptake of those DOPA metabolites of MDMA both probably playing a role in nerve terminal loss, and with MAO-B exerting a protective role, I'm assuming that MAO-B can metabolize both dopamine and the DOPA metabolites? I guess I'm just wondering why this psychiatrist thinks the other pathways are playing a significant role, maybe he's just drawing upon his knowledge of other disease states and hasn't examined specifically the case of MDMA?
 
that billboard acticle is so vague or misleading at times, i wouldn't take it too seriously.
that passage about metabolic pathways is one of the vague ones. the part about parkinson's is misleading and the part about "toxic metabolites accumulating" is probably both.
and muscle aches after a night out on mdma most likely due to rhabdomyolysis? come on... that's why it's mainly in the jaw and the limbs i used for dancing, right?

i thought the thing about dopamine being taken up into serotonergic neurons is pretty much disproven now.

(btw, what is a dopa metabolite of mdma? do you mean a metabolite of mdma or a metabolite of dopamine?)

Are we assuming toxicity only results from the radical metabolites (a fair assumption I reckon)?
yup. with n-acetylcysteine, ascorbic acid and other antioxidants protecting from toxicity and direct injection of mdma into the brain not causing any toxicity, i'd say it's pretty obvious that some sort of metabolite creating ros is the culprit.
but we still having found the exact substance afaik. some papers say it's a glutathione adduct, while others find no toxicity from that...
 
Sorry I'm horribly chemistry illiterate lol, these metabolites and so forth are suspected to play a role in nerve terminal loss - α-MeDA, N-Me-α-MeDA and 5-(GSH)-α-MeDA.

That study you linked is confusing, especially their conflicting results with the other study utilizing L-DOPA that found L-DOPA did increase neurotoxicity.
 
That study you linked is confusing, especially their conflicting results with the other study utilizing L-DOPA that found L-DOPA did increase neurotoxicity.

the point is, did the other study control for temperature? if animals show the same toxicity when they have elevated temperature regardless of if they got l-dopa or not — while showing no toxicity if their temperature is normal, regardless if they got l-dopa or not — then the important factor is temperature and not l-dopa.
 
Sorry for copy pasta

"When l-DOPA was given 2 h after MDMA we observed that extracellular dopamine was increased above that seen in the MDMA alone treated group for approximately 3 h and that HVA and DOPAC concentrations also increased markedly over a similar period. These changes presumably reflect increased dopamine synthesis and release. Despite this clear in vivo indication of increased dopamine release and possibly also function, no enhancement of MDMA neurotoxicity was observed 7 days later. These data are in contradiction of the report of Schmidt et al. (1991) that MDMA-induced neurotoxicity is enhanced by l-DOPA. While Schmidt and colleagues used higher doses of l-DOPA these proved impossible to administer in the current study as they proved fatal. This is probably because of the use of the Dark Agouti strain of rat in our study since we have previously found that neurotoxicity occurs in these animals after much lower doses of MDMA and p-chloroamphetamine (PCA) than are required with other strains (see Colado et al., 1995; 1997b; Murray et al., 1996). Nevertheless using the highest practical dose of l-DOPA, no potentiation of MDMA-induced toxicity was detected. We were also unable to induce neurotoxicity in rats given a sub-toxic dose of MDMA by also administering l-DOPA, as was also reported by Schmidt et al. (1991).

In order to investigate further this apparent discrepancy between our data and that of Schmidt et al. (1991) we also examined whether l-DOPA altered MDMA-induced free radical formation. The MDMA-induced increase in the dialysate concentration of 2,3-and 2,5-DHBA that has previously been reported to occur after MDMA administration (Colado et al., 1997b; 1998c) was again seen in the current study. While the concentration of 2,5-DHBA appeared to be increased by l-DOPA, this change was not statistically significant. In any event, as Halliwell et al. (1991) have pointed out, a 2,3-DHBA increase is the only reliable indicator of increased free radical formation because of enzyme-induced conversion of salicylate to 2,5-DHBA. Nevertheless we found no evidence that the MDMA-induced increase in either 2,3- or 2,5-DHBA was even modestly enhanced by l-DOPA administration. Thus one plausible explanation for the results obtained by Schmidt et al. (1991), namely that tissue damage resulting from free radicals produced by MDMA metabolism (see Colado et al., 1997b) would be further potentiated by administration of l-DOPA, a compound that through its metabolism to dopamine would also increase free radical production through auto-oxidation (see Chiueh et al., 1992; 1993), could not be supported.

What does remain a possible explanation for the discrepant findings is the degree of hyperthermia produced by addition of l-DOPA to MDMA-treated rats. As we and others have shown, sustained hyperthermia markedly enhances the neurotoxic damage produced by MDMA (Colado et al., 1998b; Broening et al., 1995) presumably because hyperthermia is conducive to enhancing free radical production (Kil et al., 1996). If l-DOPA produced a sustained hyperthermia in the strain of rats used by Schmidt et al. (1990) rather than the more transient effect we observed, then neurotoxic damage would probably be increased. However, such a mechanism does not indicate that dopamine has a core role in MDMA-induced neurodegeneration as has been proposed by others (Stone et al., 1988; Schmidt et al., 1991). In this regard it is also worth pointing out that in our current study the increase in extracellular dopamine was almost the same whether a neurotoxic dose of MDMA of 15 mg kg−1 or a non-toxic dose of 5 mg kg−1 was given."


Seems like there are some issues with replications concerning that particular species of rat... But at any rate it does seem to lessen the likeliness that dopamine uptake into serotonin nerve terminals is playing a big role in terminal loss.

But I'm still confused as to why MAO-B inhibition is so protective if that is the case. Does MAO-B break down those MeDA metabolites of MDMA then or something? Or does MAO-B alter physiology in some other way that lessens uptake of MDMA metabolites or lessens the harmfulness of those MDMA metabolites?
 
i have no idea about mao b inhibition. as far as i can tell mdma is only metabolised by cyp and (further downstream) comt. the things excreted are pretty much just mdma and conjugated hhma/hmma.

apparently hhma and hma are not neurotoxic.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-Methyldopamine said:
McCann, et al. (1991), demonstrated that the major metabolites alpha-methyldopamine (α-Me-DA) and 3-O-methyl-α-methyldopamine (3-O-Me-α-MeDA) did not produce neurotoxicity.

maybe some other metabolic pathway is taken when the those used for normal pathways are overwhelmed (i.e. when giving those huge doses they do to observe serotonergic neurotoxicity in rats)?
or it is really those glutathione- or nac-conjugates?
but then:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha-Methyldopamine said:
It was demonstrated by Miller, et al. (1997), that 5-(glutathion-S-yl)-alpha-methyldopamine and 5-(N-acetylcystein-S-yl)-alpha-methyldopamine produced similar effects to the parent compound, but did not induce neurotoxicity.
Another related compound however, 2,5-bis-(glutathion-S-yl)-alpha-methyldopamine, did in fact induce neurotoxicity
ah, finally some compound that actually seems to be toxic. now we would just need a way to measure if and to what extent this one is actually produced in the brains of humans.

actually, this would lead us to the conclusion that comt (which catalyses the conversion of hhma to hmma or hha to hma respectively) should protect from toxicity because 2,5-glutathionyl-a-me-DA shouldn't be able to be formed from hmma/hma.
interestingly, since l-dopa competes with hhma/hha for comt, we now have a new mechanism for why l-dopa could increase toxicity (which it doesn't really do) ;)
 
Top