Response
to Pangborn Letter from Dr. Devin Houston
Posted: May 6, 2002
Dr.
Pangborn;
Thank you for your input. As a result of your interpretation of
the No-Fenol description, I have slightly modified the text of
the No-Fenol description to clarify the meaning. I apologize for
any confusion it may have caused you. I will address your concerns
regarding the proposed mechanism of action of No-Fenol.
Your concerns of tyrosine oxidation by No-Fenol are groundless
for several reasons. First, I have no evidence for the presence
of a tyrosine-modifying activity in No-Fenol. My reference to
“oxidation of phenols” does not extend to amino acids such as
tyrosine. While you may classify tyrosine as a “phenol”, most
researchers classify it as a non-essential amino acid. The simple
fact that tyrosine contains the classic “phenol” structure of
a benzene ring with a hydroxyl group (as do countless other compounds)
does not necessarily imply that tyrosine is a substrate for the
enzymes found in No-Fenol.
Second, enzymes have very specific functions. The metabolic enzymes
involved in the sequential conversion of tyrosine to norepinephrine
(tyrosine monooxygenase (EC 1.14.18.1), amino acid decarboxylase,
and dopamine hydroxylase) are most likely not the enzymes involved
in modification of polyphenolic compounds. Again, you may be confusing
the fact that because tyrosine has a phenolic moiety as part of
its structure, it is naturally a substrate for those enzymes involved
in metabolizing polyphenolics. I can’t find evidence to support
this conjecture, but I can certainly respect a difference in interpretation
of existing research literature. While there is a plant-based
enzyme often called “tyrosinase” (EC 1.10.3.1) it is limited to
acting upon catechol compounds to produce benzoquinones. While
there is evidence that an isoform of these enzymes can occur in
certain fungal species, their stability properties indicate that
they would not be viable as oral supplements, and so most likely
would not be present as accompanying activities in certain fungal
enzyme blends. The only other “tyrosinase” is EC 4.1.99.2, which
catalyzes pyruvate formation from tyrosine, cysteine, and serine,
producing a phenol in the process. This enzyme is dependent upon
pyridoxal phosphate for activity, and is not found in Aspergillus
species, though it may be the tyrosinase isolated from mushrooms.
Third,
tyrosine oxidation occurs naturally in the body due to metabolic
enzymes, in fact, one study (James, WP, et al, Clin Sci Mol Med
50:525, 1976) found that 20% of tyrosine flux was due to oxidation
of tyrosine in normal human volunteers, expelled as carbon dioxide
through respiration. The term “tyrosine oxidation” should not
fill us with fear of dreadful consequences.
Fourth, the reactions catalyzed by No-Fenol occur in the gastrointestinal
tract, not within the cells of the body. This is an important
point for the lay person and you to remember. Supplemental enzymes
cannot cross into the cells of our body and initiate chemical
reactions. While there is evidence that oral enzymes may cross
into the systemic circulaton, they still cannot enter and interact
intracellularly. They perform the bulk of their work in the GI
tract. IF they did enter cells and affected metabolic processes
therein, perhaps we would have solutions to a number of disease
states, but we don’t. IF tyrosine were somehow modified by No-Fenol
or any other dietary supplement in the GI tract, the effect would
be simply to limit dietary tyrosine. As tyrosine is a non-essential
amino acid, meaning it is produced from other precursors within
the body, any dietary deficiency of tyrosine produced by a supplement
would be alleviated by simply not taking the supplement. In othe
words, it would be a reversible effect.
So,
how does No-Fenol work? Based on the enzyme blends in the product
(xylanase, hemicellulase, phytase, and glucanase), we are working
under the assumption that the benefits parents are noticing with
No-Fenol are due to increased breakdown of plant fiber and complex
carbohydrates comprising the plant cell wall. There are possibly
additional side activities from other glycosidic enzymes at work,
such as amylase and ferulic acid esterase, and we are attempting
to assess the potential role of any additional enzyme activities
in the benefits of No-Fenol.
There
is evidence in the literature that phenolic compounds may be modified
such that they cannot cross cell membranes, usually through the
addition of sugar moieties to the phenolic structure. Once these
sugar groups are enzymatically cleaved, the phenol can then be
transported within the cells, and disposed of through normal channels
of detoxification. As this hypothesis does not quite match the
current thinking behind this problem (i.e. sulfation, phenolsulfotransferase
deficiency, etc), it may well be that the medical community will
re-evaluate the underlying mechanism of phenol intolerance in
autism based on the benefits observed with use of No-Fenol. Since
No-Fenol is the first enzyme product to be positioned as supporting
the natural assimilation of phenolics, we are obviously still
studying and analyzing its function as a digestive aid. Phenolic
compounds from plant sources offer significant nutritive value
as antioxidants and anticarcinogenics, and it is hoped, as our
informal field-testing has indicated, that No-Fenol will allow
children and adults to ingest fruits and vegetables without the
negative behavioral effects often observed. After all, these kids
deserve to be able to eat strawberries, blueberries, and bananas
as much as any other child. As with all enzymes allowed by FDA
for use in the food industry, standard toxicity testing in animals
of the enzymes in No-Fenol has indicated no mutagenic, carcinogenic,
or toxic side effects even at very high dosages (see references
listed below for partial listing). In addition, No-Fenol is produced
in strict adherence to FDA’s current Good Manufacturing Practices
and meets compositional and purity requirements as defined in
the Food Chemicals Codex, which is a compendium of food ingredient
specifications developed in cooperation with the FDA.
I
hope this explanation is satisfactory, please note the links below
for more information.
Devin
Houston, Ph.D.
References:
Pedersen PB, Food Addit Contam 17: 739, 2000
Bergman A, Food Addit Contam 14:389, 1997
Pico Y, J Agric Food Chem 47:1597, 1999
Coenen TM, Food Chem Toxicol 33:859, 1995
Sandberg AS, J Nutr 118:469
Pariza MW, Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 33:173, 2001
www.enzymetechnicalassoc.org/working.htm
www.enzymetechnicalassoc.org/dietary.htm