GliadinX Breaks Down Gluten in the Gut

[Posterboy]

9 hours ago, Jmg said:

Thanks that's interesting. Especially:

How odd that the gluten levels were lower with the lower dose!

I'd like to have something like this on a shelf so that if I'm going to be in a place I'm not sure about I have an added level of protection. Its also good that they're positioning it like this:

 

jmg,

I hope  I am not reading this wrong.

but I took the lower levels were only for those who had been cross contaminated and were not trying to eat gluten.

the higher gluten levels were for those who where trying to cheat with a high gluten load and indicates the upper response of the the peptide to eliminate all gluten from the meal.  which makes sense to me.

so if you are playing with fire so to speak (taking the glidianx) to eat gluten (like the diabetic reference) to eat high sugar loads then the enzyme has a limit but if you truly think you might be "glutened" from eating abroad as the example was used (or out of the home) then their is pretty good (high)  chance you might slip by that crumb you saw at your friends house 87% and if you double your dose maybe even higher.  Since at that dose it can't eliminate 100% of the gluten.

It sounds like this supplement would not let a celiac "cheat" as it were but has the potential for trips and meals at friends which would be wonderful for most people as the admin noted.

while this thread discusses gliadinx specifically a similar but competing enzyme therapy is marketed as gluteguard using caricain as it active ingredient an extract of papaya.

here is the sciepub article on it.

Open Original Shared Link

I hope this is helpful.

posterboy.

[Dayle]

So glad I asked,thanks for saving me money that I do not have?

[apprehensiveengineer]

I responded to this topic on Reddit, but I'll do so again here: I think it's worth pointing out that all the research links listed as from the same research group, and that only one study involved actual celiac patients. This is very weak, even if the studies are fine, especially in a disease that is not well-understood (making patient population testing extra important!). There is  also no conflict of interest/funding statement, but I'd guess that the research might have been funded by the company - otherwise I can't see why they'd do so many on this particular product.

This is not in of itself terrible (research money has to come from somewhere), but it's definitely important to realize that funded studies may not fully release all information in the publication, as per the company's request. That this product is being marketed as a "dietary supplement" as opposed to a drug is also pretty telling. Basically, to be classed as a drug by the FDA it has to work and be safe and you have to prove it via clinical studies. If it's just safe (ingredients proven to be ok) but you can't prove it does anything, you can try to sell it as a supplement. This to me is a bit like the Nima, which is essentially classed as a toy because it does not actually work well enough to be a medical device. Maybe it kind of helps, but clearly not well enough to be sold as a drug.

I can understand why this product might be exciting for those who struggle with being strict with the diet or who might be occasionally put in situations where being safe is difficult. However I find it frustrating to some extent as it seems that the celiac/gluten-free  community is so willing to take low-ball payouts so to speak. I think if celiacs as a whole HTFU'd and presented a more unified, hardline approach to the GFD, things would be better for everyone as there would be less miscommunication about what constitutes gluten-free and how to avoid CC. This is alas, a pipe dream, but I'm putting it out there anyways.

[Scott Adams]

You're making assumptions about these studies without any evidence backing up those assumptions. If there is a specific problem with the studies, please explain this, but please don't make implications about them without support. 

I am not advocating these enzymes over a gluten-free diet. Again, Celiac.com has conducted surveys in the past where ~25% of celiacs regularly cheat on their diets, so the proposal that everyone should just adopt a strict zero tolerance approach to their GFD and that will solve everything is a bit of a fantasy...it will never happen. (Although it is obviously an approach that would indeed work for everyone and nobody could argue with this.)  Humans just don't work this way. Some people want to base jump in wing suits, and some people won't get in elevators or planes...how could everyone possibly operate on this same high level approach to a GFD, and even if they could, would they all be equally happy with this lifestyle? I would not be. I like to travel to different states and countries, eat in new restaurants, try new foods, etc., and don't like having to go to expensive, high end restaurants whenever I want to do this (high-end is still no guarantee).

I know for a fact that there are celiacs taking these enzymes and eating a regular gluten-based diet, and they are being monitored by the head of University of Chicago's Center for Celiac Disease and having their blood antibody levels measured on a regular basis--and so far their antibody levels have been in the non-celiac range. Would I do or recommend this to anyone? No way. But there are some celiacs who will make this choice. My choice is to eat out when and where I want to, take steps there to get a gluten-free meal, but take the enzymes just in case. In my view it is much better than doing what I would do anyway--eat out regularly at different restaurants--and not take them. Call me a risk taker, but there apparently a lot of us out there.

There may be a vaccine soon for this, and I would be happy to try it. Many won't and are afraid of vaccines. Above all I believe that people are free to make their own personal choices about their health and diets, and to decide whether they try enzymes, take a vaccine, etc.

 

[apprehensiveengineer]

12 hours ago, admin said:

You're making assumptions about these studies without any evidence backing up those assumptions. If there is a specific problem with the studies, please explain this, but please don't make implications about them without support. 

 

 

I would clarify that I am not attacking the content of the studies or calling them fake. Science is not black and white and relies upon critical appraisal to achieve a consensus on a topic. A study can "do the science right" but ask the wrong question or not answer it in the best way possible.  If there is a weakness in the current body of work, it is important that is it pointed out for the sake of consumers (us) and so that other scientists may address these weaknesses. And I think having only one research group test a specific consumer product is a weakness regardless of how well it is done.

I am not an immunologist and do not know the field well enough to be able to make comments on the quality of the actual science itself. My concerns were elsewhere. The only assumption I made above was that they were funded - everything else is taken from their website, or a description of how relevant legal framework applies to these statements. They describe their product as a "dietary supplement" which is "not a cure or treatment for celiac disease." Nowhere else on their front page does the term celiac appear (in reference to their product) and the purpose of their product is kept very vague (but refers to eating cake and has a picture of a pretzel, insinuating that their product is not just for CC risks).

Choosing to classify as a supplement means one of three things either a) they could not provide sufficient evidence that their product is at least as effective as the GFD or b ) they didn't want to deal with the FDA regulatory process because it's expensive and time-consuming or c) they thought that by making their product a supplement they might make it more accessible (and as a result turn a much higher profit). Or perhaps all of the above. I cannot say for certain what their decision-making process was or if it is effective (if b or c, it would very well be) from this.

I am not a fan of the product because as a scientist myself, I think there are too many red flags. Some people may disagree with me or believe that it could be worth it and that is fine. It is however important for it to be out there so that people can make an informed decision for themselves and what risks they think are acceptable. The supplements industry in general is notorious for misleading consumers who don't understand the crucial difference between a drug and a supplement, and making their product seem more than it is. Most often this is mostly harmless (just causes people to waste their money), but in this case there is a potential for harm, so I feel my criticism is justified... especially given the content on their website, which isn't giving much emphasis to "just use this for CC" unless you read the very fine print.

[Jmg]

On 5/10/2017 at 4:31 AM, Posterboy said:

jmg,

I hope  I am not reading this wrong.

but I took the lower levels were only for those who had been cross contaminated and were not trying to eat gluten.

the higher gluten levels were for those who where trying to cheat with a high gluten load and indicates the upper response of the the peptide to eliminate all gluten from the meal.  which makes sense to me.

 

Hi PB, 

You've not read it wrong I've phrased it poorly at least if I'm reading it correctly! The high and low gluten levels detected in the duodenum were recorded against higher and lower doses of the AN-PEP enzyme. I take it that all subjects ate the same initial amount of gluten. So those lower dose actually marginally outperformed the higher one. That was what I found interesting

 

Quote

The study found that AN-PEP, in both high and low doses, broke down gluten in both the stomach and the first part of the small intestine, or duodenum. In the stomach, gluten levels in both the high- and low-dose groups were 85 percent lower than in the placebo group. Once the food reached the duodenum, gluten levels were reduced by 81 percent in the high dose group and 87 percent in the low dose group versus placebo.

 

[GFinDC]

The an-pep enzyme does sound like it would be helpful in some situations, like eating out.  But it wasn't tested on celiacs so we don't know if it helps them or not.  This is the same enzyme they use for making gluten reduced beers.  But in beer making the enzyme is added at the start of the fermentation and has days to work on breaking down the gluten.  It seems like the enzyme works well if given enough time.  And if the gluten isn't cooked first.

I'd still rather take it than not if I thought I was glutened though.  Something helping is better than nothing after all.

Open Original Shared Link

Gluten degradation in bread drink

The initial bread drink had a gluten content of 82.5 mg/kg, which is in the range of many cereal-based beverages [Open Original Shared Link]. As shown in Figure 1, gluten was easily degraded in this type of food. While an AN-PEP activity of 1.2 • 10-4 U only led to a small reduction of the gluten content (5 g sample, 50°C, 0 - 30 min) a tenfold increase of the activity (1.2 • 10-3 U) decreased the gluten content to the threshold after an incubation time of 10 min and below the threshold after 30 min. A further increase of the activity by a factor of 10 (1.2 • 10-2 U) caused an immediate reduction of the gluten content below 20 mg/kg and a reduction below the LOQ after 10 min. After a 10 min treatment with 1.2 • 10-2 U, gluten was reduced under the LOQ in a very broad range of temperatures between 4 and 90°C and pH values between 1.0 and 9.0. Compared to gluten degradation in wheat bran only about 1/100 of the AN-PEP activity was required for bread drink. Furthermore, bread drink could be rendered gluten-free instantly, while at least 24 h were required in wheat bran. This difference is mainly due to (1) the lower initial gluten content of bread drink compared to wheat bran and (2) the presence of largely hydrolyzed gluten in bread drink. Compared to intact gluten, the mean molecular mass of gluten fragments in bread drink is much lower, thus requiring less peptide bonds to be cleaved by the peptidase to achieve peptides consisting of less than nine amino acids, which are no longer toxic to celiac disease patients [Open Original Shared Link].

[Dayle]

13 hours ago, Jmg said:

Hi PB, 

You've not read it wrong I've phrased it poorly at least if I'm reading it correctly! The high and low gluten levels detected in the duodenum were recorded against higher and lower doses of the AN-PEP enzyme. I take it that all subjects ate the same initial amount of gluten. So those lower dose actually marginally outperformed the higher one. That was what I found interesting

 

 

Sorry, I didn't understand fully about this product