LymeNet Europe

information and discussion about Lyme disease
Home Information Lyme news Forum  

Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Medical topics related to Lyme disease that do not fit in the section "Science", with information about the diagnosis, treatment, etc.

Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby FunkOdyssey » Tue 2 Dec 2008 22:43

(I posted this to LymeNet but I am thinking it will get a better reception here due to the *gasp* scientific references!)

Although others may work, they only enzyme that has any evidence supporting its use against biofilms is Serrapeptase. I have heard that Alan MacDonald mentioned three agents that he thought would be effective, including heparin, garlic extract, and serrapeptase. I have not seen the 2008 UNH conference DVD to verify this myself. Serrapeptase and heparin definitely make sense to me, with serrapeptase being the more accessible/practical agent to use. I don't know if there is any evidence that orally-ingested garlic extract would be effective.

Listeria monocytogenes is a notably invasive bacterium associated with life-threatening food-borne disease in humans. Several surface proteins have been shown to be essential in the adhesion of L. monocytogenes, and in the subsequent invasion of phagocytes. Because the control of the invasion of host cells by Listeria could potentially hinder its spread in the infected host, we have examined the effects of a protease treatment on the ability of L. monocytogenes to form biofilms and to invade tissues. We have chosen serratiopeptidase (SPEP), an extracellular metalloprotease produced by Serratia marcescens that is already widely used as an anti-inflammatory agent, and has been shown to modulate adhesin expression and to induce antibiotic sensitivity in other bacteria. Treatment of L. monocytogenes with sublethal concentrations of SPEP reduced their ability to form biofilms and to invade host cells.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1847988...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Microbiological testing suggested that infection persisted in only one (5.6%) of eighteen animals in the serratiopeptidase-and-antibiotic group, whereas it was present in six (37.5%) of sixteen animals in the antibiotic-only group (p = 0.001). Histological evaluation showed similar results (kappa = 0.92). CONCLUSIONS: Serratiopeptidase was effective for eradicating infection caused by biofilm-forming bacteria in this experimental animal model. The antibiofilm property of the enzyme may enhance antibiotic efficacy in the treatment of staphylococcal infections.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1675775...Pubmed_RVDocSum

Among the different mechanisms of bacterial resistance to antimicrobial agents that have been studied, biofilm formation is one of the most widespread. This mechanism is frequently the cause of failure in the treatment of prosthetic device infections, and several attempts have been made to develop molecules and protocols that are able to inhibit biofilm-embedded bacteria. We present data suggesting the possibility that proteolytic enzymes could significantly enhance the activities of antibiotics against biofilms. Antibiotic susceptibility tests on both planktonic and sessile cultures, studies on the dynamics of colonization of 10 biofilm-forming isolates, and then bioluminescence and scanning electron microscopy under seven different experimental conditions showed that serratiopeptidase greatly enhances the activity of ofloxacin on sessile cultures and can inhibit biofilm formation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8109925...Pubmed_RVDocSum


I am starting on serrapeptase (40,000u 3x daily on empty stomach) to compliment my antibiotic therapy. I am cautiously hoping this will be the magic bullet that accelerates my treatment. It is logically appealing, to imagine how months and months of abx might only eat away at the surface layer of a large borellia biofilm without additional help to penetrate it or break it apart.

Looking for input, comments.
FunkOdyssey
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2008 22:39
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby hiker53 » Wed 3 Dec 2008 3:27

I have a terrible gut. Almost any drug upsets it. Will taking serrapeptase on an empty stomach upset my stomach? I had a stomach ulcer many years ago and have constant gastritis.

Also just came off the stomach flu where I was throwing up blood. Thank God the blood was only one evening, but the flu lasted for over a week and has really knocked me down.

Hiker53
hiker53
 
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri 28 Mar 2008 22:14

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby BlueAngel » Wed 3 Dec 2008 4:34

Serrapeptase never bothered me at all. I took it 1/2 hr before meds on an empty stomach. I've never heard anyone complain that it did

Pekana remedies can help with stomach and detox problems if you can find a place that will sell them to you. If you read Riana's threads, she tells how intense detox helped her to be able to tolerate meds again. She was to the point where she couldn't take anything. Now she's doing tons without any probs.
User avatar
BlueAngel
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Wed 11 Jun 2008 5:00

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby Seibertneurolyme » Wed 3 Dec 2008 7:31

I think the dose of serapeptase listed is pretty high. Need to look at hubby's bottle of Vitalzyme which includes that enzyme. If this was me I would start with a much lower dose and work up.

I know when he tried Wobenzyme the first time before he had had any antibiotics he took the dose suggested by a chiropractor (11 capsules 3 times daily) and ended up in the ER and hospital unconscious for 15 hours with elevated protein in his CSF and encephalopathy symptoms. This was back in the old days when we sometimes just did what the doc said without researching it first.

Generally digestive enzymes are not recommended if one has active gastritis -- hubby has not been able to take them during those times without causing increased G.I. pain. He has never taken serapeptase by itself though.

Bea Seibert
Seibertneurolyme
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sat 31 May 2008 0:47

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby FunkOdyssey » Wed 3 Dec 2008 15:28

You're right, it is a high dose. Serrapeptase has only been studied in amounts up to 30mg (60,000u) daily in humans. However, the lack of any side effects even beginning to appear at that dose suggests to me that the ceiling is higher. Also, the risk of not being aggressive enough and not getting well is quite real and tangible.
FunkOdyssey
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2008 22:39
Location: Connecticut, USA

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby jenbooks » Sat 6 Dec 2008 23:15

Heck I don't know what I just did. I think I saved a draft or something and god knows where it went.

I just posted that enteric coated tablets and capsules (such as this) use phthalates and they are toxic, hormone mimics. Do a google search and you should find some recent articles/reports on the toxicity, even poisoning, depending on what phthalate-coated med you are taking and how many.
jenbooks
 
Posts: 46
Joined: Wed 30 Jul 2008 18:24

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby shazdancer » Thu 11 Dec 2008 14:34

I saw your post, FunkOdyssey, and I'm not sure that you can correlate the studies you chose (in vitro studies of serapeptase on other biofilms) with oral serapeptase working on Lyme biofilms in the human host. I think we have a long way to go to proving that, but it sounds like it should be studied.
shazdancer
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed 30 Jul 2008 4:10

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby cave76 » Thu 11 Dec 2008 15:16

[cave note: I have no idea if the information below is correct or not---- but it will lead to more questions. For all I know, the site sells pills with phthalate coatings. :)]

Enteric coating on tablets...is it safe?

Question: from Mark

I recently came across this info on the web regarding enteric coating: Could you give me your opinion and address the concerns raised. Thank you. Btw: I just received my first 2 bottles of the total balance for men.

Enteric coating

An enteric coating is a coating put on a pill or capsule so that it doesn't dissolve until it reaches the small intestine. While the coating may make a pill easier to swallow and will mask bitter-tasting medicine, enteric coatings are primarily used because the drug is likely to cause stomach irritation or because its effectiveness might be reduced by stomach acids or enzymes.

Enteric coatings work because they are selectively insoluble substances
- they won't dissolve in the acidic juices of the stomach, but they will when they reach the higher pH of the small intestine.

Most enteric coatings won't dissolve in solutions with a pH lower than 5.5. Commonly-used enteric coatings may be made from methacrylic acid copolymers, cellulose acetate (and its succinate and phthalate version) styrol maleic acid co-polymers polymethacrylic acid/acrylic acid copolymer hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose phthalate polyvinyl acetate phthalate hydroxyethyl ethyl cellulose phthalate hydroxypropyl methyl cellulose acetate succinate cellulose acetate tetrahydrophtalate acrylic resin timellitate shellac

Most enteric coatings are dissolved in organic solvents such as acetone, methanol, ethanol, isopropyl alcohol, ethyl acetate, methylene chloride, etc. and applied to the tablets or capsules. The coatings might be sprayed on or applied as a chemical vapor, or the tablets might be put in a rotating pan partially filled with the coating. The solvent evaporates, leaving the coating behind.

It is worth noting that some enteric coatings are essentially plastics, and some are phthalates. Certain phthalates have been associated with cancer and birth defects and are suspected endocrine disruptors. There is no data on whether the type and amount of chemicals used as enteric coatings could present a health risk. Such data is not likely to be forthcoming soon.

Answer: from Warren

Thank you for raising this matter Mark. It is always important to know the truth about what you are taking, particuarly if you read something negative.

Unfortunately the people who wrote the above are mixing in both truths and untruths. For example, the last sentence saying such data is not likely to be forthcoming soon is not correct. The safety issues regarding enteric coating has been known for years.

I will deal with the issues raised about enteric coating point by point.

1. Yes, it may be used to mask bitter tasting medicines, or to avoid stomach irritation. However, that is not the reason we use it. None of our tablets would create unpleasantness if they were released in stomach.

2. Yes, the effectiveness of the active ingredients may well be affected by stomach acids and enzymes...this is the reason why we use this technology.

3. Yes, enteric coating will not dissolve in the acid environment of the stomach but will do so when exposed to the higher pH levels of the upper intestine.

4. Yes, some forms of enteric coating are phthalates that are solvent based. I suppose it is possible that they may present a health hazard if a manufacturer uses a non food type solvent, such as acetone and a residue is left. I doubt however that many reputable manufacturers are using this type of solvent.

5. NO...we do not use a solvent based enteric coating on any of our products but rather a special water soluble copolymer developed by Colorcon...a world leader in enteric coating. The specific product we used in called Acryl-eze http://www.colorcon.com/pharma/mod_rel/ ... fo_new.pdf

6. This form of enteric is completely inert, and as I said no solvents are used at any stage in the manufacturing process. The enteric coating is NOT absorbed into the blood stream and as such it passes straight through the body. In other words it is 100% safe.

I am not sure where you got the info from, but unfortunately the info is somewhat misleading as they are only revealing one side of the story! I can assure you that I would not be taking 16 of our enteric coated tablets a day if there was any question about the safety of them. :)
cave76
 
Posts: 3182
Joined: Sun 12 Aug 2007 1:27

Re: Serrapeptase vs. biofilms

Postby FunkOdyssey » Thu 11 Dec 2008 16:20

I saw your post, FunkOdyssey, and I'm not sure that you can correlate the studies you chose (in vitro studies of serapeptase on other biofilms) with oral serapeptase working on Lyme biofilms in the human host. I think we have a long way to go to proving that, but it sounds like it should be studied.


One of them was in vivo, but I agree those studies only suggest that it might be effective. In the animal study, they were not dealing with Lyme and the serrapeptase was injected directly into the area of the biofilm. However, serrapeptase is well absorbed orally (it can cause a variety of systemic effects both positive and negative), so the main concern would be whether it works on Lyme biofilms specifically and whether, with oral ingestion of safe doses, you would reach an effective concentration at the privileged locations where biofilm resides.
FunkOdyssey
 
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue 2 Dec 2008 22:39
Location: Connecticut, USA


Return to Medical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 5 guests