Loading...
 
Translate Register Log In Login with facebookLogin and Register

Vitamin D, Vitamin D Receptor and Cancer – Nov 2016

THE ROLE OF VITAMIN D AND VDR IN CARCINOGENESIS: THROUGH EPIDEMIOLOGY AND BASIC SCIENCES.

J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol. 2016 Nov 29. pii: S0960-0760(16)30337-5. doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.11.020. [Epub ahead of print]
Bandera Merchan B1, Morcillo S2, Martin-Nuñez G1, Tinahones FJ3, Macías-González M4.

See also VitaminDWiki

Vitamin D Receptor category has the following

331 items in Vitamin D Receptor category

Vitamin D tests cannot detect Vitamin D Receptor (VDR) problems
A poor VDR restricts Vitamin D from getting in the cells
It appears that 30% of the population has a poor VDR (40% of the Obese )

A poor VDR increases the risk of 55 health problems  click here for details
The risk of 44 diseases at least double with poor Vitamin D Receptor as of Oct 2019

VDR at-home test $29 - results not easily understood in 2016
There are hints that you may have inherited a poor VDR

Compensate for poor VDR by increasing one or more:

IncreasingIncreases
1) Vitamin D supplement
  Sun, Ultraviolet -B
Vitamin D in the blood
and thus in the cells
2) MagnesiumVitamin D in the blood
 AND in the cells
3) Omega-3 Vitamin D in the cells
4) Resveratrol Vitamin D Receptor
5) Intense exercise Vitamin D Receptor
6) Get prescription for VDR activator
   paricalcitol, maxacalcitol?
Vitamin D Receptor
7) Quercetin (flavonoid) Vitamin D Receptor
8) Zinc is in the VDRVitamin D Receptor
9) BoronVitamin D Receptor ?,
etc
10) Essential oils e.g. ginger, curcuminVitamin D Receptor
11) ProgesteroneVitamin D Receptor
12) Infrequent high concentration Vitamin D
Increases the concentration gradient
Vitamin D in the cells

Note: If you are not feeling enough benefit from Vitamin D, you might try increasing VDR activation. You might feel the benefit within days of adding one or more of the above

Far healthier and stronger at age 72 due to supplements Includes 6 supplements which help the VDR


In the last two decades vitamin D (VD) research has demonstrated new extraskeletal actions of this pre-hormone, suggesting a protective role of this secosteroid in the onset, progression and prognosis of several chronic noncommunicable diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus or cancer. Regarding carcinogenesis, both preclinical and epidemiological evidence available show oncoprotective actions of VD and its receptor, the VDR.

However, in late neoplastic stages the VD system (VDS) seems to be less functional, which appears to be due to an epigenetic silencing of the system. In preclinical experimental studies, VD presents oncoprotective actions through

  • modulation of inflammation,
  • cell proliferation,
  • cell differentiation,
  • angiogenesis,
  • invasive and metastatic potential,
  • apoptosis,
  • miRNA expression regulation and
  • modulation of the Hedgehog signalling pathway.

Moreover, epidemiological evidence points towards an oncoprotective role of vitamin D and VDR in colorectal cancer. This association is more controversial with breast, ovarian and prostate cancers, although with a few adverse effects. Nonetheless, we should consider other factors to determine the benefit of increased serum concentration of VD.

Much of the epidemiological evidence is still inconclusive, and we will have to wait for new, better-designed ongoing RCTs and their results to discern the real effect of vitamin D in cancer risk reduction and therapy.

The objective of this literature review is to offer an up-to-date analysis of the role of the VD and VDR, in the onset, progression and prognosis of all types of cancer. We further discuss the available literature and suggest new hypotheses and future challenges in the field of VD research.

PMID: 27913313 DOI: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2016.11.020 Publisher wants $40 for the 56 page preliminary PDF

from PDF
“Finally, let’s face the $64,000 question: is vitamin D deficiency the cause of
disease or is disease the culprit of vitamin D deficiency? The author tends to
think that, due to the inclusive rather than exclusive essence of nature, both
propositions are correct. “

See any problem with this page? Report it (FINALLY WORKS)