Human Stem Cell Transplants Successfully Reversed Diabetes In Mice

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Human Stem Cell Transplants Successfully Reversed Diabetes In Mice

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday June 30, 2012 @06:09PM from the why-do-mice-get-all-the-good-treatments dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Scientists successfully reversed diabetes in mice by transplanting mice human stem cells into mice in a discovery that may lead to way to finding a cure for a disease that affects 8.3 percent of the U.S. population. ... In an experiment designed to mimic human clinical conditions, researchers were able to wean diabetic mice off of insulin four months after the rodents were transplanted with human pancreatic stem cells (abstract). [They] were able to recreate the 'feedback loop' that enabled insulin levels to automatically rise or fall based on the rodents' blood glucose levels. Additionally, researchers found that the mice were able to maintain healthy blood sugar levels even after they were fed large quantities of sugar. After several months, researchers removed the transplanted cells from the mice and found that the cells had all the markings of normal insulin-producing pancreatic cells."

92 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Science by DamienRBlack · 2012-06-30 18:24 · Score: 5, Funny

It works, bitches.
1. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 18:55 · Score: 0
  
  It works, bitches.
  Interesting. Exactly how does a "mice human stem cell" work?
2. Re:Science by jhoegl · 2012-06-30 19:07 · Score: 2
  
  I knew they were close, but this is awesome.
  Quick, give me a date and take my money!
3. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:39 · Score: 0
  
  Wake me up when they have mouse cells that work on humans. And don't cost the two arms and a leg the human would be losing to diabetus.
4. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:48 · Score: 0
  
  They transplanted human stem cells INTO mice. The communication skills of soulskill don't diminish the achievement.
5. Re:Science by jamesh · 2012-06-30 20:30 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  It works, bitches.
  Interesting. Exactly how does a "mice human stem cell" work?
  It's a typo, obviously. It should be "mousehuman" which is the half human / half mouse hybrid they do these experiments on. After the outcry over animal testing it became simpler to create a creature that nobody believes exists and experiment on that.
6. Re:Science by jamesh · 2012-06-30 21:02 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Wake me up when they have mouse cells that work on humans. And don't cost the two arms and a leg the human would be losing to diabetus.
  as soon as it becomes cheaper than the insurance costs of managing a lifetime of diabetes and its associated problems, you can be sure that the insurance companies will take care of it.
7. Re:Science by DnaK · 2012-06-30 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  mickey mouse had diabetes?
8. Re:Science by reboot246 · 2012-06-30 23:52 · Score: 1
  
  By then there will be no insurance companies. The ACA was just the first step to a single-payer system. Once we get to that system only politically-correct diseases will be treated.
9. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 02:12 · Score: 0
  
  And not a Fetal Stem Cell in sight.
10. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 02:24 · Score: 0
  
  Gazillions more more money will be spent on AIDS so men can butt fuck each other with impunity.
11. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 04:53 · Score: 0
  
  RTFA, that is an exact quote from the article. So, as much as we like to disparage the editors, this time it wasn't actually their fault.
  Unless you're insinuating that soulskill has an appointment at medical daily...
12. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 06:47 · Score: 0
  
  How do we know it's not half mouse / half human instead ?
13. Re:Science by interkin3tic · 2012-07-01 14:56 · Score: 1
  
  It's common in research to implant human stem cells into severe combined immune deficient (SCID) mice. Lacking much of an immune system, the cells won't be rejected as they would be if you implanted human tissue into a normal mouse. It's cheaper than injecting stem cells into humans and then sectioning them to see if it worked.
  
  And that, with the magic of poor editing, becomes mice human stem cells.
14. Re:Science by Traciatim · 2012-07-02 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  My god man, you're looking at the wrong end! Flip it over before HR walks in and you have to go to sexual harassment training again.
15. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 02:38 · Score: 0
  
  Fact is, diabetes is a multi billion dollar industry, and ANYTHING that threatens to make that industry obsolete won't be allowed to come to pass....a major interest in the industry will purchase the research and bury it....there'll be some bogus report about how the findings were inconclusive, and that the best way to deal with diabetes is to continue on our current regime of drugs and medical devices that too few people can afford.
16. Re:Science by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-06 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  As a type one diabetic who's lived with it since 3 months old, its not just about which is more cost efficient. as this becomes more researched, more people will gravitate to it. yeah, it'll be hella expensive, but it'll be work it.
Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 18:34 · Score: 5, Insightful

Very cool, but when considering the public health implications of diabetes research, keep in mind that this is type 1 diabetes they're describing, in which pancreatic beta cells don't produce insulin. The growing diabetic epidemic (pardon the pun) is largely (ok ok, I'm done...really) type 2, in which obesity-related factors overwhelm the body's ability to produce insulin. What the researchers are describing is unlikely to have any impact on type 2, and type 2 accounts for over 90% of diabetes in western nations.
Type 1 diabetes will be likely wiped from the planet in the next two decades -- by stem cells, monoclonal antibodies, or other therapy. There's a lot of good work going on here. Good riddance. And cheers to the researchers who make it happen. But the diabetes people inflict on themselves isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
1. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-06-30 18:54 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Type 2 can typically be cured by weight loss, so scientists tend not to focus on curing the already curable.
2. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:00 · Score: 1
  
  T2 is looking more like a problem with carb intake than fat. not just soda but bread, pasta, etc whole grain is a myth because grain of any form seems to hit the body as hard as pure glucose. one possible cause is excess glucose dumping by the liver overwhelming the bodies insulin production rate. insulin resistance may be caused by spikes in insulin production in response to carb consumption
  bloodsugar101.com contains a good set of pointers to original sources challenging many of the points made about t2
3. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by sjames · 2012-06-30 19:17 · Score: 1
  
  In other words, the buttheads blathering on about low fat this and low fat that caused a generation to pound down the carbs (since fat is a big contributor to the sense of satiety that makes people stop eating) and get T2.
4. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:25 · Score: 0
  
  I think there may be a bit of a difference between carbo-loading for a marathon and eating an entire bag of pretzels and 2L of Mountain Dew while sitting on the coach. Both lifestyle choices are low fat though.
5. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by sjames · 2012-06-30 19:34 · Score: 2
  
  Yes, but the advice wasn't given to marathon runners for whom a high carb diet before a run was suitable. It was given to people who were quite likely to sit on the couch. Had they had a bit more fat and a bit less carbs, they might have avoided T2 diabetes.
6. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:41 · Score: 1
  
  The parent post has no idea what they're talking about.
7. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by cheesybagel · 2012-06-30 20:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Not quite so simple. Some people have auto-immune diseases which decrease insulin production as they age and they have hyperglycemia even when below their weight. Why do you think there are so many drugs specifically for Type 2 patients? Some of them eventually have to take insulin just like a Type 1 diabetic would. Then there are the people with viral pancreatitis which have no genetic predisposition for the disease and get it anyway.
8. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by mattmarlowe · 2012-06-30 20:40 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Type 2 generally means that the body has developed higher levels of resistance of insulin and that the resistance has over time caused the pancreas to work so hard that not enough insulin is being produced at the time of diagnoses that body blood glucose levels are no longer kept within healthy parameters which causes the body to begin to experience accelerated aging. Type 2 patients usually also have a pancreas that is no longer capable of producing close to the normal amount insulin (the system has essentially given up and can't rebuild). So, two problems that feed on each other in a negative feedback loop...and only one is fixed by lowering weight.
  In lucky cases, where diabetes is caught early and the pancreas has not yet been irreversibly damaged...reducing weight on its own cause a resulting reduction in insulin resistance and effectively 'cure' type 2 diabetes. Unfortunately in most cases, and especially because diabetes is diagnosed in the USA via blood fasting glucose levels, those that are diagnoesed with t2 diabetes already have incurable damage to the pancreas. There is currently no known way to cure this...unless science/medicine can find a way to fix insulin production levels of the pancreas without constant stimulation from oral meds/etc (metformin is the most commonly prescribed). A better form of diagnoses is regular hba1c tests which may detect diabetes before the irreversible damage to the pancreas has happened. Also, not all increases to insulin resistance are a result of weight,....drinking excessive soda which has carmel flavoring which increases insulin resistance, not getting enough exercise on its own mean the body doesn't get lowered insulin resistance, and other things that might be associated with those that are overweight have a huge role that are completely seperate from the weight itself.
9. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by blackest_k · 2012-06-30 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  I get the impression Metformin is more of a block slowing up sugar uptake which reduces the amount of insulin needed to cope with the sugars and carbs.
  I take a more interesting drug which stimulates a hormone which makes my body produce more insulin when it is needed. (byetta) I've been on a new version for the last few months which is a time release version (may still not be available in the USA yet) this is a once a week injection as opposed to twice a day and also doesn't cause any nausea. I think the nausea tends to be associated with rapid adjustment of blood sugar levels and spikes.
  The weekly injection seems to control the blood sugar much closer to the ideal levels and also both forms help protect the insulin producing cells keeping them from dying off. Metformin doesn't stop this so a type 2 diabetic eventually becomes a type 1 as insulin is no longer produced naturally and insulin injections become necessary.
  Insulin injections seem to be largely guess work trying to inject an appropriate amount of insulin and can be easy to get wrong, insulin injections also tend to be associated with weight gain probably since more sugar is usable by the body. I've not had any personal use of Insulin injections so I am just repeating hearsay.
  With byetta and byduron, the main side effect seems to be belching and farting my conjecture is that since the drug causes a slowing of the digestive system gut bacteria get to work on your food producing gas as a side effect. To be honest this is a result of over eating and if your sensible with what you eat it doesn't happen. It kind of feels like the effect you get after drinking 2 litres of fizzy water. Your stomach balloons up and the slightest movement will cause you to belch Initially I had intense stomach pain a couple of days after starting the weekly injection. This was due to over eating. I soon adjusted my food intake and havent had another episode. Now I have good sugar levels and am losing weight steadily.
  Ideally I would be better off 50 pounds lighter but I have made slow but steady progress just by eating less, I am rarely all that hungry.
  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/health/bydureon-a-diabetes-drug-from-amylin-wins-fda-approval.html
  just done a little googling and bydureon is fda approved since January that link sounds a little scary but so far I seem to be fine. An increased risk is only that an increased risk and is not a certainty.
  I should have died 3 years ago but for the treatments that now exist to treat heart attacks so it is all bonus to me. I have pretty good health these days all things considered but would I be posting this today if I was an American?
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
10. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Larryish · 2012-06-30 23:08 · Score: 1
  
  For your type 2, lay off the aspartame/Equal/Nutrasweet.
  Drinking powdered antifreeze is not conducive to good health.
11. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 00:23 · Score: 0
  
  Actually there's some pretty interesting recent work going on that has possible therapeutic implications for Type II, e.g., http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10777.html.
12. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Phrogman · 2012-07-01 01:17 · Score: 2
  
  Well I have T2 diabetes, and I developed it while I was in the army, running 5mi a day and out on exercise 6mo or so out of the year. It can be genetic as well. I gained weight when I got out and have lost 50+ lbs so far, with another 30 or so to go.
  I do think diet is the main reason people are becoming diabetic, but I think its most likely its due to the way cheaper foods are manufactured and consumed. I have *never* been much of a junk food eater ever in my life. I don't drink either. I was eating a rather carb heavy diet and have worked to change that of course.
  
  --
  "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
13. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 02:15 · Score: 0
  
  whole grain is a myth because grain of any form seems to hit the body as hard as pure glucose.
  Simply not true. There is a massive difference between whole grain and highly processed grain; whole grain or not. The confusion comes from the way various "whole grains" are processed and used and yet still labeled "whole grain." The flaw isn't in proper use of quality whole grains but rather one of marketing. This combined with extreme food ignorance and general stupidity (yes, massive numbers of people go out of their way to "cheat" and remain ignorant - yes, seriously).
  Beyond that though, many people are just dumb. Very dumb. Many people believe that if they can't have a gallon of sugar in a soda, five gallons of "diet" is okay. This is also true with things like breads and pasta, whereby rather than reduced consumption of a lightly processed, whole wheat product (likely not a difference for pasta because of the processing- unless its a high quality, hand made pasta), they double their consumption simply because they believe its "healthy" for being "whole grain." Worse yet, many "whole grain" products are so heavily processed, all benefits have been reduced; which is where your "lie" comes into play.
  The body's ability to produce glucose from carbs is directly related to how heavily processed the carb source. And that's the whole point of whole grain products in the first place. If the product does not look like whole grain, its likely been so heavily processed there is some but little difference. The point of a whole grain is that there is an extra cellular membrain around the carb which must be broken down first before it can be converted to glucose by the body. The human body typically does this rather poorly and takes a much longer time to extract the carbs from the food. The problem is, many foods are heavily processed which in turn breaks down the membrain, which as you pointed out, allows the body to easily access the carb and instantly break it down into glucose, just like any other carb. The problem isn't, "whole grain", and there absolutely is a masive difference. There is endless science which supports this. Sorry, but the only lie is the material you quote.
  The real problem isn't that, "whole grain" is a lie, its that there is no standard such that it has no real meaning. That, however, does NOT mean all whole grain products are a lie. Saying otherwise is a lie. Its a subtle yet extreme significant distinction.
  If you purchase quality, low processed "whole grain" products, your body will see a massive difference in gluclose conversion. As such, "whole grain" is not lie. Just buy better foods, or better yet, make your own. And as always, moderation is extremely important.
  As a rule of thumb, if you are a T2 diabetic and not losing weight from your normal dietary consumption, you are not eating properly. Made even worse is the fact most doctors are completely clueless what a healthy diabetic diet actually looks like. Literally, their ignorance is extreme when it comes to nutrition in general and even more so when it comes to dietary requirements for diabetics.
14. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by gestalt_n_pepper · 2012-07-01 02:20 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Agreed. The "diet can cure diabetes" meme is so much popsci crap. Blood sugar in type 2s can be managed with diet, to some degree, by some people. There is no "cure." Moreover, the stem cell treatment that may work for type 1 diabetics probably won't work for type 2 diabetics. Type 2 diabetics often have insulin. Their bodies just can't use the insulin that's there. Adding more doesn't necessarily help.
  Sorry. Having lived with a type 2 diabetic for the last decade makes me touchy about the topic.
  
  --
  Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
15. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 02:46 · Score: 0
  
  There are statistically a handful of skinny type 2 diabetics.
  It is referred to by many doctors as 'optional diabetes' for precisely that reason. Sugars can be controlled with weight loss in almost all.
  If your partner is one of the truly skinny ones, then that sucks. But otherwise, (s)he can lose weight and almost certainly treat the disease. It won't cure it - it'll come back with the weight. But the complications (the real problem with diabetes) can be mitigated and even stopped completely.
16. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Snaller · 2012-07-01 03:29 · Score: 0
  
  People don't inflect diabetes on themselves. A greedy corrupt society does.
  
  --
  If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
17. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 04:52 · Score: 0
  
  whole grain is a myth because grain of any form seems to hit the body as hard as pure glucose.
  Simply not true. There is a massive difference between whole grain and highly processed grain; whole grain or not. The confusion comes from the way various "whole grains" are processed and used and yet still labeled "whole grain." The flaw isn't in proper use of quality whole grains but rather one of marketing. This combined with extreme food ignorance and general stupidity (yes, massive numbers of people go out of their way to "cheat" and remain ignorant - yes, seriously).
  trust in your bg meter. limiting myself to 25-30 carbs per meal, I find that 1 serving of organic "quality"oats (rolled or pin) boost me 50-80 mg/dl if my fbg is 100, at best oatmeal puts me into the nerve damage zone (>140mg/dl). adding 10 carbs of blueberries, and I'm up over 200. beans, hummus, artisan whole grain breads all do the same thing. 3 chips ahoy (25 carbs) puts me up about the same amount. to me, any diet/food the puts me up over 130 at the 1 hr mark is on the do-no-eat list. the only thing fiber seems to do is keep my bg up. barley, the carb you eat when you need energy tomorrow, 20-30 carbs sized serving keeps me above 140 for 4 hours. that is a horrible result tried it 3 times, same results every time so no barley for me. rice (brown) spikes me faster than sugar.
  many people in my diabetes support group report the same result. and this self test is cool http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2011/07/healthy-whole-grains-just-as-healthy-as.html needs to be expanded on to truly validate the results.
  so, from my and community based experience, whole grain and fiber is a crock of shit that is hurting many diabetics. if I had followed my endo's and nutro's advice, I would be eating more grains but I'd have an a1c of 8 (now 5.8) passing out 2x/day from hypos from glyburide instead of keeping my bg's between 90-140 with slow changes in bg level. I can live without grains and beans thank you very much. the only way you can tell how well you can process carbs is with a bg meter. use it!
18. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Jethro · 2012-07-01 05:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  This is, sadly, true.
  I have never been obese, but I did abuse my body with sugary treats which is likely what lead to me having type 2 diabetes. I tried meds and frankly they just made things worse (the closest I came to obese was directly because of diabetes meds). So I tried diet and exercise. And it works for me. First, my glucose level NEVER hits 500 anymore, and if I go run a few miles every day and don't eat a hell of a lot of carbs, it stays at very normal levels. As a side-effect I'm also in the best physical shape I've been in my entire life.
  But that's not a cure, that's treatment. If I ate a kit kat right this minute, my glucose level would spike to ~180 and stay there for hours. I can't ever eat a big bowl of pasta, or make an awesome grilled cheese sandwich (well I can make it, but I can't eat it).
  Doctors tell me (once they're stopped being shocked that my a1c level is well below 7) that yeah this treatment is working now, but statistically it gets a LOT harder to manage using diet and exercise as you age. And realistically, I won't be able to maintain this level of physical activity forever, so SOMEONE CURE THIS DAMN THING ALREADY. By now I have the discipline to get a lot of exercise and not eat a ton of junk food, but hell, it's 90 degrees today, I'd love to pick up a fruit smoothie on the way back from the park.
  
  --
  
  In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
19. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by citizenr · 2012-07-01 06:22 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. The "diet can cure diabetes" meme is so much popsci crap
  Sorry. Having lived with a type 2 diabetic for the last decade makes me touchy about the topic.
  Soo, are you fat? This is what parent was suggesting.
  
  --
  Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
20. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 06:49 · Score: 0
  
  Ballsy lil fuck, aren't you?
21. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Infernal+Device · 2012-07-01 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  Type 2 can typically be cured by weight loss, so scientists tend not to focus on curing the already curable.
  Really? I guess at 6'5 and 195 lbs, I could stand to lose some weight to cure my Type II diabetes.
  
  --
  "My God...it's full of trolls!"
22. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-07-01 10:35 · Score: 1
  
  Note the word "typically" in there? Believe it or not, but underweight (or even healthy-weight) type-2 sufferers are VERY rare. You just happen to be one of them.
23. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by techno-vampire · 2012-07-01 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  When I was first diagnosed with Type II, I was about 30 pounds overweight by my own standards. Then, I was laid off when my company outsourced my job and closed the office I worked in. Before I could find new work, I'd run through all of my savings and barely had enough money to keep myself fed. By the time I got things under control, I'd lost almost sixy pounds and was decidedly underweight. However, this had absolutely no effect on my diabetes; I had two major low blood sugar episodes, and came close on several other occasions. My weight is now roughly where I'd like it, but my condition has progressed to the point that I'm now on insulin, which I wasn't when my weight was at its lowest.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
24. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 11:30 · Score: 0
  
  Sigh. Conventional wisdom masquerading as scientific fact.
  Get a *good* book on how the human metabolism works and you'll be enlightened. I recommend "Protien Power" by Eades.
  Type II diabetes can be cured by diet--not simply "dieting". Eating what our genes evolved to eat works flawlessly to let our bodies do what they're really good at: healing, and being optimal.
  Peruse the forums at marksdailyapple.com and read how many *former* diabetics cured their type II diabetes by ditching the non-natural agricultural foods that we're inundated with today.
25. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by tirerim · 2012-07-01 15:48 · Score: 1
  
  You're a little off (as is TFA): in type 1 diabetes, the beta cells are actually killed off by the immune system. That also means that transplanting in new beta cells is only half of the solution, even if they're genetically identical to the person's original beta cells, because you also need to stop the immune system from attacking the new cells. In TFA, the mice had suppressed immune systems, but current immunosuppression drugs are pretty nasty, and cause a lot of other problems, worse than the original disease in all but the most severe cases.
26. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 16:11 · Score: 0
  
  Nonsense. Where I work, we have a number of thin people who are diabetic, and my wife fits that criteria as well.
  Yes, there is a correlation between obesity and diabetes, but it DNE causation, at least not in a 1::1 fashion.
27. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by DarwinSurvivor · 2012-07-01 21:07 · Score: 1
  
  Type 1 or Type 2?
28. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  I have to ask, are you doing an Atkins or South Beach-type diet?
  I've lost 40 lbs since January by doing Atkins. I've told most people that ask that the weight-loss is just a side-benefit. My father is borderline diabetic, and Atkin's book has convinced me that the blood sugar spikes most Americans experience are usually what trigger diabetes. I assume that keeping my blood sugar steady, I can dramatically lower my risk.
29. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by LionMage · 2012-07-02 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  I get the impression Metformin is more of a block slowing up sugar uptake which reduces the amount of insulin needed to cope with the sugars and carbs.
  That's only one of the things that metformin does. Metformin primarily suppresses gluconeogenesis in the liver, and secondarily increases insulin sensitivity. Far down the list is decreased absorption of glucose in the GI tract.
30. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by LionMage · 2012-07-02 05:37 · Score: 1
  
  And I would be one of those skinny type 2 diabetics. Rail thin, never got above 200 pounds (just under 91 kg) at a height of 6'2" (just over 1.8 m), and am now comfortably around 160 pounds. I'm currently taking metformin and insulin; I've tried actos, but it just didn't help that much (especially considering bladder cancer is a potential side effect), and I discontinued it after starting the insulin.
  I've had nurses look at me and innocently say, "Well, you don't look diabetic!" Which is code for, "You don't look fat!"
  I struggle to keep my sugar levels in control, even with moderate exercise and diet. I spill ketones at the drop of a hat. (My urine smelling like paint thinner was one of the first clues there was a problem, along with neuropathy.)
  I still get neuropathy and other annoying symptoms. So far, no vision changes.
  This is a matter of genetics. Almost everyone on my father's side of the family has diabetes; most of the blame can be placed squarely on the family tree not being an acyclic graph.
31. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by techno-vampire · 2012-07-02 05:58 · Score: 1
  
  No. Except for watching my carbs, I'm not on any type of diet, fad or otherwise.
  
  --
  Good, inexpensive web hosting
32. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by blackest_k · 2012-07-02 07:37 · Score: 1
  
  Thank you, that was interesting to read about.
  
  --
  Blarney Quality Restaurant, Plants
33. Re:Type 1 vs type 2 diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-06 03:57 · Score: 0
  
  Very cool, but when considering the public health implications of diabetes research, keep in mind that this is type 1 diabetes they're describing, in which pancreatic beta cells don't produce insulin. The growing diabetic epidemic (pardon the pun) is largely (ok ok, I'm done...really) type 2, in which obesity-related factors overwhelm the body's ability to produce insulin. What the researchers are describing is unlikely to have any impact on type 2, and type 2 accounts for over 90% of diabetes in western nations.
  Type 1 diabetes will be likely wiped from the planet in the next two decades -- by stem cells, monoclonal antibodies, or other therapy. There's a lot of good work going on here. Good riddance. And cheers to the researchers who make it happen. But the diabetes people inflict on themselves isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
  I'm a type II diabetic.
  I'm six feet tall and weigh 152 pounds.
  I've never been heavy.
  I don't get the joke.
Hopefully the caveats can be worked out... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-30 18:39 · Score: 5, Interesting

TFA has a couple of caveats worth noting(aside from the usual "'works in mice means' maybe a decade out for you, sickie"):

The research was on Type I diabetes, aimed at restoring insulin production, not Type II and reversing insulin resistance.

Also: "The studies were performed in diabetic mice that lacked a properly functioning immune system that would otherwise have rejected the cells. We now need to identify a suitable way of protecting the cells from immune attack so that the transplant can ultimately be performed in the absence of any immunosuppression". That could prove to be a big one, given the relationship between the Type I and patient's immune system destroying their own pancreatic cells, for reasons somewhat murky. If the patient's own immune system is already killing their own cells, I don't envy the research team that has to keep a transplanted cell population alive without cratering the immune system so hard that something else kills the patient...
1. Re:Hopefully the caveats can be worked out... by Bitsy+Boffin · 2012-06-30 23:58 · Score: 2
  
  Living Cell Technology is basically doing this in a way with the porcine implantations, the piggy cells are encapsulated in a permeable coating that allows them to function but disguises them to the human body.
  
  --
  NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
2. Re:Hopefully the caveats can be worked out... by blind+biker · 2012-07-01 00:08 · Score: 1
  
  All that is true and accurate. However, Type I diabetes has typically a much more devastating outcome.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
3. Re:Hopefully the caveats can be worked out... by RivenAleem · 2012-07-02 22:18 · Score: 1
  
  Well the mice are likely genetically altered to attack their own pancreas to simulate Type 1 diabetes, and they were being treated with human (not mouse) stem cells.
  A human with not an immune system attacked, but merely faulty pancreas, taking stem cell treatment (using stem cells created from their own skin cells) will not likely suffer rejection.
  At least, that's what I'd hope to be the case.
Enough with the testing. by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-06-30 18:45 · Score: 1

> Human Stem Cell Transplants Successfully Reversed Diabetes In Mice
BRING IT, BITCH!

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Cool, but... by charlener0 · 2012-06-30 18:49 · Score: 1

It's cool, but I suspect a large proportion of those who have diabetes is due to lifestyle choices - obesity, in particular, increases your risk of adult-onset diabetes. Let's see more research in areas that are less profitable but more "equitable" in benefits to folks worldwide.
1. Re:Cool, but... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-30 19:06 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This research is on an animal model of Type I diabetes, which is generally not associated with 'lifestyle' causes(environmental causes are under some suspicion; but nothing like the causal clarity of Type II exists). By sheer verbal inprecision, 'diabetes' covers both types; but this research doesn't.
  
  It's also worth noting that, while the stubborn spectre of 'free will' hangs around to cloud the issue, 'lifestyle' diseases have a nasty habit of cropping up under their preferred economic and social conditions almost as reliably, at a population level, as their biological cousins. In the case of obesity, the wealthy bits of the developed world led the charge; but it turns out that you can develop troublingly high levels on a surprisingly low GDP per capita. Diabetes research isn't exactly in the 'altruistic research on neglected-but-horrid tropical diseases of poor people' category; but it's not exactly in the 'hair loss and limp-dick-itis' camp either...
2. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:07 · Score: 0
  
  And aids/HIV infection is often the result of lifestyle choices.
3. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  Like taking it up the ass!
4. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:17 · Score: 0
  
  The problem there is how do you know who did and didn't get it via lifestyle and how would you develop a cure that only helps people that didn't make bad decisions. On top of that there's the consideration for the fact that they're still humans.
  Triage in this respect never works out well, you end up having to dehumanize the people you're leaving out otherwise people tend to get pissy about it.
5. Re:Cool, but... by Penguinisto · 2012-06-30 20:01 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  One problem... well, two actually:
  1) Once you start imposing your morality on what gets researched and what does not, you become no better than those who base their research on profit motive.
  2) Why should those who got Type 2 Diabetes w/o being fat have to suffer? Because you say so?
  
  --
  Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
6. Re:Cool, but... by dbIII · 2012-06-30 21:02 · Score: 1
  
  I know two diabetics that were quite young and thin when diagnosed. One became morbidly obese later (apparently it's hard to stay thin as a diabetic), the other has never been overweight in her life, but has still lost toes due to diabeties. That may be anecdotes but it only takes one of those to overturn a very stupid blanket example.
7. Re:Cool, but... by Antique+Geekmeister · 2012-07-01 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  I'm afraid it's worse than this. I spent a long time discussing this last week with a colleague who'd been diagnosed last year, and who's lost 30 pounds and gotten off medication. Early Type 2 diabetes can cause elevated insulin levels, which triggers hunger, which gets you to eat more, which puts on weight, which reduces your willingness to exercise and aggravates the diabetes and raises insulin levels (beause exercise makes insulin more effective), and this colleague suffered from a realy positive feedback loop they hadn't even noticed. A quick Wikipedia search shows that it's not a universally accepted model, but neither is the idea that obesity causes diabetes: to quote an excellent rule of statistics, "correlation is not causation".
  Soome people with Type 2 diabets are quite touchy about ithe obesity correlation: we had to have a quiet chat about people who'd heard they were diabetic and asked if they should be eating certain things. Given the slices of party cake the colleague had been eating, the concern was understandable, but construed as being "food police" and very unwelcome indeed.
8. Re:Cool, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  This research is on an animal model of Type I diabetes, which is generally not associated with 'lifestyle' causes
  There is no 'lifestyle' cause of Type I diabetes. Eating too much or not getting enough exercise does not cause it and it is not rarer in any part of the world than it is in the US or any other country with a rich diet. It is the result of an immune system that is genetically predisposed to producing t-cells that kill off the beta cells in the pancreas that produce amylin and insulin. It used to be called Juvenile Diabetes because it is more common for it to express itself before adulthood, quite often in the first few years of life, before 'lifestyle' causes would really have time to do the damage necessary for them to be held responsible for the disease.
9. Re:Cool, but... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-07-01 11:37 · Score: 1
  
  They are very much edge cases; but there is some speculation that(as with other messy immunological conditions) certain environmental causes may be capable of giving the immune system of individuals predisposed to vulnerability a nudge in the direction of attacking pancreatic cells. There is also at least one pest-control agent in moderately common use that is a targeted killer of pancreatic cells. I don't know whether chemically-induced destruction counts as Type I diabetes, though...
  
  They aren't 'lifestyle' in the morally satisfactory "stop eating twinkies" sense of the word; but the function and dysfunction of the immune system can definitely have an environmental component, as well as a genetic one. Though, as you say, Type I diabetes is generally quite early onset, has a much weaker and murkier relationship than Type II to any obvious environmental factors, and certainly doesn't have the 'intermediate zone' of partial Insulin resistance that can be reversed by diet that Type II frequently does. Even if it isn't clear exactly why some are hit and others aren't, once the immune system starts terminating pancreatic cells, any further intervention is firmly in the medical camp, and in the research stages for anything aside from insulin supplementation.
New Discovery That May... by virb67 · 2012-06-30 18:55 · Score: 0

So sick of this headline science shit. "New Discovery That May Cure Cancer". "New Discovery That May Cure Parkinson's". "New Discovery That May Cure Alzheimers". Blah blah fucking blah. Come back when you actually do something.
1. Re:New Discovery That May... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:04 · Score: 0
  
  yeah, science works like a magic wand, "I found THE cure for cancer", like there is only one kind of cancer without any complication.
  dream on baby.
  they are pushing the envelope every day, new kind of cancer that would been 100% deadly becomes survivable and then cureable - but you wont see a doctor snap his fingers and heal everybody from everything.
2. Re:New Discovery That May... by dbIII · 2012-06-30 21:05 · Score: 1
  
  Did you notice the HPV vaccine announcement if nothing else? Some of these things really do cure cancer.
  Come back when there's something that will fix every computer problem :)
"Mice human stem cells" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:08 · Score: 0

Which mice-human cross-breed are these stem cells from?!
1. Re:"Mice human stem cells" by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2012-06-30 19:19 · Score: 1
  
  Novel Immunodeficient Mouse/Human. Their rat colleagues get most of the press, unfairly.
Good step, but does it solve the other problem by Mashiki · 2012-06-30 19:25 · Score: 2

That problem of course is, does it stop the body from attacking the pancreas again? That's really the big problem, same reason why islet transplants while successful have a 70% failure rate after 10 years. The body continues to attack, and in rare cases will destroy implanted islets within a year.

--
Om, nomnomnom...
1. Re:Good step, but does it solve the other problem by jamesh · 2012-06-30 21:10 · Score: 1
  
  That problem of course is, does it stop the body from attacking the pancreas again? That's really the big problem, same reason why islet transplants while successful have a 70% failure rate after 10 years. The body continues to attack, and in rare cases will destroy implanted islets within a year.
  which is great for the medical professionals... "all done. just pay the $100000 on your way out and we'll see you again in 12 months".
  Seriously though, even a 70% failure rate after 10 years is pretty good unless the treatment is not repeatable. Managing diabetes isn't cheap.
2. Re:Good step, but does it solve the other problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 01:31 · Score: 0
  
  I keep an eye on this stuff: I design medical research electronics.
  Beta cell transplants have been tested successfully in research dozens if not hundreds of times in the last 5 decades. It's never worked well, and there will never be enough donor tissue with current organ transplant practices, so the research in the original article is fundamentally pointless. Even if it worked well, it could be held up for decades in gathering more safety information before getting past the FDA, which is amazingly slow to allow alternative treatments that imperil cash cows of pharmaceutical giants. There were signs that fetal stem cell cell transplants did *not* trigger immune responses, which was incredibly exciting, but that line of research has been successfully shut down by the right wing anti-abortion lobbyists.
  Dr. Faustmann at Mass. General Hospital is already 3 steps ahead of this, and collecting funds for her second round of human trials.
  http://www.faustmanlab.org/
  The tuberculosis vaccine has been used successfully in lab animals to treat the immune problem that destroys insulin producing cells in most Type 1 (insulin dependent) diabetics. It allaws adult stem cells in the spleen to transform, successfully and harmlessly in lab animals, to insulin producing cells. and cure the diabetes. The treatment is non-surgical and requires no donor tissue, so there's no expensive or dangerous risk of transplant.
  The medication used is a vaccine, BCG, already used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide, so it's not somehting that the insulin manufacturing companies (namely Eli Lilly) can get the FDA to to stonewall or demand "more long term studies". The reason it wasn't noticed before is that it requires small, daily doses of the vaccine for roughly 30 days, and very tight blood sugar control during treatment. BCG is normally given in one large dose as a vaccine.
  Note also that this is *big money*. An otherwise healthy Type 1 diabetic can last decades (like me!!!), and needs a lot. Insulin at roughly $3/day or $1000/year (which was cheaper with animal harvested insulins, but the less effective and more dangerous "human insulin" has taken over the market and has a whole new set of patents on it), insulin pumps ($3000 capital cost, amortize it over 3 years, $1000/year, believe me as a diabetic they're worth it!!!), the pump supplies (new infusion set and catheter every few days, call it $1/day or $400/year), and the motherload of pharmaceutical profit, glucose test strips (which cost about $1/strip, Type 1's really need to test at every meal and bedtime and a few are inevitably wasted, call it $5/day or $1800/year),
  That's roughlly $4000/year, *just in supplies*. Add in doctor's visits, kidney problems from diabetic nephropathy requiring medication, retina problems requiring laser treatment, foot ulcers or special clothing for diabetic neuropathy, and it's a nightmare in medical costs. Insurance companies *hate* us. It's possible to treat much more cheaply with syringes, and urine tests or only a few glucose tests weekly, but it shortens the diabetic life span by decades.
3. Re:Good step, but does it solve the other problem by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 02:03 · Score: 1
  
  The immunosuppressants normally given for this kind of transplant are themselves quite dangerous: they make the patient far more vulnerable to infection and certain types of cancer, and they tend to interfere with insulin, so transplant has never been popular. Look up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmonton_protocol for a bit more detail.
  This is why the fetal cell transplants were so exciting: they did not trigger the auto-immune problems adult transplants did, and they could be cultured to provide a large set of transplant material for many diabetics from a very small amount of sampled tissue. That work, unfortunately, got shitcanned in the US by the anti-abortion lobby, and I've seen no significant publications about it in over a decade.
Science is a cheap imitation of life. by JudasPreist · 2012-06-30 19:47 · Score: 1, Flamebait

Live in a Democracy and you'll learn what life is. Thanks to a still liberal media we hear snippets of shit like this, but in a fortnight everything the media reports will be "mice cured of diabetes become zombies" or more realistically "lab mice cured of diabetes die painfully due to FDA-banned stem-cell treatment, Government bans Stem-cell testing on mice" Let's face it, there's WAY too many POOR politicians that need drug company money to let something like this actually gain a foothold in the market. There's way to damn many companies making money off the diabetics to let a simple injection cure them. No, the Government (CORPORATIONS) would rather let them suffer until they die requiring injections (that only the drug companies can provide AT A PRICE) every so many hours, every day. Not only that, but you have to test your "levels" every 3 hours with a 3 cent strip of paper and some chemicals (that magically make it cost 70 cents) to make sure you're balanced. Your damn cat's hairball problem is caused by an additive in the food that causes intestinal irritation, so that you buy the special hairball formulated food and hairball easing medicine (literally flavored petroleum jelly) that's marked up to astronomical levels. Generic Vasoline and fish blood would do the same damn thing, but because you're purchasing the "Scientific formulation" you're "treating your cat better". When I was in college there was a press release of a technology that "with an uncomfortable electric stimulation" your teeth would be electroplated with a hard layer of synthetic materials. This meant no cavities, ever. Granted, a new "dental research organization" funded by the Dentists themselves put that line on the back burner and all but killed any media attention. My last 'dentist' jammed a needle in my cheek while pinching and shaking said cheek to "numb the area" that cheek bled for 2 days and I still felt damn near everything he did to me. I'd rather pull each tooth out with his freshly removed cervical vertebrae, and pay for a set of dentures than return to the same hack job excuse for a dentist. He's the only one in cascade Iowa if you must know. Good luck getting ahead in this Corp-ocracy, you'll have to invent the next forceful arse-dialating device that earns the corporations their 99 percent while defecating on human beings worldwide.
1. Re:Science is a cheap imitation of life. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:50 · Score: 0
  
  Oops, I meant: "you'll have to invent (AND PATENT) the next .........
Hopefully human testing soon by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 19:50 · Score: 0

I have two friends, sisters, both have Type 1 Diabetes. It is debilitating. I truly hope this medical technology can help them in the near future.
Er, wtf are "mice human stem cells"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 20:16 · Score: 0

Mice humans are some hybrids made from men and mice? For research purposes?
1. Re:Er, wtf are "mice human stem cells"? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  Mice are people too!
We should take what we can get. by Chadhulhu · 2012-06-30 20:44 · Score: 0

I am type 2 Diabetic, 10 years of abusing my body with bad foods got me there, so yeah I will take my punishment, I know at my daughter's school, there are a few type 1's who shouldn't be that way. I do not want to see those kids suffer, so this is great news in my books for the poor kids born with type 1.

--
i do not suffer from Insanity... I revel in it.
Can this someday help amputees? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 21:51 · Score: 0

I lost 3 fingers on my left hand in an accident when I was 11. It would be nice it this technology could someday be used to grow new fingers, arms legs etc..
I for one welcome by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 22:16 · Score: 0

..our pioneering rodent overlords.
Type 2 diabetes distinction not so clear by neurogeneticist · 2012-06-30 23:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Genome-wide association study (GWAS) results for Type 2 diabetes suggest a much larger footprint for islet cell dysfunction in T2D than previously thought. While the "insulin resistance" paradigm still works, we've had to adapt our model to include the more disordered insulin secretion indicated by these results. This is why unbiased and hypothesis-free research methods like GWAS are so powerful -- they aren't dependent on our preconceived notions of how things "should" be. A nice review reference: Herder et al. Eur J Clin Invest. 2011;41(6):679-92.
That's kind of biggie isn't it by NotSoHeavyD3 · 2012-07-01 01:25 · Score: 1

I mean basically you could cure Type 1 diabetes mellitus(Yes, there's other kinds of diabetes like diabetes insipidus) by just giving the person a pancreas transplant. Hmm, wonder if they could do theraputic cloning to get around. (Yes, I know that kind of blows a hole in that talking point "Oh, we're only going to use ESC we were going to throw away anyway." But basically if the immune system is targeting a non-essential protein just change it and ta-da all of a sudden it looks like a new kind of cell.)

--
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Type I sucks by redundantman · 2012-07-01 02:12 · Score: 1

Bring it on science ...
Unfortuantely... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-01 05:31 · Score: 0

Unfortunately, due to the use of human stem cells, the mice also turned into total assholes.
Mouse Diabetes by Anonymous Coward · 2012-07-02 04:24 · Score: 0

A prominent stem cell researcher told me about this months ago.
He also pointed out that diabetes had already been cured many, many times in mice.
It's nothing new, nor is it anything uniquely promising. We're going to just have to keep trying until we find cures that are truly effective in humans.
Check out Dr. Joel Fuhrman's Eat To Live by Paul+Fernhout · 2012-07-02 11:40 · Score: 1

http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/Diabetes.aspx
"The dietary style described in my books entitled, Eat To Live and Eat For Health, is a vegetable-based diet designed to maximize nutrient per calorie density. It is the most effective dietary approach for those with diabetes and is much more effective than drugs. For a Type 2 diabetic, this approach has resulted in complete reversal of the diabetic condition in the vast majority of my patients, and for a Type 1 diabetic it solves the problems with excessive highs and lows and prevents the typical dangerous complications that too frequently befall those with diabetes.
Of course, no dietary approach to diabetes will succeed without attention to other risk factors, especially sedentary lifestyle, smoking and lack of sleep. The road to wellness involves making the commitment to regular exercise as well. My clear message is that diabetics can't just "eat better." They have to go all the way and commit to nutritional excellence.
If you have diabetes, begin by reading my book, Eat To Live or Eat For Health"
See also:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU
And check out the book "The Pleasure Trap".
Make sure you get enough vitamin D, too (e.g. Dr. John Cannell).
Congrats on coming this far despite all the misinformation out there (including by MDs) and good luck moving forward...

--
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.