Adult-onset diabetes, obesity cured in lab mice, scientists report

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141208144404.htm

by not_that_noob • 12 years ago

66 22 12 years ago

mchanson• 12 years ago

It would be amazing if this works in humans without worse side effects than just suffering type 2 diabetes.

tracker1• 12 years ago

At this point... highly insulin resistant, and very hard to keep blood sugar in check, the side effects of diabetes are starting to get pretty bad.

cloverich• 12 years ago

Some side effects of uncontrolled diabetes

- Sufficiently poor circulation to extremeties that they may require amputation - Progressive loss of vision - Kidney Failure - Increased risk of severe infection - Heart Disease (and death from it)

debacle• 12 years ago

The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here:

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabete...

Is equally useless, nearly a copy/paste. The older report, here:

http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/...

Makes it very clear that this is a treatment for diabetes, not a cure.

tokenadult2• 12 years ago

Thank you for explaining the background to this eye-catching submission. Many, many submissions to HN are based at bottom on press releases, and press releases are well known for spinning preliminary research findings beyond all recognition. This has been commented on in the PhD comic "The Science News Cycle,"[1] which only exaggerates the process a very little. More serious commentary in the edited group blog post "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles"[2] points to the same danger of taking press releases (and news aggregator website articles based solely on press releases) too seriously.

The most sure and certain finding of any preliminary study will be that more research is needed. All too often, preliminary findings don't lead to further useful discoveries in science, because the preliminary findings are flawed. The obligatory link for any discussion of a report on a research result like the one kindly submitted here is the article "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation"[3] by Peter Norvig, director of research at Google, on how to interpret scientific research. Check each news story you read for how many of the important issues in interpreting research are NOT discussed in the story.

[1] "The Science News Cycle" http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1174

[2] "Related by coincidence only? University and medical journal press releases versus journal articles" http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/related-by-coi...

[3] "Warning Signs in Experimental Design and Interpretation" http://norvig.com/experiment-design.html

P.S. The sparsity of details in the press release recycled by ScienceDaily reminds me of the many past complaints from Hacker News participants about the poor quality of ScienceDaily as a source. ScienceDaily is just a press release recycling service, nothing more. I learned from other participants here on HN that there are better sites to submit from.

Comments about ScienceDaily:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3992206

"Blogspam.

"Original article (to which ScienceDaily has added precisely nothing):

http://www.washington.edu/news/articles/abundance-of-rare-dn...

"Underlying paper in Science (paywalled):

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/05/16/science.1...

"Brief writeup from Nature discussing this paper and a couple of others on similar topics:

http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603

"Everything I've ever seen on HN -- I don't know about Reddit -- from ScienceDaily has been a cut-and-paste copy of something else available from nearer the original source. In some cases ScienceDaily's copy is distinctly worse than the original because it lacks relevant links, enlightening pictures, etc.

" . . . . if you find something there and feel like sharing it, it's pretty much always best to take ten seconds to find the original source and submit that instead of ScienceDaily."

ggrothendieck2• 12 years ago

This is a bit harsh on Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily is much better than many other sites of its kind because it does consistently give its sources and provides citations as it did here.

pistle• 12 years ago

I find the terminology of 'cure' for diabetes distracting, if not confusing. My understanding is that type-2 diabetes has a genetic component and environmental component (typically obesity). You can treat the obesity and assuage the symptoms, but the genetic component/risk remains and if obesity returns, the symptoms would likely return.

Since these hormones don't change the genetic risk, it is a treatment which can have lasting effects, but unless obesity is suppressed, it is no cure. Also, the symptoms can happen without obesity and this wouldn't be a cure for them, but could be a treatment.

Anybody know otherwise?

pazimzadeh• 12 years ago

Here is the paper in question (PDF): http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf

jdnier• 12 years ago

From the paper's abstract (published by Nature Medicine, 08 December 2014):

"These preclinical studies suggest that, so far, this unimolecular, polypharmaceutical strategy has potential to be the most effective pharmacological approach to reversing obesity and related metabolic disorders."

exratione• 12 years ago

Both obesity and type 2 diabetes are for the vast majority of sufferers voluntary conditions. These people choose to suffer these conditions, and further, every day make the choice again to continue to suffer these conditions. Even very late in the process type 2 diabetes can be turned back by aggressive use of low-calorie dieting [1]. Obesity can be reversed just by the exercise of willpower in the very same way.

It is a fascinating statement on the human condition that research for medical methods of treatment that do not require a patient to try to alter their lifestyle or calorie intake receives so very much funding in comparison to, say, meaningful research into aging, or any one of hundreds of medical conditions in which the patient has absolutely no choice in the matter.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909

ldd• 12 years ago

What you are really saying is that we should held people accountable for their own choices and, as a society, attempt to help those who cannot make those choices.

I agree, to an extend, but the reality is that there are a series of factors, besides the moral or 'self-evident' reasons, that make companies/governments fund these projects.

Moreover, forget about these factors for a second. The bottom line is that very few people would care if you found the cure for a very rare and destructive disease. Lots of people would pay a lot of money to avoid being fat.

And by the way, why exactly do you think that those lifestyle choices are easy to change? Very few people want to have diabetes (I assume). So there must be something else besides pure will that we should take into account when thinking about this issue.

mc808• 12 years ago

It's actually an array of choices that have to be made consistently every day for many years, and which vary in difficulty from person to person. The choices could include changing homes, jobs, friends, all depending on their influence over the person's other choices. Nobody literally chooses to be obese and diabetic.

seekingtruth3• 12 years ago

For anyone with the ability to govern what they eat, obesity is always a choice. Trying my damnedest on the day of an exam and really wanting to pass is not the measure of whether I chose to pass the exam but, rather, how I prepared myself in the time preceding.

xacto75• 12 years ago

Stop. Please. Obesity and diabetes are not the eighth and ninth deadly sins. Nobody wakes up in the morning as you so assert and chooses to gain weight, become insulin resistant, or have their pancreas fail.

Further, your uninformed opinion excludes people like myself who are thin but diabetic (type 2). It also excludes people who have LADA 1.5.

I guess because anyone who has diabetes is morally bankrupt they shouldn't expect any help. Is that right?

seekingtruth3• 12 years ago

Yes, people who find themselves in poor health through their own repeated deleterious actions should have their treatment prioritized below that of those whose conditions result from chance or circumstances outside their control.

Further, your uninformed opinion excludes people like myself who are thin but diabetic (type 2). It also excludes people who have LADA 1.5.

The parent comment specifically stated that only the majority, not the entirety, of people with such conditions have them because of voluntary actions. Stop lying.

bequanna• 12 years ago

If I recall correctly 80-90% of people with T2 diabetes are obese. I'm not saying this was the case with your illness, but lifestyle choices are overwhelmingly the cause of both of these problems.

There are giant social costs stemming from obesity and T2 diabetes.

The above facts cause frustration for those of us not facing these issues.

For example, if my health insurance rate was based on my specific level of risk, I would likely pay 10% of my current premium. Yet, someone 150lbs heavier than me, same age, sex, etc. is much more likely to have health problems yet pays the same premium.

In other words, there is the perception that those who chose to create these problems aren't bearing the cost themselves, all of us are being forced to foot the bill.

Terr_• 12 years ago

essentially cured [...] fully potent [...] unprecedented [...] unparalleled

Is anybody else getting a strong "too good to be true" vibe from all these unqualified superlatives?

"New single-cell molecules with triple-hormone action" sounds like somebody's already planning the marketing campaign.

Adult-onset diabetes, obesity cured in lab mice, scientists report

Related Stories