Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Growing Insulin

Posted by samzenpus on Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:02 PM
from the hormones-growing dept.
Biotech News
McLuhanesque writes "The Globe and Mail reports that a Calgary biotech firm has developed a process to turn genetically modified safflower oil into human insulin in commercial quantities. The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%. 'SemBioSys says it can make more than one kilogram of human insulin per acre of safflower production. That amount could treat 2,500 diabetic patients for one year and, in turn, meet the world's total projected insulin demand in 2010 with less than 16,000 acres of safflower production.'"
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Growing Insulin 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:06PM (#15747669)
    As a type 1, insulin dependent, diabetic, I really don't care. I want a cure. I don't want more externally produced insulin, I want to make it myself again.

    • Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Atmchicago (555403) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:25PM (#15747728) Homepage

      I understand that a cure is viewed as better than a treatment, but you can't just pick to find a cure, or pick to find a treatment. Reducing the costs of producing human insulin, and at the same time gaining additional scientific knowledge should be of great use. Who knows, perhaps a cure to type I diabetes is now one step closer?

      • No, the cure is now several steps further out. As long as insulin prices would remain high then a cheap-to-produce cure would have an extremely strong market position. With a dramatic cut in the cost of insulin a cure that cost the same amount to produce is less interesting to pursue.

        • Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Wednesday July 19 2006, @11:10PM (#15747858) Journal
          With a dramatic cut in the cost of insulin a cure that cost the same amount to produce is less interesting to pursue.

          What utter nonsense. Even if insulin was cheaper than air, who in the world would lose interest in not having to monitor his blood sugar and take injections, risk blindness, amputation, and all other hazards of diabetes?

          -jcr

            • Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

              by jcr (53032) <jcr@@@mac...com> on Thursday July 20 2006, @02:28AM (#15748305) Journal
              The insurance companies, of course...

              They're the ones who would benefit financially from not having to pay for complications of diabetes. It seems that you don't have much understanding of the economics of insurance. Curing diabetes will save tens of billions of dollars, no matter how cheap insulin gets.

              -jcr

              • Re:That's great and all, but... (Score:4, Informative)

                by smatthew (41563) on Thursday July 20 2006, @07:21AM (#15748899) Homepage
                amen - I spend (well, the insurance company spends) much more on test strips than on insulin.

                Retail: a bottle of insulin is $20. That lasts me approximately 14 days
                In those 14 days I will use between 70 and 140 test strips, which cost about $.50 a piece. So lets say $50.
                Also - in those 14 days I will use 5 sets of supplies for my insulin pump. At $17 a pop, that's $85

                Out of that total $155, the insulin is only 13% of the cost. Granted the insurance company doesnt pay retail for anything, and I absorb a small fraction of the cost through deductibles, but it will still end up only being 13% of the cost of the daily supplies.

                And let's not talk about the $5,000 insulin pump that only works for 4 years, or all the doctors visits, blood work, ER visits if I become sick......

                A cure for Type 1 diabetes would save the insurance companies a fair amount of money in the mid-term, and extremely large amounts of money in the long term.
          • Dear tin-foil-hat wearing nimrod,

            The pharmacutical companies don't control all medical research. The NIH (National Institutes of Health) spent ~$28 BILLION last year funding medical research. That's your tax dollars at work. Most of the money went to University researchers or researchers at the NIH campus itself to do medical research for the public good.

            Speaking as one of those researchers, we try to do the best reasearch possible, and then we publish our results in peer-reviewed journals, where anyone,
            • And I have a carburetor that will make your car give 60 miles to the gallon, and a laundry ball that will let you use 1/10 the laundry detergent, and a program you can download to make your computer downloads 3 times faster, just click here!

              The medical field is rife with a lot of crackpots claiming their miracle cure is being repressed by the drug industry, especially for long-term medical problems like diabetes. While the drug industry is cut throat, almost all of these "vitamin cures" are expensive snake

      • Cures already available (Score:5, Insightful)

        by CarpetShark (865376) on Thursday July 20 2006, @06:31AM (#15748756)
        There are multiple cures already available, but they haven't been widely performed for numerous reasons. Pancreas transplants are considered too risky to do unless there is already a major operation (such as kidney transplant) required. Islet cell replacement required cells from aborted foetuses, last I heard.

        I understand that each group of researchers will have their own specialisations, and that not everyone COULD work on a cure, even if there was no need for improved/cheaper insulin (which there is). I heartily agree with the grandparent poster though; insulin is a poor substitute for a normal life, and a cure would be MUCH better, so it would be nice to see the main focus going on that. The medical fees that entire nations pay for insulin, needles, swabs, glucometers, diagnostics strips, tablets, etc. -- often four or more of most of these things per day, per patient, at £0.50 per diagnostic strip alone, must make up a pretty large profit for medical companies. I really don't mean to accuse people of being motivated by money, but I do often wonder if this doesn't sometimes subtly cloud their sense of what's really best for the sufferers.
      • I've got some diabetic relatives who've discussed this with me. Cheaper insulin is great, but hardly a cure, and the fiscal savings would be good. But the so-called "human insulins" when they came out were a vast disappointment to diabetics: they don't last as long as the animal insulins, and they contribute to unawareness of low blood sugars, and they cost quite a lot more.

        Diabetes is also several different diseases: Type 2 diabetics usually have insulin resistance, and Type 1 diabetics usually have a comp
          • This is complete balderdash. The ultra-fast-acting insulins, such as Humalog, are not that fast because they're human. They're fast because they're modified away from normal insulin of any species. The processing to create this could be done on animal insulins, or be engineered into this safflower approach, as easily as it is done for E. Coli insulin producing bacteria now. And an insulin pump with its direct connection to the body is so fast that it matters very little which fast-acting insulin you use, wh
          • for those who don't know, most colour blind people are exempt from serving in the military

            It would have been nice to know which country you are talking about. The USA seems to be the 'default' country on /. (because of # of US participants), but your comment doesn't make sense for the US; we have an all-volunteer military, so everyone is 'exempt' from serving in the military.

            Colorblind people are allowed to serve in the US military. My brother-in-law joined the Marines, hoping for a useful skill such a

      • ***"Well, by banning the public funding of stem cell research today, George Bush has helped you towards the cure! His great deeds are hastening the Rapture, when the good people (those who accept Jesus Christ as their Lord) will be cured."***

        Mods, how the hell did that rate an "insightful"? Its off topic at best, and more probably flamebait. So I'm going to flame it, especially since I have relatives that are directly affected by the research in question and the disease in the topic (Diabetes).

        Stop with t
        • If somone wants to do embryonic stem cell research, thats fine by me - let them fund it themselves. Nothing stopping them at all.

          But put the Fed money to work where it shows the most promise - and that most definitely is *not* embryonic stem cells. So stop using stem cells as a political football.

          Bush is doing the right thing with his veto. Its questionable on the reasons he is putting forth, but good in the end results. Like a stopped clock, his hands this time are aligning with the right things. Let some
  • on how many diabetics are *produced* from an acre of sugar cane or corn used to make corn syrup. Just so we can see if it all balances out.....
    • Yeah, maybe there could be less sugar produced in the world and perhaps, this could make the consumption drop. But in my opinion, that's not what's making people become diabetic.

      What's making them become diabetic is:
      • poor nutrition habits
      • poor exercice habits
      • more importantly, the FACT that everything has suger in it.

      Seriously, if you start checking the ingredients in the food you buy, you'll notice that everything has sugar in it. Even things that should not. This article [www.cbc.ca] sums it up nicely.

    • Re:could someone do back-of-envelope calculation (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Just wanted to point out that sugar (or too much sugar that is) is a contributing factor for the less serious Type II Diabetes, but the more serious Type 1 or Juvenile Diabetes is not caused by too much sugar, and some may take offense at the suggestion that they brought such a terrible disease upon themselves, especially when many develop the disease as young children.
    • For the case of Type I insulin-dependent diabetics which are the primary group this technology advance would benefit: None

      There are two main types of diabetes (with a couple of oddball variants that are rare, diabetes mellitus describes the final symptom of elevated bloodsugar, there are a few possible root causes of that symptom, which determine the type). Type I is known as insulin-dependent or juvenile diabetes (because it is rarely diagnosed past the age of 20). It is caused by the immune system attacking the beta cells of the pancreas. Eventually all beta cells die and the body can no longer produce any insulin, so it must be provided from an external source. Type I is generally considered to be the "severe" form of diabetes because of this fact. Prior to the discovery of insulin, average life expectancy after diagnosis was 1-2 years, and the disease killed younger children faster than teenagers. Oh, it was a rather slow, painful, and unpleasant death too. Essentially no matter how much you ate and drank, your body would slowly dehydrate and starve.

      Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this). In Type II diabetes, the body does produce insulin, but for various reasons it is not enough, whether it is due to reduced capacity or increased demands beyond normal capacity, or a combination of both. Most of the time, once diagnosed, Type II diabetes can be managed solely with oral medication which increases the body's sensitivity to the insulin it does produce, and in many cases controlled solely with diet and exercise. (Losing weight can often cause Type II diabetes to disappear.) It is extremely rare for Type II to require external insulin rejections. Interestingly enough, while Type II is less "severe", this very fact makes it far more dangerous because it frequently goes undiagnosed for long periods of time, and the elevated bloodsugars do damage to various parts of the body.

      This is definately an interesting development, but how will this company deal with patented "designer" insulins such as Lantus (from Aventis Pharmaceutical, a special "peakless" insulin used to provide a long-acting baseline insulin dose), and Novolog/Humalog, two "extremely rapid acting" insulins that actually take effect FASTER than injecting normal human insulin. FYI, "human insulin" is insulin produced by genetically engineered bacteria that is identical to human insulin, it is NOT extracted from humans, unlike pork and beef insulins which were extracted from the pancreases of pigs and cows respectively. While I'm sure their technology will work with Lantus and Humalog/Novolog, I don't know how the companies that produce the above three will react to this. Most likely they'll license the technology from this new company (if it works) or vice versa... I hope so.
      • Too much ignorance in this thread. Diabetes is one of the most misunderstood diseases in existence.

      • Type II is usually referred to simply as adult-onset diabetes, because until recently, it has been unheard of for young people to develop it. (A high prevalence of childhood obesity is changing this).

        This "childhood obesity" could very well be affected by the high consumption of HFCS-sweetened sodas and food products, right?
        Just TRY finding a soda that doesn't contain it in the US - the only ones I've found are the Italian fruit sodas at Target. And I've found only one brand of bread that's baked sans HFCS

        • Like someone else said, diet sodas don't contain HFCS (though most create a whole different health issue by containing aspartame - exceptions that use sucralose include Diet RC, Diet Rite, Diet 7UP, and Pepsi One). Regular Coke is made with sucrose instead (not that it's much better for you). Remember New Coke? That was their attempt to switch to HFCS and it failed. Companies like to use HFCS because it's cheaper than sucrose. All non-diet Pepsi-brand sodas are made with it.

  • Positively fantastic news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Spinn12 (989688) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:10PM (#15747679)
    As a nurse, with a specialization in diabetic care, I am always chomping at the bit for new technology with diabetes. It is sad that so many cases go untreated, ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more. In the end, taxpayers get hit with the brunt of the bill, because the majority of those who do not treat their diabetes neglect to do so out of financial inability.

    For there to be a light at the end of this proverbial tunnel is amazing news. Let's hope that this continues to be researched, tried and brought to the general population with as little convolusion from outside sources as possible.

    Sadly, medicine is still business first and foremost. Some drug company will make a mint from this. Let's hope that someone somewhere has a conscience that won't allow them to make this treatment as financially restrictive as most everything else is.
    • ending in loss of limbs, eyesight and so much more.

      Not forgetting the most recent articles posted about the links to Alzheimers [upi.com]

      :-(

    • Re:Positively fantastic news (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Even by the usual standards of economic illiteracy here, this is pretty dimwitted. It can only drive *down* the cost of insulin; a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.
      • a new route to making insulin can't possibly make it cost *more*.

        You mean in 16 years when the patent expires and anyone can do it, right?

        Most likely they'll charge the exact same as everyone else (ie, at least as much as the insurance companies will pay) and not one cent less. (And people whine that the government distorts the market...)
    • This isn't treatment technology, it's production technology. All it will do is bring down prices. The real "light at the end of the tunnel" is the artificial pancreas, an insulin pump + CGMS. All the pieces are there; we just need a few more generations of CGMS tech and some good algorithms.

  • Tollerance Build up (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kahanamoku (470295) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:11PM (#15747680)
    what they NEED to work on is the way the body builds a tollerance to the insulin. After 20 years of using it, my dosages are up sixfold. if they crack the nut that stops the body from building up a tollerance to the insulin over time, they wont need to worry about diminished stock levels!

  • Let me be the first.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Brickwall (985910) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:12PM (#15747687)
    As a type II, non-insulin dependent (yet) diabetic, I for one welcome our new safflower overlords.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by woolio (927141) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:21PM (#15747713) Journal
    Meet the world's insulin consumption in 2010?

    In other news, pharmacutical companies are beginning to persuade food companies to put MORE SUGAR into foods....
  • ...implant the insulin-producing gene into Cannabis sativa L., there would be a product. Can I have some ice cream?

  • Sucks (Score:2, Insightful)

    by POKETNRJSH (944872)
    Wow that's great and all but another type 1 here...I don't care where the insulin is coming from if it's not coming from ME. This is like our gas problems, why work on getting more gas when we could be working on not needing it at all? I'd rather see work done on a cure than temporary relief.

  • HFCS (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Midnight Warrior (32619) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:37PM (#15747764) Homepage

    Bring on the High-Fructose Corn Syrup [newstarget.com]. Drink more Dew. Drink more Sprite. Obey your thirst. Feed your kids drinks with less than 100% fruit juice.

    Tongue in cheak of course.

    Almost reminds you of the idea people have with introducing insects into non-native environments and the bug turns out to be hostile so they introduce a second bug to kill the first, but which turns out to be worse than the first.

    1. Farmer thirsty in corn field.
    2. Farmer tired of water and lemonade. Sees future in vending machines.
    3. Develops early soft drink laced with party enhancers.
    4. People like the buzz, but sugar is about all they can stand.
    5. Full out sugar drinks get people hyper. Farmer gets bizarre idea to melt corn into corn syrup.
    6. Farmer spits in corn syrup, calls it an enzyme [wikipedia.org].
    7. Scientist notes modified corn syrup is sweet and calls it high-fructose to cover up the farmer's spit and replaces sugar in soft drinks.
    8. Consumers fresh off the previous ingredient used to lace the drink, get hooked on zero calories.
    9. Diabetes Type II breaks out among all soft drink guzzlers.
    10. Scientist come out with new way to treat diabetes without addressing a major concern of how it all got started.
    11. No one will blame the soft drink makers.

    • Re:HFCS (Score:5, Insightful)

      by lbrandy (923907) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @11:00PM (#15747826)
      I realize that asking everyone to understand the nuances of every disease is a bit much, so I don't want to yell and scream too much. However, type I diabetics are the ones that need insulin injections. They are the ones that benefit from this. They did not get their diabetes from being overweight or from eating lots of sugar. It is an autoimmune reaction, and more than likely genetic.

  • Cross contamination (Score:3, Interesting)

    by fermion (181285) * on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:49PM (#15747795) Homepage Journal
    Despite what the labs says, we have seen probable cases of cross contamination between licensed seeds and unlicensed seeds. This has lead to hybrid plant, which are not necessarily a problem, and harassment of farmer who have been found in possession of the seeds, harassment because the guilt is assumed. So one wonders what will happen when 16000 acres of this stuff planted around the world. If cross contamination does occur, will the safe for average human consumption? Will the farmer's be harrased if the licensed seeds or plants are on thier properties?

    Certainly like GM food, GM plant for medicine production is a great advancement. I just worry about these things getting into the wild, since the GM companies have had such a devil may care attitude in the past. Despite the statement of work for the public good, profits never seem to be cut in a effort to make the product safer, or the distribution widespread.

  • Knowing the drug companies . . . (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jhylkema (545853) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @11:10PM (#15747859) Homepage
    The process reduces capital costs by 70% and product cost by 40%.

    And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.

    • Re:Knowing the drug companies . . . (Score:4, Interesting)

      by MourningBlade (182180) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @11:50PM (#15747942) Homepage
      And the consumer price will be increased by 20%.

      The insulin market is highly competitive. There's also many varities of insulin. If this one can't make a splash on price or on some other quality, it'll go nowhere.

      As much as I dislike the AMA-FDA/Congress-Insurance-Pharma cartel, in this instance it's not all that accurate.

  • what about generic insulin? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ShaunC1000 (928875) on Thursday July 20 2006, @12:33AM (#15748059)
    as a type 1 diabetic it amazes me that there isn't a generic insulin yet. Synthetic insulin has been around for how long now? Luckily I have insurance that covers pretty much anything I need minus a small co-pay, but I know the supplies I need costs my insurance company hundreds a month. You would think insulin and test strips could be made on the cheap by now. I guess its way too profitable for that.

    Check out joinleenow.org - they need $11 million (they have $9 million so far) to test a possible treatment and cure using BCG, which I think costs $11 a vial. It amazes me how little support they're getting (maby because it could cure/treat diabetes on the cheap?). So far they have reversed 90% of type 1 diabetic mice.

  • Scientifically ok, economically, very unlikely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ancient_Hacker (751168) on Thursday July 20 2006, @06:21AM (#15748733)
    Er, no. It's unlikely to be much cheaper. For several reasons:

    • The cost of insulin is likely to be dominated by the costs of research, marketing, distribution, insurance, and the other ingredients that go into the bottle, which control the speed of the insulin release.
    • This new technique is likely to be patented, which ups the production costs. The patents on the current kind of grown insulin will run out soon and then that price will drop, while this new one will stay up.
    • Products are priced to be competitive, not to greatly undercut the competition.
    • The real problem with this stuff is people that have been given it track the sun all day.

      • but lets please not mix plants and animals, it's obviously not right.

        There's no such thing as a "plant gene" or an "animal gene". It's like saying that taking a spring from a car and putting it in a bicycle makes the bicycle somehow car-like. Sure, if you took an entire engine along with a transmission and fastened it onto a bike that might make the bicycle "car-like", but that's not what we're talking about here. Genes are just building blocks, and assigning plantness or animalness to them doesn't make

          • and the genes in a plant are VASTLY VASTLY different from the genes in a human.
            Some of them are, some of them aren't. We still share MANY of the same genes with plants. Just like a car is vastly different from a bicycle, both have rubber tires. In a very similar sense both cars and bicycles share a common "ancestor", just like plants and humans.

            tell me how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant
            Evolution? You don't have to simply believe it, it's a scientifically proven fact that huma

          • Re:You are wrong (Score:4, Informative)

            by MrNaz (730548) * on Thursday July 20 2006, @02:53AM (#15748349) Homepage
            The "evolution" of the DNA molecule finished millions of years ago. There are only 1-2% different genes between you and a monkey. Perhaps 5% difference between me and my pet cat, and in response to your how the hell you can believe a human shares genes with a plant question, there's about 50% shared genes between me and the banana I just ate [trueauthority.com]. Read that article.
        • And why is it right? It may be obvious to you, but please spell it out to me. It's like saying that "homosexualtiy is obviously not right" - it means nothing except "I don't like it, and I feel self-righteous about that".

          It's in Leviticus: "A restriction enzyme that touches a plant chromosome shall not touch an animal chromosome, lest there be an abomination." You can't argue with a commandment like that. Why do you hate G-d?

    • The article is scant on details (Score:5, Interesting)

      by mbessey (304651) on Wednesday July 19 2006, @10:50PM (#15747799) Homepage Journal
      Not much technical detail at all in the article, but from previous articles on splicing human genes into animals and plants, I gather that the real advantage of this technique is that, if it's done right, the plant or animal concentrates the product in one place for you (the seeds, in this case).

      Compared to a big churning vat of E. Coli, their food, and their waste products, it's easier to use something like an impeller or centrifuge to separate out bulk quantities of insulin-laced oil from a plant, and then purify it from there.

      Also, those same fermenters that are growing insulin currently are also a great breeding ground for other bacteria, molds, and yeasts in the environment. I'm given to understand that keeping unwanted organisms out of the vats is part of what makes the process difficult and expensive. A single bacterium or wild yeast spore that gets into a fermenter can ruin the whole batch.

      The macroscopic plants are a much more robust system - they can still get sick of course, but it's fairly easy to keep plants healthy. And even given that you can't spray these plants willy-nilly with pesticides, organic farmers get pretty good yields on most products with just natural controls.
    • Well, they're in Canada in a cell. Molecules inside a cell can survive for decades unchanged (e.g. your DNA). They can certainly manage it for a few months between planting and the harvest. Inside the cell they're coddled in exactly the right environment. But bring 'em out and put them in a bottle -- expose them to oxygen, light and varying temperatures -- and they start to decay.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.