Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Medicine Biotech

Diabetic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells 148

Posted by samzenpus
from the presto-chango dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Men with type 1 diabetes may be able to grow their own insulin-producing cells from their testicular tissue, say Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC) researchers who presented their findings today at the American Society of Cell Biology 50th annual meeting in Philadelphia. Their laboratory and animal study is a proof of principle that human spermatogonial stem cells (SSCs) extracted from testicular tissue can morph into insulin-secreting beta islet cells normally found in the pancreas. And the researchers say they accomplished this feat without use of any of the extra genes now employed in most labs to turn adult stem cells into a tissue of choice."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Diabetic Men May Be Able To Grow Their Own Insulin-Producing Cells

Comments Filter:
  • Sweet news.

  • They took our balls!
    • by Culture20 (968837)
      You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
      Diabetic Men
      Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
      May Be Able To Grow
      ?
      Their Own
      ????
      Insulin-
      meh
      • by c6gunner (950153)

        You jest, but I was reading the title, and had this reaction:
        Diabetic Men
        Hmm, I'm not diabetic, but I am a man, this could be interesting
        May Be Able To Grow
        ?
        Their Own
        ????
        Insulin-
        meh

        from their testicular tissue.
        ARGH!

        • by TheLink (130905)
          Yeah, I dunno about the rest of you guys but I'm rather attached to my testicles.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Since one of the thoughts(at least what they told me was the cause 15 years ago) for the Type 1 Diabetes it is an autoimmune disease, how long is it until the immune system will just attack the new insulin producing cells?

    The article mentions "immune deficient diabetic mice," so the autoimmune question remains.

    • by tomhudson (43916)
      Yes, Type I is an auto-immune disease. Like many such diseases, it can lie dormant for a long time until something triggers the immune system into activity - such as, for example, puberty. So, who knows, unless you're going through a second childhood - do you have urges to get a sports car and dump your significant other for some arm candy?

      -- barbie

  • by Eudial (590661) on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:25PM (#34530246)

    From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

    If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

    • by NFN_NLN (633283)

      I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?

      • by Pharmboy (216950)

        Well it was David Carradine's second favorite hobby, hey what happened to him anyways?

        Last I heard, he was just hanging around.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by wood_dude (1548377)
      As sombody with Type 1, this is indeed the problem with most 'fixes' for the problem. You have to stop the transplanted cells from being destroyed again. There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them. I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on. Chris
      • There was somthing call 'pig sushi' that I heard about a while ago, that had pig Beta cells wrapped in an coating that stopped the immune system from getting at them.

        I havn't heard any more on that, but it did tackle the problem head on.

        The trials are continuing as we speak here in New Zealand. The company concerned is Living Cell Technologies [lctglobal.com]

        And there is an article describing it here [nzherald.co.nz]

        It's a very clever solution that solves the rejection issue. The main questions are on how much insulin can be produced and over what time period. The reality is that anything that introduces at least some reasonable level of insulin production - even if not enough to eliminate injections - should reduce the extreme blood sugar highs that cause the most long t

        • I'm from Invercargill, New Zealand. Right now, I'm about ... 20KM or so from the "Living Cell Technologies facility", or so we can suppose, the location is "top secret".

          Its a very interesting topic, I am Vegan, I see it as absolutely *horrid* that we would even think of harming other animals, we would not do this to Human animals...or would we?

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala_syphilis_experiment [wikipedia.org]

          What do you think happens in Gitmo, and Area 51?

          As a local of the area, I can speak more in det
          • I find it hard to comprehend why you think it is so bad for these pigs to be used in this manner.

            Given the choice between the life of a pig and the life of say one of your children which would you choose?

            I've no problem with you choosing to minimise your own effect on animals, and there are alternatives to animal products in a lot of cases but you need to be realistic. Before I became diabetic I used to give blood regularly up to 3 pints a year usually. That blood was used to help save lives and I really di

            • by dafing (753481)
              Sorry for the delay in replying to you.

              I find it unacceptable to "use", lets be clear, to *kill* others like this, just as I would find it unacceptable to kill another human being in this manner. I am all for organ donation, after I am dead for example, I am not for being killed for my organs :-)

              The issue is actually rather black and white, just as we cannot be a "little bit pregnant", especially as a guy, we either kill others for our uses, or we do not. Throughout time, our societies change, for e
              • I've got chickens too,
                one of them a Bantam is in a bit of a bad way being the smallest she has been bullied by some of the other bigger birds. I've moved her out so she has a chance to rest and recuperate it is unfortunate but that is the way with chickens they can be pretty horrible to their compatriots.

                There is very much a quality of life for all animals, including humans and you must admit there are animals living in better conditions than humans.

                You obviously look after your chickens but why can't you g

                • by dafing (753481)
                  Hi blackest K!
                  Sorry for the delay in answering your comment.

                  I'd first like to state again that *we* are also animals, isnt it interesting how upset some people get over this simple, evolutionary fact? A recent debate I heard mentioned this, of how we like to see ourselves as Gods above all other live forms here, and possibly any others we discover elsewhere, no doubt if we do colonise other planets, find other animals smaller than us, we'll "farm" and kill them too! Oh, but if we find "more Godlike"
                  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqliklVgNWE [youtube.com] little video of my bullied bantam enjoying an evening by the fire.

                    Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom. Many animals eat other animals and will even eat animals of their own species.

                    Of course we generally don't eat our own species but it happens http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uruguayan_Air_Force_Flight_571 [wikipedia.org] and the people eaten were the friends and relatives of the people d

                    • by dafing (753481)
                      Hi again! :-)

                      "Of course we are animals but you are really the one making a distinction between the human animal and the rest of the animal kingdom."

                      I see other animals as loving their lives as much as I do mine, as having the same basic right *not* to be regarded as a "thing", as our "property". I am not making the distinction here that some Animals are "more equal" than others.

                      I see the mention of what other Nonhumans do to each other again. We wouldnt use other species as our "moral guide" for
          • by mattack2 (1165421)

            Its a very interesting topic, I am Vegan, I see it as absolutely *horrid* that we would even think of harming other animals, we would not do this to Human animals...or would we?

            So you would rather have PEOPLE die? Great.

            (BTW, I do think we use, or used, animals in very bad ways, such as testing cosmetics.)

            • by dafing (753481)
              Hi mattack2,

              I wouldnt "have" anyone die, human or nonhuman. I certainly wouldnt kill one person to save one other, or two others. Do you think to act as such would be ethical?

              All animal use is equal, why, or perhaps better, how would we rank evils?

              Its as easy to be Vegan as not, and its the least other animals deserve.

              If you are further interested, might I suggest this recent post on my blog, in regards to speaking out for respect towards other animals. I mention both The Animals Film , and E
              • by mattack2 (1165421)

                Yes, killing an animal to save a person IS definitely ethical.

                • by dafing (753481)
                  why mattack? We are animals ourselves afterall.

                  Why would we feel it were ethical?

                  Is it right to kill another human to save someone you love (in terms of another presenting no threat, ie, not someone with a gun shooting at you and your loved one)? Is it right to kill one person to save two?
                  • by mattack2 (1165421)

                    Why are you so cruel and killing the poor defenseless plants you eat? They are alive too.

                    • by dafing (753481)
                      I love these short replies mattack2 :-)

                      Thanks for playing Defensive Omnivore Bingo!

                      http://bit.ly/veganbingo [bit.ly]

                      I'm currently listening to the most recent Intelligence Squared debate about killing others, its focused on Vegetarianism, rather than on Veganism like it should be.

                      The mention of absurd arguments are brought up during the first speakers opening:

                      http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/dont-eat-animals [intelligencesquared.com]
                    • by mattack2 (1165421)

                      I knew this was going to be a 'common' retort, but you're calling it absurd. If you get to call KILLING PLANTS absurd, then I get to call LETTING PEOPLE DIE (when animal products could save them) absurd.

                    • by dafing (753481)
                      mattack2, this is another thing I find odd when others argue with Vegans, of talking about "KILLING PLANTS!" "HA! YOU'RE A MURDERER! PLANTS THINK YOU'RE HITLER!", this talk is very strange indeed!

                      I'm not Vegan to try and judge others, any more than how I dont "not steal" to feel better about myself, to feel "better" than those who DO steal.

                      On this New Zealand news story, about "boiling Lobsters to death" (we call them "crayfish"), it was brought up, "ha, those craaaaaazy Vegans who think we shouldnt
    • by Anonymous Coward

      They are currently doing islet cell transplants (from organ donors) which actually have a pretty good success rate, the longest being 11 years ago (to current) without rejection. Although you are correct, stopping the process from happening again is one of the main problems they are trying to solve.

    • It's possible that the new cells would not have the same markers as the original ones did.

    • I doubt if it would actually require multiple injections on a daily basis that is if it needed repeating regularly.

      A controlled insulin release would lower the risk of heart disease, stroke, blindness, amputations, nerve damage erectile dysfunction and randomly dying in your sleep. plus minor advantages such as better energy levels and a less reactive digestive system. Plus the cost of maintaining healthy insulin levels would probably be cheaper since your body is now producing the needed insulin and plus t

      • by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@ ... a - h u dson.com> on Sunday December 12, 2010 @07:49PM (#34531060) Journal

        Modern treatment for type 1 diabetics is to wear an insulin pump which constantly monitors and adjusts the insulin feed. Injecting isn't the big deal its control, getting the dosage right.

        Not to be mean, but your facts are wrong. It's not a "demand pump", contrary to what you say. You have to test, and adjust it accordingly [wikipedia.org]. I've seen people who use pumps who are on this crazy "test 10-20 times a day" routine to avoid reactions any time they vary their routine even a bit. No thanks. I control the disease, not the other way around.

        The pump is a disaster. Sure, some people report a better quality of life - but that's because, for diabetics, life with insulin via any technique is better than life without.

        I'll stick with the "see-food" technique - I see the food in front of me, I take the shot. Then I eat.

        The worst part if you're trying to do the basal-bolus dosage thing is the weight gain. The reactions, chowing down on emergency calories, and associated weight gain when life interferes with your routine are very counter-productive in the long run.

        Not to mention that with the pump you HAVE to eat when it's time - or else. Life isn't that neat. You can be stuck in traffic for an hour, or have to work late, or be with friends and everyone is having too much fun, or someone burnt the burgers, so supper is going to be delayed for a few hours.

        While both the pump and the basal-bolus routine sound good in theory, they often suck in practice.

        Better to let your blood sugar go up a couple of points temporarily, than to pass out from an insulin reaction, then have it shoot through the roof when you scarf on high-sugar-content junk.

        I dropped everything but a shot of the quick-acting insulin every meal, with a follow-up if I eat (or if I'm at a party, drink) more than I expected. It's worked for more than 2 decades (except for one time when I took my shot, got distracted, forgot to eat, went to walk the dogs, and passed out), has given me a LOT more freedom than I could have on any other routine, I still have all my fingers and toes, and I'll never go back to any other routine. And comparing notes, I'm not alone.

        It's not that difficult to find injection sites which are pain free.

        Ouch! Speak for yourself :-) You eventually have to rotate injection sites no matter what.

        -- barbie

        • I inject twice a day into the sides of my stomach usually if i struggle to find a good spot on one side then the other side is usually pain free.

          I'm a type II and it sucks but I really wouldn't want to be a type I, people seem to think its pretty easy living with diabetes and also don't see how it effects our quality and length of life. Which would make it easier to choose a needle in the nuts in order to live a normal life. Would prefer not to have to do that but if it made diabetes go away even for a few

          • by tomhudson (43916)
            The belly is my favorite place too. There's just no "pinch an inch" anywhere else.

            Sometimes, in the summer, I'll inject in the upper thigh if I'm wearing shorts or a skirt, but doing that sometimes means hitting muscle, and that not only burns, but it means the insulin enters the blood stream faster than I would want.

            Of course, being type 1 has it's advantages - as long as I keep my weight and sugar levels within range, I can eat anything I want, including chocolate. Especially chocolate! (Don't worry,

    • by mcrbids (148650) on Sunday December 12, 2010 @06:04PM (#34530610) Journal

      Yes, the root problem is autoimmune, but we already have a way to correct this, google "Edmunton Protocol" - the participants were effectively cured. The problem was a lack of islet cells (insulin producing cells) to do much good - it takes like 5 donor cadavers to cure 1 diabetic, so there's insufficient supply to handle even 1/100 of the diabetic patients.

      But something like this just might provide cures for millions of sufferers, without fear of tissue rejection! As father of a type 1 diabetic son, this is a big, big, BIG deal!

      Hooray!

      • by JohnWiney (656829)
        "Edmunton Protocol" produced nothing interesting. "Edmonton Protocol" was more effective.
        • by ProfBooty (172603)

          thats strange it popped up a list of results for me.

          either way its old news and not a full cure

    • by fluffy99 (870997)

      You can also become a Type-1 diabetic as a result of pancreatic cancer or the surgery to stop said cancer. This solution hold great potential in that case.

    • From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

      If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      Yes, it is due to an autoimmune process. However, there are certain parts of the body that are immunologically protected, such as the brain and testes. If the islet cells were to stay in these immunologically protected areas they may continue doing what they're doing unhindered.

    • From what I understand (and this may very well be wrong), Type 1 diabetes is when the immune system breaks down beta islets leaving one unable to produce insulin. So wouldn't this be a highly temporary fix, before the immune system goes to town again?

      If so, I don't know if a lifetime of being stabbed in the balls is preferable to a lifetime of insulin injections.

      even more so considering medical science is on the verge of a cure [families.com]

  • I suffer from type 2 diabetes. I wonder why this is only applicable for type 1.

    • by Mprx (82435)
      In type 2 the beta cells are intact, but various other cells aren't responding to insulin normally. You can't just replace missing cells because the cells are still present.
    • They're different. Type 1 is a failure to produce insulin and, while a PITA, is essentially easy to deal with via insulin injections. Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better. Mixing them up is dangerous, and medication for Type 1 or 2 can cause severe problems (e.g. death) if used by the other.

      • by Culture20 (968837)
        Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Amorymeltzer (1213818)

          Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee). Diabetes insipidus refers to excess, non-sweet urine (insipidus meaning "plain, without taste" a la insipid).

          That being said, once something is standardized, scientists tend not to rename things the way they should be. The best example is, of course, the flow of current, but issues with IUPAC nomenclature and the

          • by Culture20 (968837)

            Actually, diabetes really refers to excess urine. What we normally call diabetes is diabetes mellitus, which means "sweet urine" (mellitus being sweet, similar to Apis mellifera, the honeybee).

            So Sweet Pee from Popeye might have Juvenile Diabetes? Oh, and ewww. Who went around comparing urine, and did they do a double blind taste test?

        • Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

          Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

          • by camperslo (704715)

            Last summer Slashdot ran a story on making use of that sugar.

            http://idle.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=10/08/31/1713210 [slashdot.org]

          • Re:Type 2? (Score:5, Informative)

            by tomhudson (43916) <barbara.hudson@ ... a - h u dson.com> on Sunday December 12, 2010 @08:09PM (#34531110) Journal

            Then why are they even called the same name? You'd think someone would have thought to rename one as anti-diabetes.

            Because back in the old days before they figured out exactly what the problem was, the primary medical indicator was excess levels of sugar in the urine. Which is why it in several languages is known commonly as "suger-disease".

            And before they had fancy tests, they would diagnose it by the taste of the urine (sweet) and the smell of acetone or over-ripe peaches on the breath (diabetic ketoacidosis).

            Cue all the jokes about "this beer tastes like warm p***".

            Given that half the population doesn't even know they have diabetes, knowing the visible symptoms is useful:

            1. The smell of acetone or peaches on the breath, as mentioned above
            2. Excess urination (as the body tries to flush out the excess sugar through the urine)
            3. Excess thirst (as the body tries to replace the water lost)
            4. Lack of energy
            5. Want to go to sleep after eating, as the blood sugar levels go through the roof
            6. Munchies for high-calorie items (the body isn't getting it's energy via the normal metabolism of carbohydrates, so it uses an alternate, less efficient route, resulting in lots of ketones, and the acetone smell on the breath)

            The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

            The bad news - if you don't treat it, you'll probably die younger than you should, after losing fingers, toes, feet, etc.

            More bad news - if you smoke, the combination of diabetes and smoking has probably already taken a decade off your life, and if you don't quit, your long-term prognosis still sucks. Ugly facts [diabetesmonitor.com].

            The good news - if you quit smoking before there's permanent visible damage, there's a good chance you'll get most of that back.

            -- barbie

            • Most of what you wrote is true, but a few corrections:
              1) The symptoms you wrote are more common in type 1 Diabetes (i.e. the autoimmune disease, usually appearing in children). Adults usually get type 2 Diabetes (where the body develops insulin resistance). Patients with type 2 may have the disease for many years (average is 10y) before they are diagnosed, whilst in type 1 the disease appears rapidly and you get very high glucose levels which cause the symptoms you wrote.
              2) Although we (the doctors) preach

            • The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers

              I talked to a neurologist about this. He told me that even though much of the effects of type II can be controlled by diet and exercise once Diabetes has begun there is neurological and vascular damage that will continue to occur no matter how much you improve your diet and exercise.

              • by tomhudson (43916)
                People who change their lifestyle after finding out they have diabetes have every reason to do better than their peers who continue to live a sedentary, fat-of-the-land, puffing-like-a-chimney lifestyle.

                So while you might not be as good as you could be (and as the years pile on, who is, really?), you'll still be better in the long run than the "competition" who have let themselves go to seed.

                Besides, what's the alternative? To give up? You can do that - but it sucks.

                • The comment I was responding to made it sound like the effects of Type II Diabetes could be reduced to 0. They can't. No matter what you do, all other things being equal, your lifespan and quality of life will be reduced compared to someone who does not have Diabetes.
                  • by tomhudson (43916)
                    Umm ... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was that someone with diabetes could well end up in better health because they not only are more inclined to see a doctor on a regular basis, but also because diabetes might be the push they need to adopt a healthier lifestyle.

                    For example, we have no choice but to learn what's in our food, to avoid HFCS, to get more exercise, to avoid preventable diseases such as smoking, etc.

                    Of course, since Type 2 is usually later in

                    • Umm ... I don't think there's a comment in this thread that says that. What I did say was

                      Well you said:

                      The good news - it's treatable, and done right, you will live as long, or longer, than your peers since you'll HAVE to adopt a healthy lifestyle.

                      First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.

                      Second you clearly claim one would live longer than their peers because one would be "forced" to adopt a healthy lifestyle. Obviously, for your sentence to make sense, the peers are not being f

                    • by tomhudson (43916)

                      First, it is not treatable, it is manageable and it is progressive.

                      Treatable does not mean curable, even though in many cases, people return to normal blood sugar levels without medication when lose the excess weight and eat properly.

                      Also, someone doing everything right even with diabetes will live longer than the people around them who do not take care of themselves. Diabetes is not a "premature death sentence". Sure, people with type 2 diabetes die younger - the majority are paying the price for decades of carrying all that extra weight around. Obesity in and of itsel

        • That happens when two diseases with the same symptoms are around long enough to get an established name before they are determined to have two different causes.

        • by Sax Maniac (88550)

          Lots of "somebodies" have thought of this, but we have thousands of years of inertia to overcome. Diabetes was realized and diagnosed in ancient times, long before we ever discovered the difference between type 1 and type 2. As a father of type 1 son, I would like nothing better for type 1 to be renamed something without the word "diabetes" in it, but I know it's hopeless. The term diabetes today means "type 2" to the vast majority of people.

          As such, we have to deal with the myth that if my 4 year old so

      • Type 2 (aka acquired) is a failure to respond to/use insulin properly, so producing more doesn't make anything better.

        Wrong. One of the common medication for Type 2 is sulfonyureas - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfonylurea [wikipedia.org]

        They act my making the pancreas produce more insulin.

    • by elsJake (1129889)
      Yes it is , type 1 only.
      For you I'd recommend picking up body-building , it would solve your problem.
      Check out the diets and exercises on http://www.abcbodybuilding.com/ , they're meant to promote insulin sensitivity , exactly what you are missing.
      I am not a doctor but still , I'm confident it would help you.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values. In addition to responding to insulin, you'll get better results when exercising and you'll generally feel better.
      • by tomhudson (43916)

        Check your testosterone levels. Testosterone is well known to improve insulin sensitivity, which is good in your case. Nearly 50% of diabetics have low testosterone values.

        Well, that would be a GOOD THING(TM) in most populations with a 50:50 male-female ratio, wouldn't it?

  • Great advance; however, the problem isthat it still requires the recipient to be immune deficient i.e. the testes with beta cell islet cell characteristics were transplanted into the back of immune deficient mice
  • Now (Score:4, Funny)

    by gone.fishing (213219) on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:29PM (#34530260) Journal

    That takes balls.

  • by MillionthMonkey (240664) on Sunday December 12, 2010 @04:34PM (#34530286)
    If I grow my own insulin-producing cells at home can I sell them to diabetics in other states?
    • by JamesP (688957)

      I'm guessing it's illegal to sell your balls in Texas or something like that...

      • by dwarfsoft (461760)

        The Catholic church simply will not stand for this!

        "CHILDREN:
        Every sperm is sacred.
        Every sperm is great.
        If a sperm is wasted,
        God gets quite irate.

        GIRL:
        Let the heathen spill theirs
        On the dusty ground.
        God shall make them pay for
        Every sperm that can't be found."

        Etc...

        • Why should it matter to me what old guys in women's dresses think? For all I care, they could suck my dick, but I'd guess I'm way too old for them to take that offer.

          • While they are now old, and they did, collectively, spend a great deal of time in women's dresses, that's actually a Monty Python reference.

    • since women can't do this, just invite any hot female diabetics over for a round of personalized care, including injections of... insulin

  • by Guidii (686867) on Sunday December 12, 2010 @05:23PM (#34530492) Homepage
    Okay, so I read TFA. As a diabetic, I had to. Hope I don't get kicked off slashdot.

    Some key points: They took spermatogonial stem cells (SSC's) from testicular tissue of deceased organ donors (not from diabetic patients) and observed that some of these cells would turn into insulin producing beta cells in a test tube. They injected these cells into mice, and found that the mice had reduced glucose levels for a week.

    This is pretty exciting news, since the alternative source of beta cells is to extract them from the pancreas of deceased organ donors. (This was done in the Edmonton Protocol [slashdot.org].)

    • Yes, however it still suffers from the same issue as most of the other 'gene' or 'cell' therapies for diabetes: You are using someone or something elses insulin producing cells to make insulin.

      That means that your immune system isn't going to like it much. What one needs is a system that takes your very own testicular cells and creates beta (insulin secreting) cells. I'm sure that's what they're trying to get at but I detect a potential problem with the practical application of the technology.

      'You're
      • 'You're going to take some cells from where?

        An undignified operation, which won't hamper one's ability to procreate or needles upon needles upon needles until the day you die. Tell me, truly, which would you choose?

      • by tomhudson (43916)
        And this brings in the whole issue if causing yet another round of sensitizing the immune system to a foreign agent that looks like insulin.

        Type one is suspected, in many cases, to be caused by molecules of animal (non-human) milk passing from the gullet into the blood stream in infants. The surface molecule looks a lot like the Isles of Langerhans, so the body mounts an imperfect immune response. In other words, most of the time, no visible immune response, but a sensitization.

        Later on (say, during a

        • Then I'd expect this paper to have different results:

          http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/24/5/838.full [diabetesjournals.org]

          Non-identical twins raised in the same womb and the same dietary environment would experience the same protein exposures, and as children experience similar infections or environmental factors, and have an elevated risk of sharing Type 1 diabetes if one of them has it. They don't.

          From where did you hear this theory or see this claim?

          • by tomhudson (43916)
            Try again. Identical twins? Even "identical" twins are not necessarily so at the genetic level [scientificamerican.com].

            And the uterine environment is also not as "identical" as you assume.

            Want to try again?

            • No need to try again: you seem to have misunderstood my point. The study I referred to should at least show a _correlation_ in diabetes frequency among non-identical twins, if the factor is the kind of environmental exposure to non-human milk proteins which you've asserted. I'm sorry to say that you have not provided any data or reference to justify your claim, and I'd expect such a claim to have especially shown up in the various studies of family susceptibility.

              Moreover, your claim is nonsensical. "Insuli

        • We just need genetically modified cows that produce human milk.

    • But only completely for type 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46_GInjBeQU [youtube.com]
      See also: http://www.drfuhrman.com/disease/diabetes.aspx [drfuhrman.com]

      Type 1 diabetics still need to take insulin, but can take less and have less complications. So, this idea from the article might eventually help them.

      From that link: "John ... was a 22 year old college graduate with Type 1 diabetes since the age of 6. He was five foot, eight inches tall and weighed 190 pounds. He was taking a total of 70 units of insulin daily. He was referred to

    • by Locke2005 (849178)

      This is pretty exciting news

      for mice.

  • If this technology were readily available and one were to get in trouble with a significant female other?

    "Honey! Let's talk about this! You can burn the baseball cards, but please, not my testicular insulin cultures!!!"

    She'd literally have one, "by the balls" *rimshot*

Don't steal; thou'lt never thus compete successfully in business. Cheat. -- Ambrose Bierce

Working...