11 ms·

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

66 points by not_that_noob 12y ago

mchanson 12y ago
It would be amazing if this works in humans without worse side effects than just suffering type 2 diabetes.
- tracker1 12y 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 12y 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)
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
debacle 12y ago
The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-peptide.shtml 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/dimarchi-obesity-study.shtml http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/... Makes it very clear that this is a treatment for diabetes, not a cure.
- tokenadult 12y 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 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-coincidence-only-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 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 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-dna-changes-following-population-explosion-may-hold-common-disease-clues 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.1219240 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-variants-1.10655 http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 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."
  - ggrothendieck 12y 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.
    - tokenadult 12y ago
      I wonder if earlier comments on news aggregation sites (like Hacker News, but probably more influentially Reddit) may have changed the practices at some of the press-release recycling services. Maybe they are getting better (although I would still much better like submissions of actual independently reported journalistic stories about science here) because people have been complaining.
      - ggrothendieck 12y ago
        Over the years that I have looked at Science Daily it has always provided sources and citations. I don't think there has been any change.
- pistle 12y 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 12y ago
Here is the paper in question (PDF): http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf http://f.cl.ly/items/460P2Z471N1m241q3439/nm.3761.pdf
- jdnier 12y 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 12y 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909
- ldd 12y 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 12y 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.
  - seekingtruth 12y 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.
Terr_ 12y 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.

66 points by not_that_noob 12y ago

mchanson 12y ago

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

tracker1 12y 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 12y 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)
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]

debacle 12y ago

The article itself is light on details. The IU report, here: http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/2014/12/dimarchi-diabetes-peptide.shtml 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/dimarchi-obesity-study.shtml http://news.indiana.edu/releases/iu/university-wide/2013/10/... Makes it very clear that this is a treatment for diabetes, not a cure.

tokenadult 12y 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 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-coincidence-only-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 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 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-dna-changes-following-population-explosion-may-hold-common-disease-clues 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.1219240 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-variants-1.10655 http://www.nature.com/news/humans-riddled-with-rare-genetic-... http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4108603 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."
- ggrothendieck 12y 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.
  - tokenadult 12y ago
    I wonder if earlier comments on news aggregation sites (like Hacker News, but probably more influentially Reddit) may have changed the practices at some of the press-release recycling services. Maybe they are getting better (although I would still much better like submissions of actual independently reported journalistic stories about science here) because people have been complaining.
    - ggrothendieck 12y ago
      Over the years that I have looked at Science Daily it has always provided sources and citations. I don't think there has been any change.
pistle 12y 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 12y ago

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

jdnier 12y 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 12y 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 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13887909

ldd 12y 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 12y 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.
- seekingtruth 12y 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.

Terr_ 12y 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.