C-Peptide - more information please :)


(A-D) #1

Hey everyone!

Hopefully I'm not getting all excited over nothing, however, it looks like these folks:

 

www.cebix.com are going to be starting trials in early 2010 and hopefully coming to market not too long after that. 

 

C-peptide is one of those things that I have been dying to see somebody develop and bring to market for as long as I have been aware of it.  In a healthy body, insulin isn’t produced alone, it is produced as pro-insulin which is a combination of insulin + C-peptide.  If my limited understanding of this is accurate, insulin is somewhat damaging by nature and the C-peptide is the natural mitigating factor to some of that damage. 

 

The Cebix site has some interesting information as does:  http://www.creativepeptides.se/science.html

 

Has anyone else been following this or have any thoughts?  In my mind this and the Browlee research are the two most promising complication busters…

 

Since I stumbled across this I am also wondering if anyone knows of any other c-peptide solutions either on or on their way to the market.

 

Cheers!

 

A-D


(sarahslp) #2

I had heard something vague about the c-peptide thing a while ago -- good to know they are moving ahead.

What is the is Browlee research?


(A-D) #3

Sarah,

Dr. Brownlee believes he has found a unified mechanism for the complications brought on by diabetes and he thinks he has a way of interrupting that chemical process and preventing the complications.  I have the Banting award lecture he gave and the journal article of the human trial on my home page here on Juvenation (lower right corner 01 & 02...)

Cheers!

A-D


(Eric_Carpenter) #4

Hi A-D, this might be off topic but maybe you can help me.  I contacted Dr. Brownlee after your post of those articles concerning the Diabetologia release and never got a reply. The figures on page 2 show significant differences between control and diabetic participants at Week 0.  What wasn't clear to me was whether the diabetic levels at Weeks 2 and 4 were signficantly different from diabetic levels at Week 0. control levels at Week 0, or both values at Week 0.  I was also wondering if there was any info about Weeks 2 and 4 being significantly different from each other.


(A-D) #5

Eric,

 

To my (highly untrained eye) eye, each of the three graphs represent a separate series of chemical measurements.  Each starts with a week 0 comparison between non-diabetic and diabetic levels.  In all three graphs at week 0, each of the levels are dramatically different between diabetics and non-diabetics.  Following the trail out to the second and fourth weeks it appears to me that it is showing the following:

 

·         Angiopoietin-2 levels in serum of non-diabetic and type 1 diabetic participants the non-diabetic level appears to be around 1500, whereas the diabetic range is just under 2500 at week 0

o   At weeks two and four the diabetic range drops to around 1000 and yes, this is an appreciable  difference from the week 0 level of 2500

·         Intracellular N-acetylglucosamine-modified protein (GlcNAc) in monocytes from non-diabetic and type 1 diabetic participants before and during treatment at week zero the non-diabetic level is a little over 1000 where the diabetic level is at nearly 4000

o   At week two the diabetic level appears to drop to nearly 2500 and at week four it appears to be about 2000

·         6-keto-PGF1α levels in serum of non-diabetic and type 1 diabetic participants before and during same treatment seem to show the non-diabetic group in week 0  at about 5500 while the diabetic group is at about 1500.

o   At week two the diabetic level raises to around 4000 and by week four is nearly 5000.

 

The underlying assumption is that the non-diabetic levels for these substances remain constant throughout.  I expect this is true but I do not know if they have the data to show it.

 

Given the way I’m reading it, I am not completely sure I am clear about your questions or if my reviewing what I saw and how I read it helped or hindered.  This may be better suited to an email/phone call if you want to spend a few minutes seeing what we can figure out together… hehehe

 

Cheers!

 

A-D