Type 1 Diabetes Primarily Genetic?

I was on the BDC website, and noticed a link to a new study the BDC did. They concluded using identicle twins that Type 1 is primarily genetic.

Here is the video:

http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=50943@kcnc.dayport.com

Let me know if the video doesn't work.

What are your thoughts on it? I know they have said that genetics play a roll for quite some time, but this is the first time I have heard them say it so positively. They didn't really go into great detail, but I thought it was interesting all the same. I do think once they understand the genetic factor more, it is one step closer to preventing it.

 

Wouldn't that mean that if 1 identical twin has D the other will definately get D? Or just like family members care the gene and it takes an outside factor to trigger the actual disease?

 

Or, is it that any autoimmune disease is genetic? And we just drew the T1 card? That is how I always heard it.

 

In the video, the Doctor said the following:

"We got a pretty clear picture that almost all twins, identicle twins, of someone with Diabetes will eventually develop diabetes."

Apparently, they have been following some twins for the last 50 years. They didn't mention anything about the outside factors in the video.

I do think it is the whole, "genetics may load the gun, but the environment pulls the trigger' still. May be wrong though.

 

i would think its like anything else -- primarily genetic. You can have a silent T1 gene floating around in the DNA soup for hundreds of years that will decide to surface one day. We know in Kats case, it took two recessives (to make that dominant factor of T1). On my side of the family it was my mom who was T1, skipped me. But Im a silent carrier. On Rays side, it was his great grandfather - a guy who lived a short life about 100 years ago that was the T1, and it carried silently thru 4 generations before landing on Kat. It still makes Ray a silent carrier. I dont see how we can "get" anything without genetics.

 

This is what I think.

 

I feel like there is definately a genetic aspect to D. That there has to be a certine gene to get D. But I also do feel like the doctor on the video who said that if one identical twin has D, then its just a matter of time before the other one gets it, was kind of jumping the gun on his statement. Personally I feel like to get D, there has to be the correct gene, and then an envronmental trigger. I wonder if the reason there are so many identical twins with D (or at least the ones he studdied), is because they are introduced to the same environmental triggers, and they do have the same genes.

 

I understand this to mean that both twins of a parent with diabetes will develop diabetes.

 

It wast confusing how he said it too. But using the entire video, I believe he was saying if one identicle twin has diabetes, it is very likely the other will develop it over time.

 

Absolutely agree about the trigger. I am just surprised to hear the BDC say pretty confidently how strong the genes really are.

I do 100% believe there are environmental factors that start the attack(or more so lack of Vitamin D, there are some interesting studies on that).

It is so complex, I don't know how these researchers do it. My head spins trying to keep up with all these new reports.

 

I doubt it.

Somewhere in Ragnar Hanas' book, he references a study saying that people in Japan, for example, are at lower risk for type 1 diabetes compared to other places in the world, but when they come to the UK-there risk goes up 15 times, compared to Japan.

It is due to environmental and lifestyle causes. That can be a trigger for autoimmunity.

And plus, have the TrialNET studies yielded definite results??????? Nope! As far as I am concerned, those test are no more accurate than predicting eye color.

 

Wrong. Identical Twins are at a 30-50% risk of developing type 1 if the other twin has it. The risk is even higher if they got it earlier in life, like below age 5.

Environmental factors play a role in this.

I have a fraternal twin, who is completely healthy, and his risk is only 1% greater than a normal sibling.

 

fraternal twins are no closer genetically than siblings who are born seperately.

 

I would say you are quite right..
For example, the same can be said searching for the genes for breast cancer.
Looking at the rise in China, safe to say its not genetics.


Breast Cancer Rates Skyrocket in China as Locals Embrace American Diet of Processed Foods
"According to an article in the "China Daily," rates of breast cancer in
Shanghai have increased by 31 percent in the last 10 years, to a current
rate of 55 per 100,000 women. Rates in Beijing have increased by 23
percent over the same period, up to 45 per 100,000.

The Chinese diet has changed radically in the past few years, as people have
increasingly adopted the high-fat, high-junk food diet common in the West
and turned away from the traditional diet high in vegetables, grains and tofu."

 

PRIMARILY is a funny word. Type 1 diabetes definitely has a strong genetic component. It also has an obvious strong environmental component.
I guess I like the gun analagy, that guns are the genes and environment the trigger. You can't pull a trigger on a gun that isn't there.

 

My sister and I were identical. She was dx with D at 13 mos of age. We did an early twin study back in the 80's and the tests "showed" I would develop D within a year or 2. 32 years later and no sign, but it's always in the back of my mind.

As far as environmental triggers, I would assume if anything triggered it for my sister, I would've been exposed too. So what made it possible that she got it (and my brother is also type 1, dx at 2 year, 4 months of age)

 

Does anyone think it is wrong of him to release this information if it isn't COMPLETELY true? I can't imagine the worry of having a set of identical twins with one diagnosed now. He basically said there is almost no hope for the second twin to not also be diagnosed. And what about all those undiagnosed twins out there!? That is a huge burden to carry.

 

Here's an article that explains a bit more. http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/dec/29/study-shows-type-i-diabetes-genetic-disease/

They seem to tone it down a bit more than the video.

 

Well, being an identical twin this is interesting. I knew the rate of both twins developing diabetes was very high but so far my sister doesn't have it. I am glad as she is already dealing with enough as it is. She is a brain cancer survivor and is suffering from progressive brain damage. I just cannot imagine her having diabetes as well.

 

I think the gentic trigger for type 2 may be different than type 1 due to other factors that contribute to type 2. Since having type 2 is not all 100% genetic I think that twin study would have to take into effect lifestyle as a contributing factor, along with genetics when predicting type 2 in twins, even identical.

I do think that there is soooo much more to learn about the gentic nature of type 1. My older son has more postitve antibodies than my younger son who has been dx since a baby. Still my older son shows no signs of D. His last
a1c was 4.7!!