[pmiller2]

Exactly. There are thousands of these proofs of concept in mice. How many times have we heard of various cancers being cured in mice?

Keep in mind, too, a dog's metabolism is very different from ours. Yes, this is good news, but we're talking about an animal that would be killed by eating too much chocolate. I'll get really excited about this once we've cured some diabetic chimps.

[akiselev]

Comparing cancer to diabetes is a reach. The balancing of hormones in diabetes is difficult but nothing compared to the complexities of each individual patient's cancers.

Since here we're dealing with a non-targeted genetherapy with a relatively well understood metabolic pathway the extension to humans will be simpler. The actual vector of getting the genes in will be challenging to convert but once we have that, we can use it for many other gene therapies.

[ChuckMcM]

There was a recent article in Science News [1] about the challenge of applying mouse studies to humans, followed by the NY Times slightly more exaggerated coverage [2]. Studies on non-humans for human issues can be misleading.

[1] http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/348250/descriptio...

[2] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/12/science/testing-of-some-de...

[lloyddobbler]

Agreed. They certainly can be misleading for those who expect them to translate over to humans without a hitch.

However, if one goes into trials on mice, dogs, and other animals with the understanding that you're comparing apples to oranges, there can be a lot gained.

This approach, for instance, is something completely different than I've ever seen WRT Type 1 diabetes. It's a 180-degree approach from islet cell transplants, semi-permeable protective membranes, and immuno-suppressive drugs. As a proof of concept, I think they can probably learn a lot from it - even if they can't simply copy it to humans exactly.

[philwelch]

Technically, any animal would be killed by eating too much chocolate.