Talk:Insulin-like growth factor 1/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2020 and 14 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mill2488, AnonymousUsernam33. Peer reviewers: Abeszhak.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kelleytw. Peer reviewers: Romeror0924, Hugheshayne.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled

What about IGF-2? can somebody elaborate on this?

IGF-2 is a naturally occuring second protein, related to MGM-1. It binds the IGF1 receptor at somewhat lower affinity than IGF1. Both IGF1 and IGF2 can induce growth in the animal via the IGF1 receptor. Gacggt 21:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

long r3 igf-1

The most effective (artifically modified) form of IGF is Long R3 IGF-1, it has been chemically altered and has had amino acid changes which cause it to avoid binding to proteins in the human body and allow it to have a much longer half life, around 20-30 hours. “Long R3 IGF-1 is an 83 amino acid analog of IGF-1 comprising the complete human IGF-1 sequence with the substition of an Arg(R) for the Glu(E) at position three, hence R3, and a 13 amino acid extension peptide at the N terminus. This analog of IGF-1 has been produced with the purpose of increasing the biological activity of the IGF peptide.” The only two IGF-1 Long R3 brands available on the market today are Revitropin and Igtropin. There is also a [[black market] for it with an average price of $150/1mg. This black market is especially used by [bodybuilders] and [athletes] who want to increase their lean body mass.

I removed the above temporarily for a couple of reasons. The reader will think this is simply another tested and approved IGF1 or somatropin product when it is deliberately being marketed as an "offshore" pharmaceutical for "experimental" use, which in plain language means they have not demonstrated efficacy or safety to any qualified agency, and they want to sell it without oversight, without liability or legal recourse for the buyer. This needs to be made excruciatinly clear. For those who mistrust "Big Pharma" the only thing potentially worse is a situation like this. The second problem is that statements about the effectiveness of a product like this need references. If there are no published papers about this compound, it does not belong here. Thanks for understanding. alteripse 01:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

IGF-1 and lifespan

I've heard that IGF-1 also interacts with lifespan; invertebrates with deficient IGF-1 receptors have a longer lifespan. However, low levels of IGF-1 in older human adults seems is linked with a shorter lifespan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bayle Shanks (talk • contribs) 04:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

See for example http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00018-004-4297-y Bayle Shanks 04:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

There is indeed some record of increased lifespan in the (partial) absence of IGF-1 receptors (and consequently: reduced IGF-1 signaling). [Paper: IGF-1 receptor regulates lifespan and resistance to oxidative stress in mice.]. You have to see the bigger picture as well however, increased life-span doesn't mean staying young, nor does it mean that there are no other harmfull effects, this particular article only addresses life-span & resistance to oxidative stress in mice. Mice are quite different from men, they are short-lived high breeders (high predator pressure), while we are long-lived, slow breeders. Mechanisms that influence lifespan can thus be expected to have different effects in mice versus humans. Daviddecraene 08:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Recent evidence suggests caloric restriction doesn't in humans doesn't lower IGF-1 as it does in mice (longer lifespan), however, protein restriction DOES do this. Somebody should add a bit on IGF-1 and lifespan. http://www.physorg.com/news141484846.html 210.215.140.180 (talk) 10:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Insulin binds to IGF-IR

While the article mentions that IGF-I binds to the insulin receptor, it doesn't mention anywhere that insulin binds to IGF-IR. This is of vital importance to, for example, the development of recombinant insulin analogs, since high IGF-I is correlated with breast cancer and diabetic retinopathy. ^A10Asp, for example, causes cancer in mice and shows 20x IGF-IR affinity. Glargine also shows 6-8x affinity in vitro, which is part of the worry about a possible (though unlikely) link to breast cancer. I can write this and gather some references, but if anybody else feels bold in the meantime, it needs to be added. Eebster the Great (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Insm

I feel like this is a slanted position:

Insmed was found to infringe on patents licensed by Tercica, which then sought to get a U.S. district court judge to ban sales of Iplex. [3] To settle patent infringement charges and resolve all litigation between the two companies, Insmed in March 2007 agreed to withdraw Iplex from the U.S. market, leaving Tercica's Increlex as the sole version of IGF-1 available in the United States. [4]

This doesn't seem to be true according to [drugs.com[1]]

Through licensing and development rights granted by Tercica and Genentech, Insmed will have freedom to operate regarding the manufacture, development and commercialization of IPLEX for certain non-short stature indications including severe insulin resistance, myotonic muscular dystrophy and HIV associated adipose redistribution syndrome (HARS), subject to opt-in rights and royalty provisions for Tercica and Genentech.

It goes on to discuss the terms of the agreement including opt-in for indications genetech and tercica find appealing, though tercica isn't an independent company any longer to my knowledge. I'm not necessarily the authority on this though. I thought others might have input.

for disclosure I own stock in insm otherwise wouldn't have stumbled onto this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lycanter (talk • contribs) 05:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

This belongs not directly to Insmed, but to the statement "Also, since IGFBP-3 has a lower affinity for IGF-1 than IGF-1 has for its receptor, IGFR, its binding does not interfere with IGF-1 function". In my opinion and also in the opinion of other autors IGFBP-3 binding affinity for IGF-1 is much higher than the affinity between IGF-1 and it's receptor. Please have a look at "The Insulin-Like Growth Factor-Binding Protein (IGFBP) Superfamily1" (Vivian Hwa, Youngman Oh and Ron G. Rosenfeld; Endocrine Reviews 20 (6): 761-787) and "Biosensor measurement of the interaction kinetics between insulin-like growth factors and their binding proteins" (Wong, M. S. Fong, C. C., Yang, M.; Biochimica et Biophysica Acta 1432 (1999) 293^301) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.111.75.13 (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Causes or is raised by cancers

Article says "Several studies have shown that increased levels of IGF lead to an increased risk of cancer." with no source, but in some cases the raised IGF(-1) is caused by the cancer (generated within the cancer cells) rather than the IGF causing the cancer. Need a RS. Maybe The role of the IGF system in cancer growth and metastasis: overview and recent insights. 2006 Rod57 (talk) 17:23, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Deer Antler extract (Deer antler velvet?)

It's becoming very big in the news about IGF-1 and Deer Antler velvet. A few things I'm interested in: 1.) Is the Deer Antler IGF-1 the same as the Insulin-like growth factor 1? 2.) Can IGF-1 be taken orally like all the supplements online say? Many growth factors get destroyed in the stomach, and that's why the oral-route isn't acceptable. This leads me to the bigger question "what peer-reviewed research gives us details on Deer antler velvet?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.222.112.250 (talk) 17:44, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ecuadorian study

Here's the NYT story on the Ecuadorian study of Laron syndrome by Dr. Jaime Guevara-Aguirre Ecuadorean Villagers May Hold Secret to Longevity By NICHOLAS WADE.

Primary source is Science Translational Medicine, http://stm.sciencemag.org/content/3/70/70ra13.abstract but that's behind a paywall. --Nbauman (talk) 14:21, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

molecular weight of IGF-1

The MW listed in the main article for IGF-1 is incorrect. The correct value is 7649 Daltons. Reference article: Rinderknecht & Humbel, J. Biolog Chem, col 253, no. 8, pp 2769-2776, 1978. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.33.243 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

handling clinical aspects of IGF-1

I just took a blast though this. The " Clinical significance" section was a nightmare from the perspective of WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. This is mostly a biology article I know, but there was some crazy stuff going on there. I left a message at Project Medicine to get others' thoughts on how to better structure articles like this, that have important and interesting molecular biology aspect 'and have medical aspects. discussion is Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#articles_on_proteins_that_are_also_used_as_drugs. Jytdog (talk) 03:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is any fundamental conflict between WP:MEDMOS and WP:MCBMOS. MCB clinical significance sections are intended mainly to cover diseases or conditions that are a result of a mutation in the gene or a deficiency or excess of the expressed protein. When the protein is used as a drug or diagnostic, then of course WP:MEDRS would apply to those applications. Also we need carefully separate preclinical from clinical studies. If the protein itself is a widely prescribed drug, it would probably be better to split out a separate drug article (as was done for example with insulin and insulin therapy). Boghog (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

good to know - thank you! Jytdog (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering that IGF-1 is used as a drug treatment for certain conditions, shouldn't this page have a {{drugbox}} instead of the current {{PBB}}? =/ Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

as far as i know it is not used as a drug. do you have any reliable sources for that? i would be interested to see them. Jytdog (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#IGF-1 signaling - any review in that section except the 1 citing the last sentence
• Mecasermin - which should probably be merged into this article
• IUPHAR IGF-1 entry: "The recombinant form of human IGF-1 is an approved drug, mecasermin."

Take your pick. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

this is bizarro day in wikipedia. the first link has nothing to do with this. the 2nd two, do! I learned something today with those - thanks! I agree that Mecasermin should be merged here. This is another case with a recombinant protein where the article needs to discuss the biology of the endogenous protein and the use of the recombinant (or otherwise obtained) protein as a drug. like insulin or PDGF, etc. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I meant look at the first 2 reviews - PMID 19955757 PMID 24999318 - not look for the info in the article...
Anyway, I just realized that this proposal would affect a lot of other articles, so perhaps it should just say a protein box. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

As I already mentioned above, I think it is better to keep protein and drug articles separate. They are each independently notable, have a completely different structure (compare WP:PHARMMOS with WP:MCBMOS) and each has a large infobox and it would be awkward to include both in the same article. I certainly would strongly appose replacing {{GNF Protein box}} with {{infobox drug}}. The Gene Wiki project goal is to create a Wikipedia article for each notable human gene/protein and Insulin-like growth factor 1 is certainly notable. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge and this sum is wider that WP:MED / WP:PHARMA. It also includes WP:MCB / Gene Wiki. Boghog (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Like I said, I just realized that this proposal would affect a lot of other articles, so perhaps it should just say a protein box. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:37, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Seppi I see what you mean now. With regard to merging or not, I see the case either way and am fine leaving them separate. I'll assume we keep them separate; we should probably have a section in this article on Mecasermin; using WP:SUMMARY. I'll do that over the weekend. Jytdog (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog:, @Seppi333: I agree that WP:SUMMARY on Mecasermin in this article is most appropriate. However based on your responses, I don't think either of you get it. The issue is not there are a lot of other articles with separate protein and drug articles. The issue is that both subjects are independently notable and each deserves its own article. Believe it or not, some people are interested in subjects outside the scope of medicine and pharmacology. This WP:MED narrow-mindedness/narcissism needs to stop ;-) Boghog (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(EC) OK, no worries. When I am ignored, I get a little cranky ;-) Boghog (talk) 20:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I understood your point Boghog and I agree with it; it's just that I'm very disinclined to do something on WP if it creates a lot more work as a result. Ignoring everything else, that alone is reason enough for me not to go through with something. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Misleading citation/statement in Cancer section

The following statement found in the Cancer section of the article "Dietary interventions and modifications such as vegan diets shown to down regulate IGF-1 activity, has been associated with lower risk of cancer" cites a paper which does not provide the stated conclusion. This paper speculates that it is "conceivable" that vegan diets "should" down regulate IGF-I, not that primary research has shown this to be true. The statement either needs to be removed, reworded or cite primary research which leads to this conclusion. If there is no discussion or citation made, I will remove the statement within a month. Sean Egan (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dietary sources

Should there not at least be a mention of the prevalence of IGF-I in human diet, through, for instance, cow's milk? MaynardClark (talk) 05:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

No. All food is made is of proteins and DNA and all kinds of other chemicals. Jytdog (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

That's true (whether or not the public realizes it), but my question was basic, and Jytdog gives one reason why one person could answer 'no' to my question. Might others weight in? Does diet pose a risk to human populations re: IGF-1? Merely 'lining up' on one side or another may not shed much light on the question. MaynardClark (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Clinical Trials

I feel the references to clinical trials needs to be expanded, rather than "one liner" mentioning. Rather than just mentioning some references. Trials of IGF-1 on muscle recovery in ALS patients was referred to but the mention is murky ... saying it wasn't successful. After all, IGF-1 is known to be fundamentally involved in cell regulation, reason why such clinical trials are run. One trial (there may be more than one) was conducted by Mayo Clinic led by Eric Sorenson... using measuring muscle recovery by the Manual Muscle Testing (MMT) protocol... the test protocol at clinicaltrials.com says "ALS is a neurodegenerative disorder that causes progressive muscle weakness and loss of motor neurons. IGF-1 is a neurotrophic factor essential for normal development of the nervous system and shows protection of motor neurons in animal models and cell culture systems. It is thought to block cell death pathways and promote muscle re-innervation and axonal growth and regeneration." However I understand the trial was not successful. There was a similar trial for Kennedy's Disease or spinalbulbar muscular atrophy (SBMA) a hereditary disease with similar, but less severe symptoms vs. ALS. Danleywolfe (talk) 23:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead Citations Needed

This background information in the lead needs a proper citation.

"IGF-1 is produced primarily by the liver. Production is stimulated by growth hormone (GH). Most of IGF-1 is bound to one of 6 binding proteins (IGF-BP). IGFBP-1 is regulated by insulin. IGF-1 is produced throughout life; the highest rates of IGF-1 production occur during the pubertal growth spurt. The lowest levels occur in infancy and old age.[medical citation needed]"

I found this article that gives similar background information, but it's verified by a reliable source. Is it necessary to include the information about IGF biding proteins in the lead? It seems like that could be elaborated on in a later section.

Mill2488 (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

I also found a good citation that would work for this.. Can you have more than one citation for the same information?

AnonymousUsernam33 (talk) 04:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

References