Babies at risk for diabetes may have microbiota restored

[Northerner]

Newborns at risk for Type 1 diabetes because they were given antibiotics may have their gut microorganisms restored with a maternal fecal transplant, according to a Rutgers study.

The study, which involved genetic analysis of mice, appears in the journal Cell Host & Microbe.

The findings suggest that newborns at risk for Type 1 diabetes because their microbiome -- the trillions of beneficial microorganisms in and on our bodies -- were disturbed can have the condition reversed by transplanting fecal microbiota from their mother into their gastrointestinal tract after the antibiotic course has been completed.

Type 1 diabetes is the most common autoimmune disease in childhood.

"Our previous work has shown that exposing young animals to antibiotics perturbs the microbiome, which may change age-associated immunity and organ-specific inflammation, increasing risk of immune-mediated diseases," said co-author Martin Blaser, director of the Center for Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine at Rutgers.

Babies at risk for diabetes may have microbiota restored

Newborns at risk for Type 1 diabetes because they were given antibiotics may have their gut microorganisms restored with a maternal fecal transplant, according to a new study.

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[Inka]

They also use a form of maternal swabbing if you have a C Section sometimes. I discussed it with my consultant but fortunately didn’t have a section and delivered naturally.

I think it’s a good idea.

 

[mikeyB]

A vaginal swab will do, that’s nature’s way in every mammal.

 

[Robin]

They also use a form of maternal swabbing if you have a C Section sometimes. I discussed it with my consultant but fortunately didn’t have a section and delivered naturally.

I think it’s a good idea.

A vaginal swab will do, that’s nature’s way in every mammal.

I never thought about it with my C section, it was a middle of the night emergency and everyone had other things on their minds. I'm not even sure it was done 29 years ago.
I have subsequently read up stuff about it, and it seems that a lot of hospitals started, but then discontinued the practice because of the risk of transferring harmful bacteria sometimes found in the vagina, like Strep B. As ever, it something harmful is transferred during natural birth, so be it, and it’s dealt with after, but if you actively and artificially transfer something harmful, it lays you open to being sued, and hospitals decided it wasn’t worth the risk.
(For the record, daughter has always had really bad eczema and hay fever, but will never know if she’d have had that anyway with a natural birth.)

 

[Inka]

I only heard about it in the last few years @Robin I saw it on pregnancy sites. My consultant said it would probably be something I’d have to do myself - ie it wouldn’t be done officially as a hospital procedure. I don’t remember exactly how she phrased it, but she was covering herself while implying it would be ok, if you see what I mean.

 

[Robin]

. I don’t remember exactly how she phrased it, but she was covering herself while implying it would be ok, if you see what I mean.

Yes, that makes perfect sense.