It could be, but I think the difference between PGD2 and this is that, with PGD2, Cotsarelis found that it (and the enzyme that makes it) was found in much higher concentrations in balding areas of bald people’s scalps. But, I think they never actually found experimentally that blocking PDG2 leads to increased hair growth. So it was very strong circumstantial evidence, but no direct evidence.
On the other hand, it looks like they’re saying that CXXC5 actually leads to decreased hair growth – they’ve seen this experimentally. So it’s more than just circumstantial evidence, it’s direct evidence.
My question is, what did they do in that experiment? Did they actually expose non-balding people’s scalps to CXXC5? Or did they do some kind of in vitro experiment? Or was it just an incidental result of an experiment conducted for some other reason.