Home | News | Find a Doctor | Ask a Question | Free

22% of genes expressed; 78% of genes not expressed


#1

22% expressed; 78% not expressed. That really says it all. They’re years away. I still think that allografts could allow us to do the same things now instead of waiting years but if we wait for autografts I think it will take them years to get the other 78% of genes to express.

Perhaps it’s a good idea to consider allografts at least until researchers get the other 78% of genes to express.


#2

Jarjar, did you read Dr nigams latest post? He claims to have grown thick terminal hairs using a similer method.

“I still think that allografts could allow us to do the same things now instead of waiting years”

JarJar it would indeed be a very intresting experiment. Nw7 to Nw1 using allografts. I think as a commercial idea it wouldn’t work, you would need someone to go through an invasive procedure to harvest their grafts so you could have hair. Its not far off body harvesting and only the desperate and needy would donate for money, which is wrong.


#3

No I didn’t see his post. What method did Dr. Nigam use? And if he’s doing the same thing as Jahoda how could he get better results than Jahoda?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by brunobald[/postedby]
Jarjar, did you read Dr nigams latest post? He claims to have grown thick terminal hairs using a similer method.[/quote]


#4

Its hard to tell if he is using cultured cell or fresh dp/ds cell. But the modification is the addition of certain specific gf/shh, to activate or make ds/dp cells trichogenic…


#5

I think he would need more cells then he can get fresh but maybe I’m wrong. Doesn’t it seem like it would take a lot of cells to restore a full head of hair?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by brunobald[/postedby]
Its hard to tell if he is using cultured cell or fresh dp/ds cell. But the modification is the addition of certain specific gf/shh, to activate or make ds/dp cells trichogenic…[/quote]


#6

Yeah it would take a lot of cell but this was only a test patch.


#7

Well does that mean that there’s still the problem of where are we going to get all of the cells that we need? Plus, it looks like Dr. Nigam is calling the new follicles “terminal neofollicles.” Do you know what this term means? Are these the kinds of hairs that we want? Is this nightmare over? Is this nightmare ever going to end?

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by brunobald[/postedby]
Yeah it would take a lot of cell but this was only a test patch.[/quote]


#8

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
22% expressed; 78% not expressed. That really says it all. They’re years away. I still think that allografts could allow us to do the same things now instead of waiting years but if we wait for autografts I think it will take them years to get the other 78% of genes to express.

Perhaps it’s a good idea to consider allografts at least until researchers get the other 78% of genes to express.[/quote]

I actually like your idea of allografts, too, and I can’t see any major reasons why it wouldn’t work and wouldn’t be safe (there may be some reasons, I just can’t see them.)

The main issue is, if someone is going to pursue the allografts idea, how would it be done?

I don’t think it’s going to happen in the USA or any Western countries, so you can pretty much write that idea off. To try to persuade the FDA to accept something like this would be a waste of time. The lobbying and persuasion effort would take years, and would most likely not work.

Just arguing that there’s no issue of immune rejection will not work, because in reality the safety angle hasn’t been studied sufficiently. The FDA will want multi-year, longitudinal studies with big, expensive clinical trials. And that’s if they give the green-light in the first place, which is highly unlikely.

To pursue the allograft idea, someone would have to start a business in a country where the following things are true:

  1. No regulation, or minimal regulation of cell-based medical procedures

  2. No possibility of FDA or Western regulatory interference, arm-twisting, etc.

  3. Sufficient population of suitable donors in the country. Donors would preferably be local because otherwise, cells would have to be shipped which would increase costs and might raise legal concerns.


#9

“Terminal neofollicles” means new hair follicles growing terminal hairs (normal scalp hair follicles in growing phase).


#10

If the follicles are new then there is the issue of whether or not they will produce long hairs like scalp hair or short hairs like eybrow hairs??? Or there could be the issue of whether the angle will be right since they will be completely new follicles so they might not grow out the same direction as the already existing follicles or if they new follicles are situated right since they can’t occupy the same space as the peach-fuzz follicles you already have.

This is why I think it’s best to get hairs to grow out of the shrunk follicles that we already have rather than creating a bunch of new follicles. If we put a bunch of new follicles into our scalps we are going to create a big mess inside our scalp skin. There will be follicles banging into other follicles and whatnot. It will create a bunch of debris and damage the tiny follicles we have still in the skin.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
“Terminal neofollicles” means new hair follicles growing terminal hairs (normal scalp hair follicles in growing phase).[/quote]


#11

Blood transfusions and organ donation all carry risks outside of immune rejection. In particular the transmission of infectious agents (HIV, CJD etc. screening isn’t perfect). I agree it is unlikely this would be even considered for what many people still class as a cosmetic problem.


#12

I could be wrong but it looks to me like it’s either we go with allograft material or we wait years longer for them to find a way to protect the inductivity of the autografts during the multi-month time-frame it takes to do cultures. It could take years for them to figure out a way around this problem but then again for all I know some breakthrough is right around the corner.


#13

[quote]If the follicles are new then there is the issue of whether or not they will produce long hairs like scalp hair or short hairs like arm hairs or eybrow hairs??? Or there could be the issue of if the angle will be right since they will be completely new follicles so they might not grow out the same direction as the already existing follicles or if they new follicles are placed right since they can’t occupy the same space as the peach-fuzz follicles you already have.

This is why I think it’s best to get hairs grow out of the shrunk follicles that we already have rather than creating a bunch of new follicles. If we put a bunch of new follicles into our scalps we are going to create a big mess inside our scalp skin. There will be follicles banging into other follicles and whatnot. It will create a bunch of debris and damage the tiny follicles we have still in the skin.[/quote]

No, the new follicles should have the basic characteristics of the follicles that the donor cells were taken from.

So if donor cells were taken from follicles in the back of your head, which are “normal” scalp hair follicles, the new follicles in the recipient area should not be eyebrow-like, or arm-like, etc. There is no reason to believe that.

On the other hand, I think angling of the new follicles may be in part based on mechanical factors, such as the orientation of the proto-follicle in the skin. This might result in some mal-aligned hairs. I think at this point we don’t know.


#14

That sounds scary. Could we catch AIDS from hair cell allografts?

[quote]
I actually like your idea of allografts, too, and I can’t see any major reasons why it wouldn’t work and wouldn’t be safe (there may be some reasons, I just can’t see them.)

The main issue is, if someone is going to pursue the allografts idea, how would it be done?

I don’t think it’s going to happen in the USA or any Western countries, so you can pretty much write that idea off. To try to persuade the FDA to accept something like this would be a waste of time. The lobbying and persuasion effort would take years, and would most likely not work.

[postedby]Originally Posted by walrus[/postedby]

Blood transfusions and organ donation all carry risks outside of immune rejection. In particular the transmission of infectious agents (HIV, CJD etc. screening isn’t perfect). I agree it is unlikely this would be even considered for what many people still class as a cosmetic problem.[/quote]


#15

Roger_that I am so sick of hair loss. Do you perceive a real possibility that we are about to have a real opportunity to get our hair back within the next 6 months? What do you think about the things that are taking shape right now for the near term?

[quote]If the follicles are new then there is the issue of whether or not they will produce long hairs like scalp hair or short hairs like arm hairs or eybrow hairs??? Or there could be the issue of if the angle will be right since they will be completely new follicles so they might not grow out the same direction as the already existing follicles or if they new follicles are placed right since they can’t occupy the same space as the peach-fuzz follicles you already have.

This is why I think it’s best to get hairs grow out of the shrunk follicles that we already have rather than creating a bunch of new follicles. If we put a bunch of new follicles into our scalps we are going to create a big mess inside our scalp skin. There will be follicles banging into other follicles and whatnot. It will create a bunch of debris and damage the tiny follicles we have still in the skin.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

No, the new follicles should have the basic characteristics of the follicles that the donor cells were taken from.

So if donor cells were taken from follicles in the back of your head, which are “normal” scalp hair follicles, the new follicles in the recipient area should not be eyebrow-like, or arm-like, etc. There is no reason to believe that.

On the other hand, I think angling of the new follicles may be in part based on mechanical factors, such as the orientation of the proto-follicle in the skin. This might result in some mal-aligned hairs. I think at this point we don’t know.[/quote]


#16

your childish optimism really is ridiculous :rotfl:

[quote]Roger_that I am so sick of hair loss. Do you perceive a real possibility that we are about to have a real opportunity to get our hair back within the next 6 months? What do you think about the things that are taking shape right now for the near term?

If the follicles are new then there is the issue of whether or not they will produce long hairs like scalp hair or short hairs like arm hairs or eybrow hairs??? Or there could be the issue of if the angle will be right since they will be completely new follicles so they might not grow out the same direction as the already existing follicles or if they new follicles are placed right since they can’t occupy the same space as the peach-fuzz follicles you already have.

This is why I think it’s best to get hairs grow out of the shrunk follicles that we already have rather than creating a bunch of new follicles. If we put a bunch of new follicles into our scalps we are going to create a big mess inside our scalp skin. There will be follicles banging into other follicles and whatnot. It will create a bunch of debris and damage the tiny follicles we have still in the skin.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

No, the new follicles should have the basic characteristics of the follicles that the donor cells were taken from.

So if donor cells were taken from follicles in the back of your head, which are “normal” scalp hair follicles, the new follicles in the recipient area should not be eyebrow-like, or arm-like, etc. There is no reason to believe that.

On the other hand, I think angling of the new follicles may be in part based on mechanical factors, such as the orientation of the proto-follicle in the skin. This might result in some mal-aligned hairs. I think at this point we don’t know.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby][/quote]


#17

For some inexplicable reason when I read your “cling to the old ways” posts I hear the sound of faint jungle drums in the background.:rotfl:

[quote]your childish optimism really is ridiculous :rotfl:

Roger_that I am so sick of hair loss. Do you perceive a real possibility that we are about to have a real opportunity to get our hair back within the next 6 months? What do you think about the things that are taking shape right now for the near term?

If the follicles are new then there is the issue of whether or not they will produce long hairs like scalp hair or short hairs like arm hairs or eybrow hairs??? Or there could be the issue of if the angle will be right since they will be completely new follicles so they might not grow out the same direction as the already existing follicles or if they new follicles are placed right since they can’t occupy the same space as the peach-fuzz follicles you already have.

This is why I think it’s best to get hairs grow out of the shrunk follicles that we already have rather than creating a bunch of new follicles. If we put a bunch of new follicles into our scalps we are going to create a big mess inside our scalp skin. There will be follicles banging into other follicles and whatnot. It will create a bunch of debris and damage the tiny follicles we have still in the skin.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

No, the new follicles should have the basic characteristics of the follicles that the donor cells were taken from.

So if donor cells were taken from follicles in the back of your head, which are “normal” scalp hair follicles, the new follicles in the recipient area should not be eyebrow-like, or arm-like, etc. There is no reason to believe that.

On the other hand, I think angling of the new follicles may be in part based on mechanical factors, such as the orientation of the proto-follicle in the skin. This might result in some mal-aligned hairs. I think at this point we don’t know.

[postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]

[postedby]Originally Posted by hairman2[/postedby][/quote]


#18

I’m sure there are simple effective methods to purify these cells.


#19

Great, so you can safely get hair with someone else’s characteristics put onto your head, instead of dangerously.

If you think this is a minor issue then you don’t understand the cosmetic aspects of hair. I’m not telling you this won’t work, I’m telling you it won’t sell.


#20

Please, you guys, would you stop this ridiculous feud and behave like adults on this forum? It’s embarrassing when we have respected researchers reading and posting on this forum, for them to see this kind of BS.