To my knowledge, this hasn’t been posted before. This is the supplementary section of Cotsarelis’ original paper on hair follicle neogenesis following wounding.
Some highlights:
Approximately 80% of the new follicles generated grow in the proper direction. This is good, if only from a styling standpoint. Of course, some people will kick a gift horse in the mouth and complain about a few hairs that are not oriented properly, but they have bigger problems than hair loss.
The spacing between between newly generated follicles is close to the natural spacing between hair follicles. This is also good.
Regenerated hairs grow as long as existing hairs. Obviously a good thing.
They also compare the number of new follicles generated with different variables present.
» 3) Regenerated hairs grow as long as existing hairs. Obviously a good
» thing.
Good find!
Answers a lot of questions…I was just thinking about this the other day, whether Baccy’s new hair will be just like existing head hair or more like curly chest hair that grow to about 1 inch.
Maybe this will shut up some of the pissing & moaning about growth direction with Folica’s project. The guys who believe Folica can’t possibly work have pointed to this issue repeatedly.
80% correct growth direction is probably not any worse than an average conventional HT.
“Pretty close” to original density is good enough in my mind. In my own case, my TRUE pre-baldness density/thickness was so thick it was hard to style.
I wonder what kind of improvements they’ll make with more research into the specifics of hair regeneration.
Hope you are doing fine and that your experimentation is going well.
I’ve a question for you : do you know,through your lecture of the Nature paper and the patent, if the WNT supression at first might enhance, later on, the activity of WNT pathways (coupling this with a WNT agonist after an antagonist for a certain lapse of time).
» » I wonder what kind of improvements they’ll make with more research into
» » the specifics of hair regeneration.
»
» they should make a “small” improvement, just a little detail, and that is
» that their protocol works in humans, not just for mice.
In this article they say they could get an approval in 4-5 years. Can they still market the product before they get an approval, i.e., so that people can buy it if it’s proven safe but not fully approved?
» » » I wonder what kind of improvements they’ll make with more research
» into
» » » the specifics of hair regeneration.
» »
» » they should make a “small” improvement, just a little detail, and that
» is
» » that their protocol works in humans, not just for mice.
» http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/emerging-drug-developer-follica
»
» In this article they say they could get an approval in 4-5 years. Can they
» still market the product before they get an approval, i.e., so that people
» can buy it if it’s proven safe but not fully approved?
no they can not. and for full trials the 5 years is very optimistic estimate.
» Hello TAGHOL,
»
» Hope you are doing fine and that your experimentation is going well.
»
» I’ve a question for you : do you know,through your lecture of the Nature
» paper and the patent, if the WNT supression at first might enhance, later
» on, the activity of WNT pathways (coupling this with a WNT agonist after
» an antagonist for a certain lapse of time).
Interesting theory. Like a ‘pull-push’ sort of action. Which ironically is what I did the first time around but entirely by mistake.
For the first 2 or 3 days I inhibited wnt as well as EGF. Then I changed to milk thistle and continued with the lithium to upregulate. The question is, was the wnt inhibition of the quercetin overwhelming the lithium.
» if the WNT supression at first might enhance, later
» on, the activity of WNT pathways (coupling this with a WNT agonist after
» an antagonist for a certain lapse of time).
Hmm, I never really thought about this. It’s possible, but I’m not sure.
» » » I wonder what kind of improvements they’ll make with more research
» into
» » » the specifics of hair regeneration.
» »
» » they should make a “small” improvement, just a little detail, and that
» is
» » that their protocol works in humans, not just for mice.
» http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/emerging-drug-developer-follica
»
» In this article they say they could get an approval in 4-5 years. Can they
» still market the product before they get an approval, i.e., so that people
» can buy it if it’s proven safe but not fully approved?
Taken from the article:
"Right now their money is funding a small human study which Zohar describes as “more of an investigator-sponsored trial.” And the company has enough money to push the program through proof-of-concept toward an NDA - a path that’s likely to take an accelerated development path that compresses the usual early and mid-stage trials into a 24- to 36-month window. An approval could conceivably be won in four to five years.
“What’s nice about it,” she adds, “is that even though this is based on breakthrough science, we are using existing compounds previously approved for systemic chronic use and reformulating them for topical acute use. We know these compounds are safe in people.”
» » » » I wonder what kind of improvements they’ll make with more research
» » into
» » » » the specifics of hair regeneration.
» » »
» » » they should make a “small” improvement, just a little detail, and
» that
» » is
» » » that their protocol works in humans, not just for mice.
» »
» http://www.fiercebiotech.com/special-reports/emerging-drug-developer-follica
» »
» » In this article they say they could get an approval in 4-5 years. Can
» they
» » still market the product before they get an approval, i.e., so that
» people
» » can buy it if it’s proven safe but not fully approved?
»
» no they can not. and for full trials the 5 years is very optimistic
» estimate.
Yeah that’s exactly what I thought too. But what doesn’t make sense to me then is why Histogen is planning for a release in 2015 already. They started a bit behind Follica since it seems their research is based on Cotsarelis discoveries (or maybe they started earlier but didn’t tell anyone, and then when Cotsarelis found the breakthrough it confirmed their ideas), so it shouldn’t be the case that Follica also will be out at the same time, or? Maybe it is the case, since why would Histogen start on a product that is similar to Follica’s if Follica is to come out sooner? Maybe they realize Follica will also come out around that time.
I just think of the situation in terms of subtracting phase #1 from the timeframe.
Yeah, I know that is not literally what will happen. But realistically this is what the presence of pre-approved drugs offers to the situation. They don’t need to prove the baseline human safety of the drugs, but they still need to prove the majority of what is sought from a coventional trials process during phases #2 and #3.
So if a conventional 3-stage trials process takes roughly a decade, then I think we might really see Folica go commercial after 6-7 years of trials.
This figure seems realistic to me assuming no major setbacks.
» » Hello TAGHOL,
» »
» » Hope you are doing fine and that your experimentation is going well.
» »
» » I’ve a question for you : do you know,through your lecture of the
» Nature
» » paper and the patent, if the WNT supression at first might enhance,
» later
» » on, the activity of WNT pathways (coupling this with a WNT agonist
» after
» » an antagonist for a certain lapse of time).
»
» Interesting theory. Like a ‘pull-push’ sort of action. Which ironically is
» what I did the first time around but entirely by mistake.
» For the first 2 or 3 days I inhibited wnt as well as EGF. Then I changed
» to milk thistle and continued with the lithium to upregulate. The question
» is, was the wnt inhibition of the quercetin overwhelming the lithium.
I too have been wondering if your use of quercetin might be related to you having good results. Quercetin is meant to be an excellent antiinflamatory, and antihistamine. Maybe it even has other properties that are beneficial to the folica process?
now, this next bit is a bit far fetched… but humour me
I noticed that Quercetin strongly inhibits the enzyme CYP3A4. So i did a little research which got me thinking:
CYP3A4 is responsible for metabolising drugs in the body. if it is inhibited, the body takes longer to break down certain drugs, effectively increasing the body serum levels.
CYP3A4 isnt present in fetuses. A good enviroment for stem cells and hair genesis (might mean nothing, but thought i would add the fact for completeness)
When I looked through a list of enzyme substrates that CYP3A4 reacted with (theres a list on wikipedia too), I noticed a lot of the immunosupresents and the chemo drugs that people have been talking about.(gefitinib, ciclosporin,etc). It is also involved in the oxidisation of testosterone, and effects the availability of testosterone (and conversion to dihydrotestosterone i believe).
all coincidence?
would using gefitnib and ciclosporin et al “use up” the CYP3A4 therby lowering its availability and promoting a ‘safer’ enviroment for hair folicle genesis? Combined with the strong anti-inflamatory and antihistamine effect, it may be significant.
or it may not… its all a bit grasping at straws, but it was enough to perk my interest so i thought i would share
This is an advertising site for paid
advertisers to showcase successful hair restoration results only. It is not the
mandate of this site to engage in the discussion of failed, unsuccessful
procedures, lawsuits, litigations, refunds or complaint cases. Surgical hair
restoration procedures carry risks. Please do thorough research, consult your
own physician and investigate a doctor's background carefully before making a
decision. By proceeding to use our site, you agree to abide by our Terms of Use & Privacy Policy at http://hairsite.com/terms-of-use/ where you can also find a list of HairSite's sponsoring physicians.
Quite a change for most baldies…