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

Chinese stem cell hairloss treatment study - 23.10.07


#1

1: Med Hypotheses. 2008;70(5):1014-6. Epub 2007 Oct 23. Links

Treatment of alopecia by transplantation of hair follicle stem cells and dermal papilla cells encapsulated in alginate gels.Zhao J, Liu LQ, Wang YJ, Yang W, Geng WX, Wei J, Li LW, Chen FL.

Rege Lab of Tissue Engineering, Department of Bioscience, Faculty of Life Science, Northwest University, No. 229 North Taibai Road, Xi’an 710069, PR China.

The affected individual of hair loss demands help, because hair is viewed as a sign of youth and good health. Nowadays treatment of alopecia includes drug therapy and hair transplantation. Some drugs may promote hair growth, at least temporarily, but the treatment is effective only in milder alopecia, instead of extensive alopecia. Furthermore, the side effect of long period medication could not be avoided.

Hair transplantation involves harvesting small pieces of hair-bearing scalp grafts from a donor site and relocating them to a bald area. This method does not increase the number of existing hairs, but only redistributes them. The operation is sophisticated and time-consuming, thus the patient suffers a lot during the process.

The discovery of hair follicle stem cells (FSC) brings gospel to the affected individual of hair loss because of its capacity of generating new hair when they interact with mesenchymal dermal papilla cells (DPC). Besides, both FSC and DPC have strong proliferative capacity and the patient’s own cells could be expanded considerably in vitro.

Thus we hypothesize that the microencapsulation of the two kinds of cells in alginate gels could be implanted into the bald scalp of the patient since alginate gels is effective in cell transplantation. The strategy may provide a more convenient and valid alternative to hair loss if the hypothesis proved to be practical.

PMID: 17936520 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


#2

http://ushairrestoration.com/blog/2008/07/hair-stem-cell-for-treatment-of-baldness/

Hair Stem Cell for Treatment of Baldness

Recently published in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses was an interesting article on the treatment of alopecia by transplantation of hair follicle stem cells and dermal papilla cells (the cells of the bottom of hair follicles) in alginate gels (media used for cell transplantation).

A group of scientists at regeneration lab of tissue engineering, Department of Bioscience of life science in Northwest University of China authored this article. They proposed a system to use the two important hair stem cells to form mature hair in people with hair loss. They explain that the discovery of hair follicle stem cells (FSC) brings gospel to the affected individual of hair loss because of its capacity of generating new hair when they interact with mesenchymal dermal papilla cells (DPC).

The above two cells are known as the necessary cells for formation of new hair. Since both FSC and DPC have strong proliferative capacity and the patient’s own cells could be expanded considerably in vitro, they hypothesize that the microencapsulation of the two kinds of cells in alginate gels could be implanted into the bald scalp of the patient since alginate gels is effective in cell transplantation. They concluded that the strategy may provide a more convenient and valid alternative to hair loss if the hypothesis proved to be practical.

Here at Los Angeles hair transplant office of US Hair Restoration, we follow the most recent findings on the field hair hair stem cell research or hair multiplication also known as hair cloning. The above theory sounds logical and seems to be simple. However, until it is experimented in the lab and then on life creatures we cannot know how practical it may be. It seems like the race to use hair stem cell for the treatment of men hair loss is started.


#3

» http://ushairrestoration.com/blog/2008/07/hair-stem-cell-for-treatment-of-baldness/
»
» Hair Stem Cell for Treatment of Baldness
»
» Recently published in the Journal of Medical Hypotheses was an interesting
» article on the treatment of alopecia by transplantation of hair follicle
» stem cells and dermal papilla cells (the cells of the bottom of hair
» follicles) in alginate gels (media used for cell transplantation).
»
» A group of scientists at regeneration lab of tissue engineering,
» Department of Bioscience of life science in Northwest University of China
» authored this article. They proposed a system to use the two important hair
» stem cells to form mature hair in people with hair loss. They explain that
» the discovery of hair follicle stem cells (FSC) brings gospel to the
» affected individual of hair loss because of its capacity of generating new
» hair when they interact with mesenchymal dermal papilla cells (DPC).
»
» The above two cells are known as the necessary cells for formation of new
» hair. Since both FSC and DPC have strong proliferative capacity and the
» patient’s own cells could be expanded considerably in vitro
, they

Ask Intercytex how difficult it is to do that.

» hypothesize that the microencapsulation of the two kinds of cells in
» alginate gels could be implanted into the bald scalp of the patient since
» alginate gels is effective in cell transplantation. They concluded that the
» strategy may provide a more convenient and valid alternative to hair loss
» if the hypothesis proved to be practical.
»
» Here at Los Angeles hair transplant office of US Hair Restoration, we
» follow the most recent findings on the field hair hair stem cell research
» or hair multiplication also known as hair cloning. The above theory sounds
» logical and seems to be simple. However, until it is experimented in the
» lab and then on life creatures we cannot know how practical »it may be. It
» seems like the race to use hair stem cell for the treatment of men hair
» loss is started.

Wrong , we know that it showed to be everything but practical !

One of Dr.Armani staffers confirmed he is working for a treatment on “the cellular level”.

Yet, many of the folks in this board, including me, believe that its more feasible to trigger a “Window of opportunity” (The follica approach) where the body will be in a “regenerative mood” (in a healing process : activated stem cells). Then the cure should trick the body and its stem cells to make them “committ” to a new Hair follicles building instead of “normal skin cells” (epithelial cells) building (We hope that this can be done through EGFR (epidermal growth factor R) inhibition or/and WNT proteins antagonist/agonist).


#4

I don’t trust anything coming from the Armani clinic that encourages getting aggressive HTs in the short-term. Just my personal opinion.

Multiplying viable cells for reinjection (and having real success at the whole thing) has been a major roadblock for researchers in the past. I don’t trust any ideas that rely on this process working well. Not without proof that they can make it work on the specific task they’re proposing.


#5

I think you may be wrong. Actually before follica brings out anything we may see a new iteration of cell injections being studied by someone somewhere and it may actually succeed and follica may fail.

Of course follica may succeed. But to be honest, the chances of having a cure on the market are imho low in next 5 years. and somehow around 50% in next 10 years. So its better to have two approaches being investigated rather then just one. Its always better to spread the money on multiple horses rather then bet all you have on one.

Anyway, The chinese guys should better stop hypothetizing and actually do something.


#6

Did you know there was a “look alike” competition in China last month and everybody won.


#7

Actually before Folica brings out anything . . .

We’ll know a lot sooner than when Folica gives any official word.

It doesn’t matter whether we all get the specifics right. Very soon we’ll know whether the most basic bedrock assumptions of the Folica deal work on live humans or not. That’s all the matters. The rest is just gravy. Even growth that’s sh*tty by the standards of Folica’s previous research is still lightyears ahead of the best ICX-TRC picures we’ve ever seen.


#8

» Actually before Folica brings out anything . . .
»
» We’ll know a lot sooner than when Folica gives any official word.
»
» It doesn’t matter whether we all get the specifics right. Very soon we’ll
» know whether the most basic bedrock assumptions of the Folica deal work on
» live humans or not. That’s all the matters. The rest is just gravy. Even
» growth that’s sh*tty by the standards of Folica’s previous research is
» still lightyears ahead of the best ICX-TRC picures we’ve ever seen.

Sorry but ICX showed mice with hair. Follica showed mice with hair. I dont see any difference there.

In fact we all saw ICX mice 2 years ago.


#9

Folica showed mice with enough newly generated hair to actually look decent.


#10

» I don’t trust anything coming from the Armani clinic that encourages
» getting aggressive HTs in the short-term. Just my personal opinion.

This is the most intelligent & rational comment posted on this entire forum. We need more Cal’s here & less jackasses sandpapering their heads.


#11

» Folica showed mice with enough newly generated hair to actually look
» decent.

Sorry but ICX mouse photo showed A HUGE DENSE BULB OF HAIR on otherwise hairless mice. It was thick, normal looking, insanely dense bulb of hair of few cm^2 in size.

Follica is being hyped the same unrational way ICX was X years ago.

ICX did grow awesome hair in mice and the DP cell only based solution seems to be much less effective in humans.

Follica does grow nice hair in mice and has not been tested in humans yet.

In fact countless of other treatments do grow THICK HAIR IN MICE and fail in humans.

I dont see ANY DIFFERENCE NOR a REASON here yet to start extatically hyping follica and bashing ICX. You truly ppl are bipolar. You either are depressed or excited about something but never in between.


#12

» » Folica showed mice with enough newly generated hair to actually look
» » decent.
»
» Sorry but ICX mouse photo showed A HUGE DENSE BULB OF HAIR on otherwise
» hairless mice. It was thick, normal looking, insanely dense bulb of hair of
» few cm^2 in size.
»
» Follica is being hyped the same unrational way ICX was X years ago.
»
» ICX did grow awesome hair in mice and the DP cell only based solution
» seems to be much less effective in humans.
»
» Follica does grow nice hair in mice and has not been tested in humans
» yet.
»
» In fact countless of other treatments do grow THICK HAIR IN MICE and fail
» in humans.
»
» I dont see ANY DIFFERENCE NOR a REASON here yet to start extatically
» hyping follica and bashing ICX. You truly ppl are bipolar. You either are
» depressed or excited about something but never in between.

Sorry, I was MIA when the whole ICX hoopla was going on. Was the hairs grown on the mouse by icx method grown on a human grafted skin also like in follica’s case?


#13

» » Folica showed mice with enough newly generated hair to actually look
» » decent.
»
» Sorry but ICX mouse photo showed A HUGE DENSE BULB OF HAIR on otherwise
» hairless mice. It was thick, normal looking, insanely dense bulb of hair of
» few cm^2 in size.
»
» Follica is being hyped the same unrational way ICX was X years ago.
»
» ICX did grow awesome hair in mice and the DP cell only based solution
» seems to be much less effective in humans.
»
» Follica does grow nice hair in mice and has not been tested in humans
» yet.
»
» In fact countless of other treatments do grow THICK HAIR IN MICE and fail
» in humans.
»
» I dont see ANY DIFFERENCE NOR a REASON here yet to start extatically
» hyping follica and bashing ICX. You truly ppl are bipolar. You either are
» depressed or excited about something but never in between.


#14

» » Folica showed mice with enough newly generated hair to actually look
» » decent.
»
» Sorry but ICX mouse photo showed A HUGE DENSE BULB OF HAIR on otherwise
» hairless mice. It was thick, normal looking, insanely dense bulb of hair of
» few cm^2 in size.
»
» Follica is being hyped the same unrational way ICX was X years ago.
»
» ICX did grow awesome hair in mice and the DP cell only based solution
» seems to be much less effective in humans.
»
» Follica does grow nice hair in mice and has not been tested in humans
» yet.
»
» In fact countless of other treatments do grow THICK HAIR IN MICE and fail
» in humans.
»
» I dont see ANY DIFFERENCE NOR a REASON here yet to start extatically
» hyping follica and bashing ICX. You truly ppl are bipolar. You either are
» depressed or excited about something but never in between.

The DIFFERENCE is:

  1. Most of us have been around the block with ICX, so we know what to look for with Follica. Why do you think we’re constantly hounding Follica for proof of concept on xconomy (David Steinberg, and Daphne Zohar posted on xconomy before, so it’s our best place to harass them at the moment).
  2. I know you haven’t been sleeping under a rock these past few months, so I know you’ve seen/heard some encouraging results on humans (from the dermabrasion stories to the cancer patient photo)
  3. The fact ICX only claimed to see consistent results after stimulating their last test group with dermabrasion should add an ounce of validity to Follica.
  4. I believe even aderans has a patent that includes wounding.
  5. In an interview last year, Daphne Zohar stressed the importance of providing statistically significant surrogate markers and imaging for proof of concept (opposed to the subjective tripe ICX has been feeding us)
  6. Follica also offers one very important difference over ICX and Aderans: Quick market penetration because they’re not dependent on costly cell cultivation equipment.

Bottom line, I’m not trying to parallel nathan’s cheerleading role for Follica; however, certain indicators seem positive with their concept. It just makes sense to take a “wait and see” approach rather than branding them as another ICX .

» I dont see ANY DIFFERENCE NOR a REASON here yet to start extatically
» hyping follica and bashing ICX. You truly ppl are bipolar. You either are
» depressed or excited about something but never in between.

Again, that’s funny coming from a guy who got excited about the cancer patient with hair growth than accused him of getting a hair transplant… followed by this little rant.

.


#15

I could whack off onto the skin of a mouse and it would probably grow new hair. Human skin grafts are not the same thing as mouse skin.

I don’t know how you can really look at the Folica regrowth results so far and compare them equally with the early ICX human skin results. I think that takes as much of a pre-biased opinion as you’re accusing me of having for believing in Folica’s project.

Whatever. This is a stupid argument.

ICX looks likely to be a commercial failure to most of us.

Either the EGF-R drugs & wounding alone will cause some pretty obvious regrowth on the guys trying it at home, or the whole Folica project is a write-off. We’ll know soon.


#16

Sorry but you couldn’t write follica of as a failure if a small group of people trying this at home get no regrowth doing the procedure in a frankly incomplete and uncontrolled way. Theres a huge chance of failure simply from error or stupidity.


#17

If I believe that I’ve done the whole thing myself correctly, and I’m sure the drugs were legit, and I’ve done the simplest form of the patent possible . . . I’ll get pretty convinced of failure if it won’t work.

Everyone else can believe whatever they want. I just wanna know for myself.


#18

Yeah because follica are only going to try the very simplest embodiment of the patent only once :lookaround:

Even if you do what you say you are, your not going to be 100% sure your doing it correctly, follica’s patent is too vague and I’m sure follica know them selves when the best time (not just between x amount of days) to take the drugs, and I bet they know better than us what works best and whether they should be taken orally or topically or both.
You can’t simply write follica off as a failure if your home brew experiment fails.
Fairplay to you for trying it though, I wish you the best of luck and I wish I had the guts to try it myself.


#19

Well, I personally agree with the feeling that the whole Folica project is at a pass/fail point right now.

I think it will probably either totally work awesome on live humans just like it did in the skin samples, or else it will totally fail in live humans because of some unforeseen difference between the two situations.

So according to my view of the probable situation, I don’t have to get everything VERY perfect in my home experimenting just to answer the core question that I want to know.

If the core ideas of the Folica project work, then most of the details & differences in all those patents & procedures would basically revolve around improving the regrowth. The regrowth AT ALL should be present in even the simplest & most imperfect tests, and that’s the million-dollar question.


#20

»
» Again, that’s funny coming from a guy who got excited about the cancer
» patient with hair growth than accused him of getting a hair transplant…
» followed by this little rant.
»

I never said that I think he got a hair transplant. I suggested that possibility and always added that I do not think it looks like it would be a HT. And if you want to hear it I’m convinced it was not HT.

Won’t comment the rest, as its hard to argue with. If you want to believe into something you can always find reasons why it will succeed, the same way I could be finding reasons why it won’t. BTW I’m not saying it won’t. At least in 5-10 years or so :).