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

Christiano and Jahoda explain new study


#1

#2

I would like to be able to learn more about the protocol for 3d growth medium and the methods they use to induce this " Jump Start " point.

In any case this looks promising indeed .


#3

I can’t get the link to open.

I’ll try another computer later.


#4

I saw saw this video some days ago already… the information seems rather superficial. Looks quite PR-ish.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I can’t get the link to open.

I’ll try another computer later.[/quote]

thanks. please do keep us up-to-date on your computer problems.


#5

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I can’t get the link to open.

I’ll try another computer later.[/quote]

interesting. Thanks for update.


#6

Will you finish solving the gene expression problem right away? Some of us would like to get our hair back now.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by jarjarbinx[/postedby]
I can’t get the link to open.

I’ll try another computer later.

[postedby]Originally Posted by needhairasap[/postedby]

interesting. Thanks for update.[/quote]


#7

#8

Good vid thx for posting, nice to hear from the researchers directly. So in a nutshell they can now multiply hair and have it grow in the scalp. But they need to perfect hair color, direction and some other stuff.

Sounds like the breakthrough we’ve been waiting for. It was getting hair to regrow that was an intractable problem, the rest should hopefully be more straightforward.

I also like the fact that Christiano has struggled with hair loss herself because then it means she’s that much more motivated to find the cure. I’m sure it’ll take at least another couple of years till the ‘big announcement’ that is, they can consistently grow hair on people in the way they intend and essential cure hair loss, but we may get little updates like this along the way.

Honestly I really hope they can do it, even if it takes 5 years. I’m in my 40s so I can still enjoy the return of my hair for another decade or so before I’m put out to pasture.

PS-wasn’t quoting anyone, just replying to first post.


#9

Epiker0, just one correction to what you said. They haven’t actually grown the hair on a scalp. They’ve only grown it on human foreskin tissue (taken from circumcised infants) which has been grafted onto mice.

The reasons for this might not seem obvious to those without some background in science or medical research. This is done ONLY because of the legal prohibition on performing these kinds of tests on humans, without explicit (and expensive) permission from the government.

So they use the next best thing, which is human skin grafted onto a mouse’s back. The mouse helps keep the human skin alive. But make no mistake – it’s human tissue, not mouse tissue.


#10

roger, I would think that the mice with the grafted human skin on their backs would need to be pumped with immunosuppressant drugs in order for the graft to not be rejected?! We’ve read in the past that immunosuppressant drugs have been able to grow hair (e.g. in conjunction with a severe sunburn etc). Do you think that the immunosuppressant drugs play any kind of roll in this hair cloning protocol? I’m merely speculating here.

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Epiker0, just one correction to what you said. They haven’t actually grown the hair on a scalp. They’ve only grown it on human foreskin tissue (taken from circumcised infants) which has been grafted onto mice.

The reasons for this might not seem obvious to those without some background in science or medical research. This is done ONLY because of the legal prohibition on performing these kinds of tests on humans, without explicit (and expensive) permission from the government.

So they use the next best thing, which is human skin grafted onto a mouse’s back. The mouse helps keep the human skin alive. But make no mistake – it’s human tissue, not mouse tissue.[/quote]


#11

Not necessarily hairman2, immune compromised strains of mice are routinely used. Hence, it can be genetic rather than induced (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_combined_immunodeficiency_(non-human)#Mice ). Though I have not read the full-text of this paper to say with certainty.


#12

fair enough but that doesn’t change the fact that the mice are immunodeficient, which might play a roll in MPB. Some people believe that MPB has to do with the immune system working against the hair follicles. I personally don’t really believe that to be the case, but who knows…

[quote]roger, I would think that the mice with the grafted human skin on their backs would need to be pumped with immunosuppressant drugs in order for the graft to not be rejected?! We’ve read in the past that immunosuppressant drugs have been able to grow hair (e.g. in conjunction with a severe sunburn etc). Do you think that the immunosuppressant drugs play any kind of roll in this hair cloning protocol? I’m merely speculating here.

[postedby]Originally Posted by walrus[/postedby]

Not necessarily hairman2, immune compromised strains of mice are routinely used. Hence, it can be genetic rather than induced (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_combined_immunodeficiency_(non-human)#Mice ). Though I have not read the full-text of this paper to say with certainty.[/quote]


#13

[quote]fair enough but that doesn’t change the fact that the mice are immunodeficient, which might play a roll in MPB. Some people believe that MPB has to do with the immune system working against the hair follicles. I personally don’t really believe that to be the case, but who knows…
[/quote]

You are quite right. In light of the discovery of the role of PGD2, MPB could actually be considered an autoimmune condition.


#14

How many arrows have you shot at the big metal birds in the sky?


#15

Generally, the mice in these kinds of experiments are genetically bred to be immunodeficient by having a “knock-out” gene or genes. There is no need to give them immunosuppressant drugs that might interfere with the experiment.


#16

I know. No, it doesn’t play a role in these experiments at all. Trust me on that. The immune-deficient tisssue of mouse does not have these kinds of interactions with the human tissue grafted to it. Out of the question.


#17

MPB is thought to have a few secondary characteristics of an autoimmune condition, but it is not an autoimmune condition, and the fact that the mouse substrate is immune-deficient has no immunologic effect, one way or the other, on the human tissue grafted to it.

Trust me, these doctors know what they’re doing.


#18

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
MPB is thought to have a few secondary characteristics of an autoimmune condition, but it is not an autoimmune condition[/quote]

Rodger, could you elaborate on this please? At what point is a distinction made?


#19

You know Roger_that what you’re saying is correct and what you’re saying is the key point. The point is that if the immune system of the mice could be having a major impact on the results of the study then that would mean that the researchers really don’t know what they’re doing and a couple of guys at Hairsite are smarter than the top dermatological researchers in the world.

I really don’t think so.

I do not believe that the immune profiles of the mice has any impact on the study results. Any connections between the immune system and aga are understood by the researchers and the researchers have taken that into account when they set-up their study.

But of course this whole dialogue really is just another case of Hairman not trusting modern science. He sees the word “immune” in connection with the mice and he gets stuck on the word “immune” and all of the “old knowlege” about the word. He’s then applies dissociated “old ways” concepts to this unrelated modern-day scientific situation. He ends up applying 19th-century Immunological conceptual broadbrushing to this unrelated modern-day scientific situation and it’s taking him into flawed directions which results in his creation of flawed constructs that lead to flawed conclusions.

[quote]You are quite right. In light of the discovery of the role of PGD2, MPB could actually be considered an autoimmune condition.

[postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]

MPB is thought to have a few secondary characteristics of an autoimmune condition, but it is not an autoimmune condition, and the fact that the mouse substrate is immune-deficient has no immunologic effect, one way or the other, on the human tissue grafted to it.

Trust me, these doctors know what they’re doing.[/quote]


#20

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
MPB is thought to have a few secondary characteristics of an autoimmune condition, but it is not an autoimmune condition

[postedby]Originally Posted by walrus[/postedby]

Rodger, could you elaborate on this please? At what point is a distinction made?[/quote]

The immune system has many sub-systems, all arranged into 3 basic parts: innate or chemical immunity, cell-mediated immunity (e.g., T-lymphocytes), and immune memory (e.g., immunoglobulins).

For a disorder to be a true autoimmune disorder, some element of all 3 of the above are activated.

In MPB, the only part we see activated is the first part, chemical immunity (e.g., release of cytokines, changes in prostaglandin levels, etc. which cause INFLAMMATION), and only to a small degree and very locally at the cellular level. These changes wouldn’t even show up in a simple blood test! Yet, for any known autoimmune disease, you can do a blood screening test and detect specific antibodies (for instance, Systemic Lupus Erythematosis, Graves Disease, Rheumatoid Arthritis, etc.)

Don’t go saying you can detect DHT in the blood, because of course you can but it’s not an antibody.

There have been a few reports that a specific type of lymphocyte is called to the scene in MPB, but these studies aren’t conclusive, and if it is true, it’s just a secondary effect of the increase in cytokines.

Mind you, I don’t even think it’s been proven that there’s an increase in cytokines and increased microscopic inflammation in all cases of MPB. This has been found to be true in only a percentage of cases. Not all cases display a terminal “inflammatory” stage.

I think the problem with this is that a lot of people confuse “micro-inflammation”, which is present in a certain percentage of MPB cases, with “auto-immune syndromes”, because people are hungry for easy, elegant answers.

People want a simple, clever “answer” to what MPB is, which is closely linked to something else we know about, because they’re hoping that this kind of profound understanding will lead to a “wonder cure.”

Well, sorry, it won’t, because MPB is NOT an auto-immune disease, period.