Since the DNA in the hair we have lost is identical to the DNA of the hair in the “safe” zones, I’ve always wondered if anybody has done research on epigenetics and hair loss.
» Since the DNA in the hair we have lost is identical to the DNA of the hair
» in the “safe” zones, I’ve always wondered if anybody has done research on
» epigenetics and hair loss.
The definition of a “safe zone” is just the region of hair that succumbs to the DHT effects a little later than the rest of the scalp… so in reality a true “safe zone” doesn’t exist. This is why the technology of Follica is so enlightening and ICX aka HM sux.
Have to disagree with that. Even 90 year old men have a fringe of hair around the bottom. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a man of any age with absolutely zero hair, unless they shaved it or suffered from alopecia universalis.
In any event, that doesn’t have anything to do with epigenetics.
» Have to disagree with that. Even 90 year old men have a fringe of hair
» around the bottom. In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a man of any age
» with absolutely zero hair, unless they shaved it or suffered from alopecia
» In any event, that doesn’t have anything to do with epigenetics.
Yes a 90 yr old man has hair, but its awfully GD thin (miniaturization)… see through. Disagree as you wish.
Which is why somebody should be investigating epigenetics as it pertains to hairloss, which is what this thread was about. Why do 90 year old men (as well as young balding men) still have hair in the fringe “safe” area, but not elsewhere. Is it due to epigenetic variations, since the DNA is identical everywhere? Somebody should be investigating this if they aren’t already.
Yeah but why assume the DNA really is the same from front to back?
We know that balding is genetically-controlled. And we know that balding hairs physically transplanted will retain their original programming and not take up the characteristics of the new location. It makes senst to me that there is an original genetic difference in the hairs from the donor to the balding areas which kicks off the MPB.
They’re all your own hair follicles, yeah.
But I’ve also got 5 fingers on each hand. They’re all “fingers” and they’re all mine, but they’re not the same. The finger emerging from one end of my hand looks different from the other.
Why assume DNA is really the same from front to back? Because it is. There is no assumption. It is a fact. That is how they convict (or free) people based on crime scene evidence. It doesn’t matter if it is a hair from your balding area or hair from a non-balding area that is left behind (or semen, or blood, or any other cells from your body). The DNA is identical. That is how they identify you. If DNA varied throughout the body, there would be no such thing as DNA evidence. It would be like if your fingerprints changed after you left prints at the scene.
The DNA is the same in your hair that falls out as well as what stays. How that genetic code is used to express what’s happening is obviously different. And the reason I posted this article is that perhaps it’s due to epigentic changes. Epigenetics CAN vary from front to back, unlike DNA.
I don’t know much about epigenetics, and I was hoping that somebody that actually knows quite a bit could comment on it. Could it be that by changing the methylation that the epigenetics could change to a more suitable state to cause hair to grow? Is that even feasible? I’m not aware of anybody looking at this concerning hair, and the main reason I posted the article.
When police compare dna samples they focus only on few parts of the dna. It imho does not really mean that whole DNA chain is identical.
everything is in the title…
» When police compare dna samples they focus only on few parts of the dna. It
» imho does not really mean that whole DNA chain is identical.
Every cell in your body has the same DNA.
Of course, every cell does not express every gene in its DNA. This is why you have different types of cells in your body: brain cells, heart cells, muscle cells, etc. Each type of cell expresses a different subset of the genes in the DNA – what it takes to do that cell’s job. A brain cell, for example, contains the gene(s) that control the color of your hair, but it doesn’t express that gene.
That’s true Amilcar. However epigenetics seem to be a very new science, and affects every single living person, and one worth looking into IMO. I recently saw a show on it on television, and they showed the epigenetic differences of two identical twins who were now in their 90’s or maybe even 100’s. Can’t remember. But their health was different, and they believed it was due to epigenetic changes. And from everything I’ve seen, a big part of epigenetic changes is methylation, either too much or too little. Again, I don’t know a whole lot about it. I was hoping that somebody with a good scientific, biological background could comment on it.
The ultimate possibilities of this science are still basically limited to proving that environmental factors affect MPB.
It’s worthy of study and there may be some knowledge gained from it. But for the real-world benefits, I don’t know how much potential it has. Over the years balding men have tried varying just about anything that anyone can think of, but once the MPB has started happening we can hardly make a dent in its progresssion.
» That’s true Amilcar. However epigenetics seem to be a very new science,
» and affects every single living person, and one worth looking into IMO. I
» recently saw a show on it on television, and they showed the epigenetic
» differences of two identical twins who were now in their 90’s or maybe even
» 100’s. Can’t remember. But their health was different, and they believed
» it was due to epigenetic changes. And from everything I’ve seen, a big
» part of epigenetic changes is methylation, either too much or too little.
» Again, I don’t know a whole lot about it. I was hoping that somebody with
» a good scientific, biological background could comment on it.
OK. Firstly yes every cell in your body has the whole of your genome (more or less) the same. The reason Debris that they “only look at a bit of DNA” is that DNA is incredibly small. You cant just put it under a microscope and read off the sequence. Or get a pair of tweezers and put it together. But you have enzymes that cleave DNA in different places and in regions of the genome that are known to vary substantially between different people the DNA is going to get cut into different lengths. You run the DNA through a gel that separates based on length of the DNA fragments and those differently cut up pieces are going to have a different pattern of smaller and larger chunks of DNA. Then you could say that there is a 1 in 650,000 chance that two samples of DNA matched but were not from the same person. Then somebody goes to the gas chamber or not.
Anyway…Epigenetics - yes in some sense its important in that it has a lot to do with development and how a cell in an embryo or earlier a cell will know that it is supposed to be part of an arm and not an internal leg and then part of a muscle and not bone etc. ie Modifications are made that mean the cell will express some genes and not others so that as you mention cells can perform different functions while having the same genes.
But essentially this isn’t that interesting or that helpful in terms of MPB. We know that some hairs are more androgen responsive than others, we know that they express more androgen receptors, 5 alpha-reductase etc than other hair follicles. And we are beginning to learn just what genes are expressed in response to androgen stimulation and what they do. And thats way more helpful IMO than knowing that some genes are silenced and others arent. Bryan thinks this is very interesting though as if we could control the development process in such a way we could of course make vertex hairs come out like occipital hairs. But that day is way off and there are more fruitful things to focus on at the moment.
» the years balding men have tried varying just about anything that anyone
» can think of, but once the MPB has started happening we can hardly make a
» dent in its progresssion.
Sometimes I think of MPB as something that can be prevented* but almost impossible to counter…As if there was some kind of evil process that cant be stopped once triggered .Thanks God we know ,now, its wrong (de novo hair Nature’s letter).
By prevented I dont mean Propecia or Rogains those fall in the countering measures…I’m talking about a prevention that is done before ANY sign at ALL (even the samallest) of MPB is detected.
You may be right. But I don’t know how much good it would do us unless it’s something that we could actually prevent.
I was passing NW#2 and beginning to head towards NW#3 by the time I was 16 years old, for example. We’d have to come up with something better than just squashing androgens, that’s for sure. And for all we know it may take prevention in the womb to REALLY do it for the most susceptible guys.
And deep down, I’m not sure I WANT science to find out how to perfectly prevent this disease! Not quite just yet.
It sounds horrible of me to say this, but think about it - science is busting its arse to find a way to deal with MPB. If they learned to prevent it before they learn how to reverse it, the economics might eventually add up to make it no longer worth trying to treat MPB at all!
Just picture the conversation at some medical research company: "Well, it would take X years just to figure this out if we’re lucky. Then add another decade just to get it legal. But the remaining MPB patients are all gonna be middle-aged or worse by then, and that means their average concerns about their appearance are probably reduced compared to younger men. Meanwhile, we’re risking a sure-thing investment of XXX dollars just to TRY to make a dent in the problem . . . "
We might end up spending the rest of our lives as the last balding men on earth, surrounded by a sea of guys who keep their NW#1s into retirement and never have to think about MPB again.