James Bond, you have a lot of knowledge of the science and history of stem cell research for hair multiplication, and it would be interesting for you to share your views on the Sanford-Burnham development changing pluripotent stem cells into hair-inductive DP (or to be precise, DP-like) cells.
Roger, I know I’m not James Bond but if:
-
If Jahoda’s scalp DP cells grew full length hairs on his wife’s arm when injected into his wife’s arm then…
-
…if the Sanford-Burnham cells are the equivalent of the DP cells (in terms of hair inductivity) that Jahoda injected his wife’s arm then the Sanford-Burnham cells should produce good hairs…
-
…if researchers can program them to grow long thick scalp hairs. You see, the human body has different sized hairs. Jahoda’s scalp DP cells that were programmed to grow long thick scalp hairs PRESUMABLY grew long thick scalp hairs on his wife’s arm, but these Sanford-Burnham cells may not be programmed for long thick hairs. So we don’t know what size hairs these Sanford-Burnham cells will produce.
Are you sure that Jahoda’s scalp DP cells injected into his wife’s arm grew long thick scalp hairs? If not, then that’s a good thing because then we could possibly produce longer thicker hairs by simply injecting more Sanford-Burnham cells (or applying growth factors) rather than having to program these cells to produce longer thicker hairs.
It mentions several tines in the PSOL article by Dr. Terskikh and his colleagues that these new DP cells they’re creating are actually MORE inductive than normal DP cells.
Jahoda’s scalp DP cells did not result in hair in his wife’s arm. It was the direct DS implants that resulted in hairs.
The research is interesting and has huge potential. It would be interesting to perform a cdna microarray comparison between DP cells of the 1) balding scalp, 2) donor region, and 3) created by this new technique. Unfortunately, coming up with meaningful research ideas is fast and easy, and doing studies is painfully slow.
Jahoda grew hair in his wife’s arm 16 years ago. It’s been slow going ever since.
Sorry, it’s late, and I did math all day, so my brain is too tired to be able to provide meaningful comments. For now, I’m headed for bed. I’ll check back at a later date.
You’re saying it was the “dermal sheath” cells that resulted in the hairs.
If it were the dermal sheath cells that resulted in the hairs, and not the DP cells, then why has almost all the focus of research been on DP cells?
With the possible exception of Replicel (who say they’re using so-called ‘dermal sheath cup cells’), virtually all of the attention, scientific research, etc. has been on dermal papilla (DP) cells, not dermal sheath cells?
So if we want to draw a clear distinction and say one population of cells can generate hair, and one can’t, then where’s the scientific attention on DS cells?
Even Jahoda himself (along with Christiano) have recently been working on DP cell culturing, not DS cells.
You would think if Jahoda was convinced it is DS cells, and not DP cells, that have the potential to grow new hair, he’d be focusing his research efforts, papers, etc. on DS cells right now.
Same goes for Sanford-Burnham, etc.
IIRC, Jahoda’s DS cells could produce whole new follicles. DP cell injections can restore existing follicles.
During the last decade it never ceased to amaze me how many HM operations would make cavalier claims like “we believe we’re getting all-new follicles as well as reviving existing ones” without having any idea of the truth. They would get so deep into their research & trials without even bothering to pin down such a basic question about their own results.
The thinking has been that mass-produced new (inductive) DP cells are a more simple & direct way to fix the problem.
My understanding of the anatomy of the hair follicle is that the “dermal sheath” is just an anatomical structure defined by epithelial cells which form a boundary between the follicle proper and the surrounding integument and dermis. As you move inside the follicle, the epithelial cells of the DS give way to dermal papilla cells, and, in the center, the dermal papilla itself, which is composed of all DP cells. Thus there isn’t really a bright line between “dermal sheath cells” and “dermal papilla cells” – the dermal sheath is part dermal papilla cells itself. You could say that to anyone but a textbook anatomist or histologist, there isn’t a clear-cut boundary between where the epithelial DS ends and where the DP cells begin. If you remove DS, you are going to get DP cells.
It is widely reported that Dr. Jahoda implanted “cells from the dermal sheath” into his wife’s arm, but THAT DOES NOT MEAN THERE WEREN’T DERMAL PAPILLA CELLS in that implant. It was a mixed population of some epithelial cells and some DP cells, and in fact, THE DP CELLS are the ones that are hair inductive.
So, it’s a misunderstanding of the anatomy of the HF to say that DS cells are something completely different from DP cells. The DS contains BOTH epithelial cells and DP cells. So if you take “cells from the dermal sheath” and implant them into someone’s arm, you are also implanting DP cells. And the DP cells are the ones that are really inducing new hair growth.
It’s a misnomer and somewhat of a false distinction to draw a bright line between DP cells and “DS” cells. The DS is a mixed structure, technically it refers to the epithelial “wall” of the follicle, but practically when removing it or manipulating it, you’re going to get many DP cells along with it.
Below is just one of MANY articles on the internet which discuss Jahoda’s experiment and the role of DP cells.
http://www.keratin.com/aw/aw042.shtml
"Dermal papilla cells are the driving force behind each hair follicle. These cells sit as a little ball at the root of a follicle and send out chemical signals that control cell growth in the rest of the follicle. It has been known since the late 1960s that these cells could be isolated and transplanted into skin with no hair follicles and the dermal papilla cells would promote the formation of a brand new hair follicle. …
“More recently in 1999, researchers, led by Colin Jahoda at Durham University in Britain, took cells at the bottom of hair follicles from Jahoda’s own scalp and from a colleague’s. These cells from the dermal papilla were then transplanted into the forearm of Jahoda’s wife, Amanda Reynolds. Within five weeks, the transplanted tissue - no bigger than the head of a pin - made a total of five fully grown hairs in Amanda’s arm. This simple experiment shows the potential of being able to induce new hair follicles in human skin.”
Also go back to Jahoda’s work…
https://www.dur.ac.uk/biosciences/about/schoolstaff/allstaff/?id=25
Wonder if the reason Dr. Jahoda has been so silent lately about the progress of his work has been because he sees the Sanford-Burnham team has already surpassed him by so much?
The latest from Dr. Jahoda, in 2013-14, was that he was trying to take extracted scalp DP cells and culture them, using innovative culture methods, to restore them to an earlier state where they were highly hair inductive.
If Dr. Terskikh’s study pans out, won’t the current research by the Jahoda/Christiano team be rendered unnecessary?
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
Wonder if the reason Dr. Jahoda has been so silent lately about the progress of his work has been because he sees the Sanford-Burnham team has already surpassed him by so much?
The latest from Dr. Jahoda, in 2013-14, was that he was trying to take extracted scalp DP cells and culture them, using innovative culture methods, to restore them to an earlier state where they were highly hair inductive.
If Dr. Terskikh’s study pans out, won’t the current research by the Jahoda/Christiano team be rendered unnecessary?[/quote]too many variables to say.
The new findings could just as easily fill in a missing puzzle piece for jahoda’s team. Whereas the SB team may not have other answers that jahoda has. As a result, the findings would be more beneficial to jahoda than SB.
We just don’t know without further comment from either party.
It seems like either method is a potential cure. The big question is whether Terskikh’s follicles are DHT resistant? Thus, for now, Jahoda’s method remains valid.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by James Bond[/postedby]
It seems like either method is a potential cure. The big question is whether Terskikh’s follicles are DHT resistant? Thus, for now, Jahoda’s method remains valid.[/quote]
Very good question, and I thought of that too. There is a chance that they might not be DHT resistant. But, as I see it, even if they aren’t, it’s a potential cure for all intents and purposes, from a practical standpoint.
What we really need is the ability to put growing real on our scalps, in the quantities we need, that will grow normally for at least a few cycles. If it’s not DHT resistant, the way I see it, this hair may start succumbing to MPB after a while… in which case, you just inject another round of newly-created DP cells.
The way I see it, the hair doesn’t have to be DHT-resistant, it doesn’t even have to grow at the perfect angle like my original hair, to be something approaching a practical cure. All bald/balding people really need is to cover their bald spots with real, growing hair. That would be, to me, EFFECTIVELY a cure.
The other things – complete DHT resistance, perfect angling, etc. – can come with time.
It’s best to consult the study for a more precise interpretation:
“We have shown that just a few hundred
cells of follicle dermal-sheath tissue from
the scalp of an adult human male was suffi-
cient to form new dermal papillae and
induce new hair follicles in the skin of a
genetically unrelated female. Moreover,
these follicles survived prolonged periods
without being rejected. However, the failure
of the dermal papillae to induce follicles is
surprising because the papilla has previously
been shown to be highly inductive.”
The biggest difference between the cell implants was the DS implants contained extroneous tissue. That said, isolated DSC cells have shown to be highly inductive (as have DP cells).
Jahoda’s early research showed many different cell types result in new follicles in rats. Gho found that DP cells aren’t as inductive in humans as the cells on plucked hairs (proximal to the ORS). McElwee discovered cultured DSC cells have the ability to migrate into miniature follicles and grow thick hair (he dyed the cells and then dissected the follicles to prove it). Thus, Replicel’s technique is based on culturing DSC cells, which despite being proximal, don’t express the same as DP cells.
It would be interesting to see a human trial. Worst case, the guys on Propecia would be cured.
Well, here’s the deal. The stem cells they’re using to create these DP-like cells aren’t from balding areas… in fact, they don’t even have to be from the scalp. In the study they were human embryonic pluripotent stem cells, but they indicated that even human induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) would do. So, prima facie they wouldn’t necessarily be carrying the same activated genes that DP cells in balding areas of the scalp would have, in MPB affected people.
That means that there’s no reason to believe at all that these cells would instantly result in hair follicles which are at the same stage in the balding process as follicles in parts of the scalp with advanced MPB. Why would they?
Second, it looks like (from the study), these DP-like cells are actually more similar to “brand new” DP cells produced very early in embryological development… even when made from pluripotent stem cells harvested from an adult. Of course, they wouldn’t be 100% like embryonic cells, because there would be some genetic mutations caused by radiation, and random point mutations over the course of a lifetime.
BUT, if you look at the study, even new MELANOCYTES are being produced. This indicates to me that the new hairs produced might even defy grayness. So that means if you’re already graying, and these DP cells are injected, the new hairs might actually be your original color. Not certain yet, but my reading of the article is that this could be possible.
Let’s say this is the real thing.
What is the earliest date you think the procedure will be available anywhere in the world?
2030
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by bugler[/postedby]
Let’s say this is the real thing.
What is the earliest date you think the procedure will be available anywhere in the world?[/quote]
I’m going to say the EARLIEST I can envision this being potentially available to a member of the public who seeks it and can pay for it (including everything – airfare and ability to stay abroad for a while, if you don’t live where it’s offered), is about 2.5 to 3 years from now. Remember, I’m saying this is the EARLIEST I would expect it, if everything goes “right”.
Why do I say this (and I can understand some might think it’s a very rosy prediction)… Because I give them about 1 year to find a suitable partner, then about 1 year to put together clinical trials.
Organizing clinical trials in the US will take more years (probably about 3-4 years from the time they get their business plan together – they’ll have to submit a lengthy application to the FDA just to get started with clinical trials in the US).
But if you see them announcing they plan clinical trials in the US, don’t let that distract you, because they’ll also have a parallel plan for fast-track clinical trials overseas, most likely somewhere in Asia.
So, taking the ASIAN clinical trials as the starting point (not the US ones), I would say that about 1 to 1.5 years after the start of those trials and confirmation that the procedure is safe and effective, word will get out to the local population (especially through the local media in and around the Asian clinical trials venue). Word will get out through the global media, too, but the word in Asia will create IMMEDIATE DEMAND there.
Once there is immediate demand, with average to wealthy members of the public banging on their doors asking to be admitted to a new round of trials (in doctors’ offices, probably), the procedure will be for all intents and purposes, at that point, “available to the public” in that country and region of the world.
That means that if you have the time, money, and desire to go to Asia (that’s where I’m guessing the fastest-track trials will be), AT THAT POINT – say 2.5-3 years in the future – you will likely be able to get this procedure done.
Now of course, that’s assuming it works. I think it will work, but there are definitely no guarantees. By then, at least, they’ll know if it does work or not.
As for approval in the US, I see it taking much longer than that, but the date will probably be accelerated somewhat just by the news spreading that it is successfully being done somewhere else in the world.
They’ll be lucky if they iron out the basic research (where they can grow thick terminal hairs that cycle like normal hair on an actual human head) in 3-4 years. No way in hell are they going from preclinical basic research phase to a commercially released product in 3-4 years. In fact, if they managed that in 10 years, it would be a miracle and without precedent,with or without asia release. It’s just not that close. I wish it was, but it’s not.
[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by Mr. Z[/postedby]
They’ll be lucky if they iron out the basic research (where they can grow thick terminal hairs that cycle like normal hair on an actual human head) in 3-4 years. No way in hell are they going from preclinical basic research phase to a commercially released product in 3-4 years. In fact, if they managed that in 10 years, it would be a miracle and without precedent,with or without asia release. It’s just not that close. I wish it was, but it’s not.[/quote]
This is something that might not require all that long a time to “iron out”. We’ve seen a long string of immature technologies and companies trying to rush them or force them through clinical trials no matter how badly they really work.
I think there is a good chance with this particular discovery, they really have discovered the “motherlode”, in other words a technology that’s not inherently immature – just something that needs to be formally tested and implemented.
Like I said, I’m not sure, but let’s ASSUME what I just said is true, that this really is the “holy grail”. Then, as soon as they start testing it, they’ll find it works, and the path from that point is pretty quick as long as you have a regulatory jurisdiction that’s friendly. The US is NOT a friendly regulatory jurisdiction, but thankfully such places do exist in the world.
Let’s not be blinded by what’s happened in the past. Just because we’ve seen Intercytex, Aderans, Gho, etc., etc. go down the drain, doesn’t mean this one will, because this discovery is INHERENTLY DIFFERENT from those. This is actually making working inductive dermal papilla cells directly from stem cells. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE >>>>>>>> KEEP AN OPEN MIND.