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

Modified Donor Doubling Approach - let\'s discuss


#1

Hello everyone,

Please have a look at the following PDF:

It describes an alternative way for donor doubling which I\'m trying to understand if it could be realistic or not.

I would love to hear your opinions, and especially of the well-educated posters like Desmond, Arashi, Hellouser, etc.

Hopefully Dr. Nigam sees this and joins the conversation, too.

Thank you,

Magneto


#2

There s something wrong with your pdf file, it is so hard to read, very tiny and I have to constantly enlarge the file.


#3

Ipod, you need to do Auto Fit and also hide the thumbnail in order to read the file properly.

Alternatively, you can try this link instead, it should be easier to load
img/uploaded_files/1_file15.pdf


#4

are you reading it on your mobile device? there is no problem when reading it on a pc, e.g. with firefox. for mobile devices, I’m also facing no problems (using chrome browser). the pdf is not divided into pages, it’s more one long page to scroll through, therefore appearing to be very small font size at the first look. maybe not the best decision :wink: I will check that again and maybe divide into pages again. thanks for the info

edit: thanks hairsite, for clarification and providing the pdf file as downloadable file.


#5

I have not read it yet in any detail I have to admit.

But the problem with this hair splitting idea is that its not going to be practical as a cure for most people even if it works. As a procedure, it will be way too expensive and won’t produce nearly enough viable hairs to do very much.

That’s my guess, not fact I also have to admit. But its the reason I don’t bother with news about hair multiplication.

The only hope for the vast majority is some kind of follicular neogenesis via cell therapy - which is both cheap and easy to scale up.

By the way, great effort on the pdf. The illustrations are well drawn and explanations are well presented. What program did you draw your graphics in? I’ll read it fully after I’m well rested and perhaps my opinion above might change.


#6

I used the 3D modelling tool Inventor to create the object in 3D because then it’s very easy do make the different views with cross section etc. It’s important to provide good pics so that everyone gets an idea of what exactly to talk about.

regarding donor doubling/multiplication by hair transplants:
if dr. nigam or any other really can provide consistent results in terms of “multiplying hair” somewhen, then for most of us this is a kind of cure and big win, although it needs several transplants and probably still does not provide a persons natural density.

it get’s even more interesting if this alternative way of cutting and regeneration could be done in several rounds, all in vitro, to allow quadrupling etc.
(this part is mentioned at the end of the document)


#7

Magneto, great presentation and ideas, but a couple of comments: 1. Have you considered that the lengthy amount of time the follicles would have to stay outside if the body, sitting there in a dish while you reconstruct them, might hurt them and destroy their viability when re-implanted? and 2. the hair follicle diagrams you’re using are pretty simplistic and lack some details that might be very important to your procedure. For instance, there’s no reference to the bulge, where most of the stem cells are located.


#8

Have you looked into Dr Gho’s work I think he splits the follicle along its length like this.


#9

Yes, I believe so. I’m not saying that’s a bad idea, but I’m not that big of a fan of donor doubling anyway, whether it’s Gho or Nigam. I think it can definitely work in some cases, but I think the risk of losing a fairly large percentage of the extracted follicles (due to damage inflicted by all that dissection, cutting, and length of time outside of the body) is too risky, so as it stands now, I would not risk having this procedure performed on myself. I think it has a long, long way to go before it is perfected, if it ever can be perfected. As jarjar mentioned, it’s still basically a hair transplant, in terms of many of the technical steps. People shouldn’t read my enthusiasm for Nigam as enthusiasm for donor doubling.


#10

Good points, roger_that.

Regarding your first point (follicle time outside the body): of course, this is crucial. According to Dr. Cole it’s generally possible to keep the follicle alive up to 45 days outside the body, but without damaging the follicle.
So it is important to start the repair process with the prepared multiplied cells once the follicle is cut into two halves a.s.a.p. (within a few minutes), and provide the bisected follicles with additional magical stuff in the dish (growth factors, oxygen, etc.). Generally I assume that a damaged follicle tries to repair itself immediately as good as possible. So we need to help the follicle with the regeneration with the supply of all the lost cells etc.
I think that there is chance that bisected follicles can be repaired this way in-vitro, though not easy.

second point: you’re probably right. the simplified model doesn’t include the bulge. Also, many follicle illustrations which can be found on google, do not include the bulge, but it seems that it’s an important part of the follicle providing a reservoir for stemcells. Unfortunately it looks that the bulge act like a kind of entry point to the follicle, and the bulge is not surrounding the whole follicle by 360°. Therefore, it’s also probably not good visible under the microscope. If it can be identified under magnification, it’s maybe possible to make the cut exactly (more or less) at the bulge, so that the halves look really the same and contain the same cells.
Maybe Dr. Nigam can answer this question.

Mabye this and other difficulties are the reason, why Dr. Nigam cuts the follicle the other way, because it’s simply not possible, to cut it exactly into two identical halves.

I don’t know, but I’m also still wondering, when looking at all these different cells of a hair follicle: how is it even possible to bio-engineer a follicle in the lab without including bulge, sebaceaous gland etc.?
Because, if you remember Dr. Lausters engineered follicle in the lab from scratch, it was a follicle which already produced real hair! not as thick as normal hair, but anyway, it was a hair producing organ. And I think, this engineered follicle didn’t contain a bulge, and also not sure about the rest of the anatomy (inner and outer sheath, or the matrix cells located at the dermal papilla). The main question for me is: what components do we need to create a working follicle in the lab and which components can be omitted?


#11

Hey brunobald, Gho’s method is a little bit different. He doesn’t cut the follicle exactly into two halves. He tries to extract the center of the follicle and leave the rest of the root at its place for regeneration. He uses thin extraction needles of 0.5mm for that procedure.
I think, Gho’s theory is not bad, but it’s more like playing lottery. I don’t think, that he can achieve consistent results, and like many users on different forums already found out, it’s nowhere near the 85% regeneration claim. I think it’s maybe 33% at the best (still not bad - better than nothing).


#12

From what I understand, Lauster creates a 3D structure of cells in vitro. The cells do the job of differentiating themselves into the various organelles that constitute the hair follicle.

That is to say, he just puts the right type of cells in contact with one another and lets the cells figure things out. He called it “proto hair” which suggests that not all the parts of a normal hair follicle like sebaceous glands are present.

That line of development is the only way a cure would make sense to me. If its anything that involves having to re-engineer parts of the hair and then put it together surgically, or to split hairs and do a bunch of steps, its going to be terribly expensive and impractical for the vast majority.

That’s why I consider hair multiplication (hair splitting) a dead end as far as a cure goes.