Video from Japan Shiseido Replicel AND Riken/Kyocera on creating new follicles

This science news video is one of the most complete rundowns of the Japanese research I’ve seen. It gives a long report about both the Shiseido/Replicel research, which involves inducing miniaturized follicles to regrow, and the Riken/Organ Tech/Kyocera work (based on Dr. Tsuji’s research), which is about creating new follicles…

Unfortunately, it says Dr. Tsuji’s work won’t be ready for “about 10 years” – but his work combining epithelial stem cells and mesenchymal (DP) cells is being utilized now by Riken/Kyocera, for commercial release in 2018 or so. I don’t understand the discrepancy there.

Note this video, which was produced by the Japanese government broadcaster NHK, doesn’t mention any of the names of private companies… just “a major cosmetics company” (obviously Shiseido), etc. I think they have some kind of policy that a state broadcasting agency can’t appear to run commercial advertising.

There’s also a report on culturing induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) to generate “immature” cells (similar to mesenchymal cells) to generate new hair follicles within the skin. And they report on the latest cutting-edge work at Yokohama National University.

THe good news is that they won’t say the mantra 5-years-away anymore.
Not they way 10 years away.

In another 10 years they will say that a cure is 20 years away.

And so on.

Giving fake hope it’s wrong.

At least it looks like this treatment won’t break the bank.
At less than $1,000 it’s quite affordable:

I understand it was only supposed to be up temporarily.

Great video, I will try to find it elsewhere, but one big question sticks out in my mind:

–The segment about Dr. Tsuji, who is working on the research that Riken/Organ Technologies/Kyocera is basing its procedure on, says that the DP cell component is problematic because the ability to grow new hairs will be limited. When DP cells are cultured, they lose their inductivity after multiple passages. But the other portions of the video reported on research with iPSCs, and ways to create many inductive DP like cells. But these ideas are apparently not part of Dr. Tsuji’s research.

My question is, why isn’t Dr. Tsuji cooperating with the other researchers, so the DP cell component in his “follicle primordiums” will consist of multiplied, transformed iPSCs, instead of DP cells taken directly from follicles?

This would massively increase the effectiveness of this procedure. It’s not clear whether Riken is doing this, but they should. If they don’t cooperate with the other researchers and pool their work, yes, it will take at least 10 years to be able to effectively multiply hairs using the follicle primordium procedure.

This one says it will be available by 2020 –

I don’t understand why we have any hope at all for Replicel. They already did one study and the efficacy results were dismal. Did they improve on the core technology?

You’re right, the results of the Phase I trials were terrible. The CEO seems very smart, I don’t think he’d be stupid enough to proceed with this just based on the Phase I results. I have to guess they’ve tweaked their technology a bit behind the scenes.

Some patients responded with > 19% increase in density in the initial trial (if I recall only 14% were new terminal hairs). Let’s say higher dosing brings it to 25% density increase for 25% of patients (single procedure), and four subsequent procedures bring it to 50% in 35% of patients. If so, there would be a stampede of people lining up to get the procedure. In fact, if ten $1,000 procedures would restore 25% density in 25% of people, there would still be a lot of people lining up to get the procedure.

Also, according to McElwee’s fluorescent die studies, the DHT-resistant cells will also migrate into non-balding but DHT-sensitive follicles helping to protect them from future balding.

In short, I don’t expect the Replicel procedure will be a cure-all when first implemented, but I do expect it to be marketable to people who have no recourse other than Rogaine/Propecia.

Fair enough. If the best results of the original trials could become predictable norms then they do have something.

As for the potential market - any new treatment that regrows anything at all will appeal to everyone who has lost anything at all.

The trial originally consisted of 30 subjects, of which several were not injected and 3 were disqualified, bringing it down to 25 patients. Of the 25, only 2 experienced more than a 19% increase in growth, all the others experienced 17% or less growth.

The average for those receiving the 10% concentration was 14.2% increased growth. The average for those receiving the 5% was 11.8%.

Considering the small sample size, the fact that only a small circle of skin was injected, and the fact that even the best respondents showed barely discernible increases in hair counts when the skin was examined visually, all add up to the first trial being really disappointing, both subjectively and objectively. Here’s the report:

Take a look at that photo to see what their version of “19%” really looks like up close.

I’m not saying this is nothing, but it’s much worse than one would expect considering Replicel’s level of enthusiasm, which leads me to suspect (like jarjar does) that they’ve improved something in the protocol since the first trial.

Their level of enthusiasm is my issue with them. If they were saying they have
a minoxidil + propecia level of treatment that might be permanent, whereas minoxidil
has to be used forever, I would say maybe they’re right. And that they have a somewhat
better mousetrap if it’s permanent. But they’re talking about a cure for hair
loss and I don’t see them having a cure for hair loss based on the results of
their first study.

And Shiseido paid $4 million for Replicel’s technology. If you had a cure for
hair loss couldn’t you get more than $4 million for it? If you had an even
somewhat better treatment than what’s available
couldn’t you get more
than $4 million for it?

And did any of the test subjects lose hair?

Didn’t Replicel tout dermal sheath cup cells (as opposed to dermal papilla cells) as the distinguishable and necessary breakthrough that would set them apart (before their results were released)?

Is possible they found out something new about DSCs, or did that approach die an early death?

Even a small visual gain is better than what is currently available. Most “successful” Finasteride patients don’t even stay above baseline more than 5-6 years after they start treatment. In the long term sense the current treatments are paying off in the negative range.

IMO there are lots of unanswered questions. How compoundable are the results? Do they plateau after a few treatments? Etc. (I don’t want to hear about theories, I want to hear about human testing.)

And let’s not forget Replicel’s past track record of professionally hyping up their stock price on the eve of releasing crappy results. I don’t trust them any more than I trust Cotsarelis. The only reason I am lending Replicel any consideration here is because they convinced an outside party to buy their work & continue developing it. (Although, $4 mil? That seems like a pittance for this kind of thing.)

Their hyping of their treatment prior to releasing bad results is a crappy
thing to do isn’t it? It kind of makes them seem sc@mmy doesn’t it?

Roger you said, “The average for those receiving the 10% concentration was
14.2% increased growth. The average for those receiving the 5% was 11.8%.”

Huh? I thought there was only one active treatment dose? Please post a link
that shows there were two active treatment doses.

It was the link I posted in this thread to the PDF file. In one part on there, I think it mentions the two doses, unless I’m misreading it.

I think maybe you misread something.

How do you read this, at the bottom left of the page?

  • Average = 14.2% for the 7 of 10 subjects 10%
  • Average = 11.8% for the 10 of 10 subjects 5%

[quote][postedby]Originally Posted by roger_that[/postedby]
How do you read this, at the bottom left of the page?

  • Average = 14.2% for the 7 of 10 subjects 10%
  • Average = 11.8% for the 10 of 10 subjects 5%[/quote]

I think it means that if you include 7 of the 10 subjects the average regrowth
was 10% but if you include 10 of 10 subjects the average regrowth is 5%.

What do the 14.2% and 11.8% mean, then?