It’s Cyclosporine A… but apparently Cyclosporine A only works when compounded as Way 316606… it doesn’t work alone.
Since these follicles were donated by transplant patients that makes me think that the follicles were probably the removed and discarded follicles from the patient’s recipient area.
Since these follicles were donated by transplant patients that makes me think that the follicles were probably the removed and discarded follicles from the patient’s recipient area. You can bet that most guys getting hair transplants would not be willing to donate even 1 healthy follicle. They want all of the healthy follicles they can get. I can’t imagine that guys getting hair transplants would give up any healthy follicles from the donor area.
I don’t think they were using healthy follicles. I think they were dying follicles from the recipient area.
If I had to guess, I’d guess the follicles came from the donor area, only because that’s the way surgeons tend to work… they say, “We’re removing these follicles from your donor area anyway, can we use them for an experiment?”
But wherever the follicles came from, the point is that the Way 316606 improved their growth by a lot.
I still think the follicles came from the recipient area because balding guys don’t give up any healthy hair willingly. There would also be less point in testing a treatment on the healthy hair. And if it grew hair a lot faster in dying hair that seems like a big deal to me. It does seem like one of us should try to find out if they tested it on healthy follicles or dying follicles. I’ll try to contact them during the upcoming workweek.
You’re right about the follicles coming from the donor area. Check out the below info from the study.
“Male occipital scalp HFs were obtained from patients undergoing hair transplant surgery at
the Crown Cosma Clinic, Manchester, UK. Tissue was dissected, with individual full-length
anagen VI HFs cultured in serum-free Williams’ E medium (Gibco, Paisley, UK) supplemented
with 2 mM L-glutamine (Invitrogen, Paisley, UK), 10 ng/mL hydrocortisone (Sigma,
Dorset, UK), and 1% antibiotic/antimycototic mixture (100×, Gibco) and incubated overnight
at 37 ˚C and 5% CO2 as described [5,11].”
Since they reported that they used hair follicles, it either were healthy follicles or slightly weakened ones, but not dead follicles. I know some researchers call dead follicles miniaturized. But I don’t think they used dead follicles.
I also don’t think this substance will revive dead follicles. I read on other forums people using this do not see results.
I’m rather interested in Shiseido and Follica anticipated announcements. Have they not been expected to commercialize their products in 2018?
Be careful about using terms like “dead follicles”. That’s not a scientific term and it doesn’t convey any understanding. Miniaturized follicles contain cells which are still alive and functioning, only a lot fewer cells than healthy terminal follicles.
If you mean fibrosed or fibrotic follicles, they are not functioning, and fibrosis doesn’t happen to every person with MPB.
Very good point, they glorified this by saying those were follicles donated by hair transplant patients but I suspect in reality they were just follicles that needed to be discarded anyway probably because they were not harvested or treated properly in the first place.
So you’re saying the follicles they used were ones they rejected for HT? If they’re trying to prove the efficacy of a drug, why would they use follicles they know are damaged? Seems to me they’d want to use the best follicles available.
Roger if they were using the follicles for culturing purposes, damaged donor follicles should work too as long as they could extract the cells, no? Hair transplant in the UK is expensive, I would feel werid if my doctor asked me to give away my precious donors for free .
@Norwood3 You’re right, physically damaged follicles (taken from the donor area) would work if they extracted the right cells, but I don’t think that’s what they’re doing in this experiment. I think they used intact donor follicles that they just set aside from the follicles they harvested for HT. How do I know this? Because of the photos they showed, with fully-intact looking terminal follicles (I don’t mean the photos of the patients’ scalps, I mean the photos of the treated follicles lined up together). It looks like they took intact follicles and treated them with this compound, and then demonstrated that they seemed to grow better than ones that weren’t treated with the compound. I may be wrong on this, but that’s what I think.
Of course, it’s kind of disappointing because we expect transplanted donor follicles to grow well in the recipient area anyway , without being treated with a drug. That’s the whole point of hair transplantation as we know it. Treating intact donor follicles with some drug to make them grow better, is kind of like using PRP on transplanted follicles, which a lot of HT surgeons are offering now. It’s kind of like, “let’s make HT better, but not replace it.” I personally don’t care about making HT better. I do want something that can replace it.
Doctors usually end of up with transected follicles during FUE donor harvesting, I wouldn’t be surprised these were the ones that got donated. Transected follicles have no use for the HT patient.
If you look at the video above at 1:13, he shows a row of follicles the researchers treated with the compound. They don’t look transsected to me, unless somehow the compound helped them regenerate from transsected follicles back to viable ones. That is possible, but I don’t see any pictures of transsected follicles in the video, and no mention of them, so I’m going to assume that was not the case for now until someone shows me otherwise.
I think the folks at River Town would disagree with that, apparently RT1640 contains Cyclosporine A
Yes, I had noticed that. Thanks…
Cyclosporine is toxic
<edited - forum violation>
Anybody have experience with “Cel?”
I can’t find any “objective” reviews about it.