Bayer Prolactin Receptor Antibody For Male And Female Pattern Hair Loss

[trialAcc]

I do not have a lot of faith in Bayer's Prolactin Receptor Antibody tech to treat hair loss. I don't understand what all of the hype is all about. It's easier to regrow hair in Maquaques than in humans.

Although it is apparently more difficult to spell the word macaques then humans.

The macaque model seems to be basically interchangeable with humans for androgen related hairloss. If you could provide a single example of a drug that was successfully tested on them vs failed humans I'd love to see it.

 

[pegasus2]

It is going to be a 12 month treatment based on the macaques. They were not fully cured and the researchers made the comment that they did not begin to see a plateau in results at the 6 month mark.

Possibly. I think they will market it as a 6 month treatment, and if you want more results then double up. Many people will be happy with the 6 month results, and those who can afford it go for a year

 

[HMI 115 IS THE CURE dude]

Possibly. I think they will market it as a 6 month treatment, and if you want more results then double up. Many people will be happy with the 6 month results, and those who can afford it go for a year

can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody

"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."

here is the phase 1 study :

Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed

Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .

 

[Solid_Snake]

I would definitely take out 100k to cure baldness. Sign me the f*** up.

Prolly not getting another house no time soon anyway.

 

[Dimitri001]

can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody

"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."

here is the phase 1 study :

Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed

Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .

Very interesting! So if there's a competing antibody maybe competition could bring the price down?

It's also interesting that both DHT and PRL are involved in both Androgenetic Alopecia and prostate cancer.

I do not have a lot of faith in Bayer's Prolactin Receptor Antibody tech to treat hair loss. I don't understand what all of the hype is all about. It's easier to regrow hair in Maquaques than in humans.

Come on, guys, obvious troll. Let's, for once, not take the bait.

 

[Dimitri001]

SMI-6 may work at a high enough dose, but I am not comfortable taking it at such doses. One thing people can hope for is that they proceed with development on that for cancer, and prove safety in humans. Other than that the best bet is something downstream of prolactin. To be honest I don't think there is much chance at all for getting a cheap molecule that will mimic the results of HMI-115 anytime soon. It will take many years to even find out how blocking the prolactin receptor grows hair. What would seem to be the likely candidates may not be able to be targeted with anything other than expensive peptides/antibodies or gene therapy. I'm afraid your best bet is to get a second job and save up for HMI-115 or a hair transplant

Why are you not comfortable with SMI-6 at high doses, given that an antibody is, presumably, safe? Because of impurity?

Yes, perhaps something downstream would be cheaper, in fact, didn't we mention something like that in the thread a while ago, whatever became of that?

Although, as you say, we don't know what it is downstream that causes the regrowth, but perhaps we can speculate or, hell, just try at random if there aren't too many downstream effects. I mean, may as well if we're gonna be priced out of HMI.

But, you say "what would seem to be the likely candidates", so you know already what the downstream effects are and which might be the ones doing the work?

 

[JohnDoe5]

Although it is apparently more difficult to spell the word macaques then humans.

The macaque model seems to be basically interchangeable with humans for androgen related hairloss. If you could provide a single example of a drug that was successfully tested on them vs failed humans I'd love to see it.

So you're the house grammar police. Thank goodness you're here to correct us every time one of us makes a typo.

That aside, hair growth in macaques and humans is not interchangeable. I live in Portland, Oregon and I used to have convos with a researcher named Hideo Uno, who ran the local Primate facility in nearby Beaverton. We used to talk on the phone quite a bit. You might want to google Hideo Uno to learn who he is. It was from him that I got the info that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I respect his opinion on this issue more than a respect some grammar-cop know-nothing on the internet.

In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on a macaque than a human.

 

[pegasus2]

can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody

"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."

here is the phase 1 study :

Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed

Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .

It's a weak PRLR mAb. It is just as expensive as HMI-115, but 10x less potent, and was not effective in animal models. The only effective mAb for the PRLR in animal models is HMI-115.

Why are you not comfortable with SMI-6 at high doses, given that an antibody is, presumably, safe? Because of impurity?

Because we don't know enough about the drug, there is possibility for toxicity at high doses. The doses we tried didn't seem to work that great, we can't go any higher.

But, you say "what would seem to be the likely candidates", so you know already what the downstream effects are and which might be the ones doing the work?

I have some theories on that. The most promising downstream target is Twist1, but it's very difficult to get anything to inhibit that.

 

[JohnDoe5]

can you look more into this molecule called LFA 102? i think it has really good group buy potential. It passed phase 1 studies for prostate cancer and its also a monoclonal antibody

"FA102, a humanized monoclonal antibody (mAb) that binds to and inhibits the PRLR, has exhibited promising preclinical antitumor activity."

here is the phase 1 study :

Phase I Study of the Prolactin Receptor Antagonist LFA102 in Metastatic Breast and Castration-Resistant Prostate Cancer - PubMed

Treatment with LFA102 was safe and well tolerated, but did not show antitumor activity as monotherapy at the doses tested.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

also this study confirms that PRL antibody is safe to use the side effects seemed tolerable .

You don't even know the efficacy of this stuff yet. You might want to wait until phase 2 studies are complete to see if the subjects get any regrowth at all. Just because it grows good hair on macaques does not mean it will grow hair on humans. It's easier to grow hair on macaques than humans. Here below is a study with the world-famous Hideo Uno and in his study ALL macaques regrew hair with minoxidil and we all know that all humans do not regrow hair with minoxidil.

The stumptailed macaque as a model for androgenetic alopecia: Effects of topical minoxidil analyzed by use of the folliculogram

The use of the stumptailed macaque, which possesses hereditary balding characteristics similar in many respects to that of androgenetic alopecia in hu…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[pegasus2]

So you're the house grammar police. Thank goodness you're here to correct us every time one of us makes a typo.

That aside, hair growth in macaques and humans is not interchangeable. I live in Portland, Oregon and I used to have convos with a researcher named Hideo Uno, who ran the local Primate facility in nearby Beaverton. We used to talk on the phone quite a bit. You might want to google Hideo Uno to learn who he is. It was from him that I got the info that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I respect his opinion on this issue more than a respect some grammar-cop know-nothing on the internet.

In fact, it's easier to regrow hair on a macaque than a human.

Was he talking about stumptailed macaques specifically, or other types of macaques? Stumptailed macaques are the only ones whose hair loss is similar to ours afaik. The others do indeed have types of hair loss that is much easier to treat. If he actually claims stuptailed macaque hair loss is easier to treat, I'd like to know what he bases that on. The trials for minoxidil and finasteride in macaques show similar regrowth to the human trials for those drugs.

 

[pegasus2]

You don't even know the efficacy of this stuff yet. You might want to wait until phase 2 studies are complete to see if the subjects get any regrowth at all. Just because it grows good hair on macaques does not mean it will grow hair on humans. It's easier to grow hair on macaques than humans. Here below is a study with the world-famous Hideo Uno and in his study ALL macaques regrew hair with 2% minoxidil and we all know that all humans do not regrow hair with 2% minoxidil.

The stumptailed macaque as a model for androgenetic alopecia: Effects of topical minoxidil analyzed by use of the folliculogram

The use of the stumptailed macaque, which possesses hereditary balding characteristics similar in many respects to that of androgenetic alopecia in hu…

www.sciencedirect.com

Virtually all humans regrow hair with oral minoxidil. Many don't regrow hair with topical minoxidil because they lack the enzyme in the skin which converts minoxidil into its active form. Taking it orally converts it in the liver where the enzyme is present in all humans, so that's why all of them respond to oral minoxidil even though they don't respond to topical. Apparently all macaques have the sulfotransferase enzyme in their skin.

 

[JohnDoe5]

Virtually all humans regrow hair with oral minoxidil. Many don't regrow hair with topical minoxidil because they lack the enzyme in the skin which converts minoxidil into its active form. Taking it orally converts it in the liver where the enzyme is present in all humans, so that's why all of them respond to oral minoxidil even though they don't respond to topical. Apparently all macaques have the sulfotransferase enzyme in their skin.

It doesn't matter if oral minoxidil regrows hair in humans because I am not talking about oral minoxidil. The Hideo Uno study I posted showed that ALL macaques regrew hair with minoxidil involved topical minoxidil. Hideo Uno was one of the top 3 or 4 researchers using macaques in the world some years back, and he and I spoke quite a bit by phone. And he told me in no uncertain terms that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than it is to grow hair on humans. The study I posted above is about topical application of minoxidil on macaques and like I said, they ALL grew hair.

You do not know why it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. And I don't believe you know why some humans grow hair with minoxidil while others do not. You're doing a lot of assuming, guessing, and making stuff up.

 

[JohnDoe5]

Was he talking about stumptailed macaques specifically, or other types of macaques? Stumptailed macaques are the only ones whose hair loss is similar to ours afaik. The others do indeed have types of hair loss that is much easier to treat. If he actually claims stuptailed macaque hair loss is easier to treat, I'd like to know what he bases that on. The trials for minoxidil and finasteride in macaques show similar regrowth to the human trials for those drugs.

He was talking about stump-tailed macaques. I used to go to his facility 3 or 4 times per year to talk with him and pick up any nuggets of info I could get from him. He's a nice guy. We talked on the phone quite a bit for a couple of years. Make no mistake about it, he told me in no uncertain terms that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I was telling him that some experimental drug would regrow hair on humans because it regrew substantial hair on macaques and he would caution me with, "It's easier to regrow hair on macaques than humans."

This man was always doing research with macaques using all kinds of topicals. He was as nice as a man could possibly be. Great guy. He did some of the RU58841 studies for the drug company. And like I said, he was at the top of the dermatological research food chain. He ran the Primate Center here and he did bald testing on macaques for all of the drug companies. He was considered to be the go-to guy for macaque testing for male pattern hair loss.

I'm telling you that he told me repeatedly that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans. I wish it wasn't so but it is so.

He based his statements on decades of research done with many different topical and oral drugs to treat hair loss. And I don't know why this would surprise anyone when we all know that it's easier to grow hair on mice than on humans.

 

[JohnDoe5]

Very interesting! So if there's a competing antibody maybe competition could bring the price down?

It's also interesting that both DHT and PRL are involved in both Androgenetic Alopecia and prostate cancer.



Come on, guys, obvious troll. Let's, for once, not take the bait.

I don't agree with you so that means I'm a troll. Give me a break! Hideo Uno says it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans and I respect his opinion on the matter, whereas I do not respect your opinion on the matter. I know you're wrong.

 

[pegasus2]

He based his statements on decades of research done with many different topical and oral drugs to treat hair loss. And I don't know why this would surprise anyone when we all know that it's easier to grow hair on mice than on humans.

You don't have any specifics? Show me the studies. Every Androgenetic Alopecia trial that I've seen on stumptailed macaques correlates with human trials for the same drug. There isn't a single macaque trial I have ever seen published for a drug that grew hair on macaques and failed to grow a similar amount of hair on humans. If there is one Is like to see it. If there was ever an experimental compound that grew this kind of hair on macaques I think it would've been published in some form. We would have heard about it if it wasn't very recent. Mice do not have androgenetic alopecia so the comparison. Comparing them to macaques belies ignorance. In mouse studies all they do is shave the mouse and see how fast it grows back.

The reason why Hideo Uno had to tell me repeatedly that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans is that just like you guys I didn't want to accept it so I kept saying that since it works on macaques that means it will work on people like me. He must have told me that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans half a dozen times because like you guys I kept being hopeful that if something grows hair on macaques then it would grow hair on me. What I was doing was wishful thinking and now you guys are doing the same thing. sd

I don't engage in wishful thinking, I'm going by the evidence, you have not provided any evidence that supports this mans claims. I have provided evidence that supports my claim, the burden is on you to provide additional evidence, all you are providing is hearsay.

It's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans.

You keep making this factual statement without any evidence to back it up. You may not get called a troll if you say, "I think, or I have been told" to qualify your statement.

It doesn't matter if oral minoxidil regrows hair in humans because I am not talking about oral minoxidil. The Hideo Uno study I posted showed that ALL macaques regrew hair with minoxidil involved topical minoxidil.
You do not know why it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. And I don't believe you know why some humans grow hair with minoxidil while others do not. You're doing a lot of assuming, guessing, and making stuff up.

Did you not read what I wrote about sulfotransferase or did you not understand it? It matters. I explained why it matters. You completely ignored it and repeated your assertion. Now I just think you're trolling. You know for a fact that macaques grow hair as easily as mice, yet you don't even know how minoxidil is activated

 

[trialAcc]

The reason why Hideo Uno had to tell me repeatedly that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans is that just like you guys I didn't want to accept it so I kept saying that since it works on macaques that means it will work on people like me. He must have told me that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans half a dozen times because like you guys I kept being hopeful that if something grows hair on macaques then it would grow hair on me. What I was doing was wishful thinking and now you guys are doing the same thing. sd

I'm not saying the Bayer drug won't regrow hair on us because I don't know if it will or not BUT I am saying that if you think it will regrow your lost hair just because it grew a lot of hair in virtually ALL macaques then you're getting ahead of yourselves. You should wait until the end of phase 2 to see the efficacy of the drug in humans. It's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans.

I wouldn't lie to you guys. I'm one of you guys. When I would go to his primate center, he had a small library of all the studies he had done on macaques for hair loss. He did a lot of them. And I read quite a few of those studies. Not only did he tell me that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques that info was also in his studies. He let me go through that library of info. I know what I'm talking about. You guys should wait till you see the results of the Bayer phase 2 studies. If it works I'll be popping champagne corks with you guys AND I'll be part of a GB but you can count me out for now because I know for a fact that it's easier to regrow hair on macaques than on humans.

Hey 9 post account, can you provide even 1 study that isn't 2% minoxidil? Seriously link us a single study that showed hair growth in macaques but not humans, otherwise you're full of sh*t.

There are 4-5 readily available studies that prove the opposite of what you just said (finasteride, dutasteride, minoxidil, lataprost and RU with anecdotal evidence) but I've never seen a single study of a compound that was successfully trialed for hairloss in stump-tailed macaques that failed on humans.

I even googled Hideo Uno's research papers and he doesn't have one either, so please show some proof. The minoxidil example you just quoted isn't even proving what you intend it to prove, just that humans needed a higher dose the maqacues due to less enzyme to convert on the scalp but the compound itself still works on both macaques and humans almost equally well. The same thing took place with finasteride where they dosed macaques with 1mg/kg of body weight, it's a dosing difference, that's it.

 

[pegasus2]

Funny thing is Hideo Uno actually works as a consultant for Bayer for the last 7 years, and was probably involved in the HMI-115 trial. I will hit him up and ask him what he thinks

 

[JohnDoe5]

Hey 9 post account, can you provide even 1 study that isn't 2% minoxidil? Seriously link us a single study that showed hair growth in macaques but not humans, otherwise you're full of sh*t.

There are 4-5 readily available studies that prove the opposite of what you just said (finasteride, dutasteride, minoxidil, lataprost and RU with anecdotal evidence) but I've never seen a single study of a compound that was successfully trialed for hairloss in stump-tailed macaques that failed on humans.

I even googled Hideo Uno's research papers and he doesn't have one either, so please show some proof. The minoxidil example you just quoted isn't even proving what you intend it to prove, just that humans needed a higher dose the maqacues due to less enzyme to convert on the scalp but the compound itself still works on both macaques and humans almost equally well. The same thing took place with finasteride where they dosed macaques with 1mg/kg of body weight, it's a dosing difference, that's it.

Hey wrongheaded poster, NO I will not go hunting for studies for you. I know what I know, and I've told the rest of you what I know. If you want to be fool enough to assume I'm wrong even though I'm right, go ahead.

You post the links to all of the studies you just got done talking about that prove it's EASIER to grow hair on the heads of humans than Macaques. After all, you just got done saying that there are all of these studies involving all of these different treatments and they all disproved my claims that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans.

Go ahead and post the links to all of those studies. LMAO!

I already posted a study showing that plain old 2% topical minoxidil all by itself regrew hair on 100% of macaques in a Hideo Uno study and we all know that 2% topical minoxidil by itself does not work on 100% of humans. Hence, I have already proved that it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans, while you have bullshitted about how finasteride, dutasteride, minoxidil, lataprost and RU have all grown more hair on humans than macaques but you didn't even show one study to support your claims.

Your stories for why humans need higher doses of minoxidil than macaques is bs for 2 reasons -

1. You don't know why it's easier for minoxidil to grow hair on macaques than humans. The fact that it takes higher doses of minoxidil & finasteride to get success in humans than it does in macaques shows that your cute little enzyme theory is likely wrong because minoxidil & finasteride work by different modes of action. Hence, your own claim that it takes higher doses of either medicine (minoxidil or finas) to get efficacy in humans than it does in macaques proves my point that it's easier to regrow hair in macaques than in humans.

2. You're sweeping the issue that 2% minoxidil worked on 100% of macaques and 2% minoxidil does not grow hair on 100% of humans proves my point that it's easier to grow hair on macaques on humans. Let me say this again, the study I posted shows that 2% minoxidil grows hair on 100% of macaques. If you jack up the minoxidil to 5% it still won't grow hair in 100% of humans.

Be a man and face the truth.

 

[JohnDoe5]

Funny thing is Hideo Uno actually works as a consultant for Bayer for the last 7 years, and was probably involved in the HMI-115 trial. I will hit him up and ask him what he thinks

Please do. I would like to know what he says about HMI-115.

 

[JohnDoe5]

You don't have any specifics? Show me the studies. Every Androgenetic Alopecia trial that I've seen on stumptailed macaques correlates with human trials for the same drug. There isn't a single macaque trial I have ever seen published for a drug that grew hair on macaques and failed to grow a similar amount of hair on humans. If there is one Is like to see it. If there was ever an experimental compound that grew this kind of hair on macaques I think it would've been published in some form. We would have heard about it if it wasn't very recent. Mice do not have androgenetic alopecia so the comparison. Comparing them to macaques belies ignorance. In mouse studies all they do is shave the mouse and see how fast it grows back.



I don't engage in wishful thinking, I'm going by the evidence, you have not provided any evidence that supports this mans claims. I have provided evidence that supports my claim, the burden is on you to provide additional evidence, all you are providing is hearsay.


You keep making this factual statement without any evidence to back it up. You may not get called a troll if you say, "I think, or I have been told" to qualify your statement.




Did you not read what I wrote about sulfotransferase or did you not understand it? It matters. I explained why it matters. You completely ignored it and repeated your assertion. Now I just think you're trolling. You know for a fact that macaques grow hair as easily as mice, yet you don't even know how minoxidil is activated

Firstly, I have produced one specific in this very thread. I posted a study by Uno showing that 2% minoxidil grows hair on 100% of macaques and we all know that 2% minoxidil does NOT grow hair on 100% of humans. This shows that the macaque results do not correlate to human results.

All of the studies you've seen re: macaque results do not correlate to human results. We know you've seen at least one study that shows it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans because this very day you saw a Hideo Uno study I posted showing that 100% of macaques grow hair with 2% minoxidil whereas we all know that 100% of humans do not grow hair with 2% minoxidil. So you're talking sh*t when you say ALL of the studies you've seen show the results achieved by macaques correlate to human results. You're talking sh*t that you want to believe.

And I never said that it's as easy to grow hair on macaques as it is to grow hair on mice. I said it's easier to grow hair on macaques than on humans. I have no idea if it's easier to grow hair on macaques or mice.