Discussion: If Successful, Is Hair Cloning / Regeneraion (stem Cell Based) A True Cure?

[NeverBaldEver]

First part is discussion of the new technology in the future, second part is my personal situation (irrelevant to the section, hope to get suggestions from the intellectual members here.)

Part1:
Hair cloning, either injection based (rch-01 and tsuji[?]) or transplant based (start hair transplant), is thought to be the promising cure of hair loss. By generating hair follicles invulnerable to DHT (and many other currently known factors), balding/bald man can have hair again.
How ever, is it real that this kind of follicles really exist in the first place?

I would like to refer to scalp tension theory. I DON'T BELIEVE this theory, but I do accept their evidences that transplanted follicles miniaturizes over time (for some people). There are two possibilities, which are not mutually exclusive:
1.1. Some factors, either scalp tension or other unknown reasons, altered the transplanted follicles.
1.2. The donor area was strong at the time of hair transplant, but as Androgenetic Alopecia develops, that area becomes weak and the transplanted follicles. (typical case : DUPA)

Why I say the follicles (originally in the donor area) "are altered or "become weak" is because the DHT level of a person is rather stable after adolescence, for those follicles that gets miniaturized later, I would rather believe they begin to miniaturize later than they miniaturize more slowly.
The cloned follicles may have the same risks.

Any idea about this? I think if 1.1 and 1.2 are both false, hair cloning / regeneration is a cure for most patients. (even so, the doctors have to be very careful about DUPA, a good donor follicle to clone is hard to find, please see the link in part 2)
Otherwise, hair cloning could only last temporarily and may not be worth its price.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part2:
My father has DUPA (his hair was thick in his 30s and coverage is OK in 40s, now 63 and his donor area could be seen through.)
I am at the age of 32 and have diffused thinning. I was on Minoxidil and Finasteride for 1yr, micro-needling for 4 months (1.5mm every other week), no visible improvement. A local clinic reports I have ~40% density remaining but I am a good candidate of a hair transplant.

I would like to have a hair transplant but I am not sure how good my donor area is. Here is an example:
https://www.bernsteinmedical.com/hair-loss/men/classification/
Donor area of a patient who will evolve into DUPA and whose diagnosis is not readily apparent at the age of 27.

Hope to get some suggestions.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

First of all, occipital hairs do not have androgen receptors, so they are resistant to DHT. They still miniaturize due to aging. As for people losing transplanted hairs completely, that's not demonstrated. It can happen due to thyroid conditions or stress, but not from DHT. Transplanted hair mimics the properties of hair in the region to a small degree. For example arm hair transplanted to the scalp will grow slightly longer than it will on the arm, but it won't grow like scalp hair. Similarly, transplanted occipital hair might miniaturize to a small degree, but not like Androgenetic Alopecia susceptible hair.

Scalp tension theory is very stupid. If scalp tension or blood flow is the problem, then why are females not going slick bald? It's all a con.

"occipital hairs do not have androgen receptor"
As far as I know this is established by experiment, exposing occipital hairs to DHT and not seeing them miniaturize. However if we observe the opposite in real life, this should be amended.
"mimicking"
I think this is only true though the difference of environment. I don't think the environment of the receipt area changes as the hair miniaturize. (I have an imaginary experiment here, which is too long and is omitted. But I may be wrong.)
"Scalp tension theory is very stupid"
On one hand, researchers also examine the scalp tension of people with no hair loss (at the time of the examination, who knows if he will be bald in 5/10 years) and find no significant difference between them and people with hair loss.
On the other hand, it MAY be scalp tension + X, people with hair loss have both, people without hair loss doesn't have X. So you see similar scalp tension in people with/without hair loss, but reduce scalp tension can help. (Just raise a logical possibility; I have no evidence justifying it. You may find this argument applies to any other factors, like masturbation, so we have to do experiment to randomize X before we can say for sure.)

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Yes, if you have money.

 

[coolio]

You can see/feel the "safe zone" horseshoe on an older Norwood#7, and many times it will be thinned. As in, worse than the same area on a Norwood#1 that same age. The #7 is not aging faster than the #1. The #7 has more androgen susceptibility throughout his scalp.

All androgens are bad for all scalp hair, period. It's only a matter of degree about which androgens and which areas.


But the androgen damage is cumulative over our lifetimes. It snowballs. Our balding hairs were blasted with androgen exposure during puberty/teens (the damage started then, it just took much longer before it was noticeable). Any new cloned hairs won't get that same long period of very high androgen levels. The snowball won't be rolling nearly as fast for the cloned hairs.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

You can see/feel the "safe zone" horseshoe on an older Norwood#7, and many times it will be thinned. As in, worse than the same area on a Norwood#1 that same age. The #7 is not aging faster than the #1. The #7 has more androgen susceptibility throughout his scalp.

All androgens are bad for all scalp hair, period. It's only a matter of degree about which androgens and which areas.


But the androgen damage is cumulative over our lifetimes. It snowballs. Our balding hairs were blasted with androgen exposure during puberty/teens (the damage started then, it just took much longer before it was noticeable). Any new cloned hairs won't get that same long period of very high androgen levels. The snowball won't be rolling nearly as fast for the cloned hairs.

Thank you for your opinion.
For the donor zone, I do see dense horse shoe and sparse horse shoe with same completly bald area. I wouldn't think the dense horse shoe will become the sparse horse shoe overtime, but can be wrong.

"snowball"
[very personal opinion] I don't agree the androgen damage is snowball in "very long" (life time) run. As I see it, the damage to each individual follicle is "short" term (at most 5 years I guess). A "chronic clock" in our body (just like the one that controls puberty to occur around the age of 11) gradually lowers the resistance to DHT, and the follicle will get hurt if the resistance drops below certain threshold. The cloned follicles will be completely synchronized by this clock in a just few years. If the damage is purely cumulative, you cannot explain why there are good responders of Finasteride, which according to you should only slow down hair loss in EVERY patient.

 

[coolio]

People endlessly debate the minutia of different responders to Finasteride (and Dutasteride). But look at the big picture - NOBODY gets their baldness really reversed by it.

(I mean nobody goes from Norwood#3+ to being a Norwood#1 fullhead who needs little or no future maintenance regimen for years afterwards. That's the outcome if we could truly reverse all the androgen damage.)

Even chemical castration doesn't regrow large amounts of hair. Only a sustained sex-change regimen will do it. No amount of blocking/reducing androgen exposure (but staying male) will reverse the follicle damage to a significant degree in the big picture.

Reversing a recent bit of loss by a moderate amount (maybe it looks decent now but it's still half-miniaturized compared to when you were 13yo)? I'm sorry but that is not a big reversal in the big picture - even if it occurs over a large area of your head.


Hair transplant surgeons tell you that "you don't even notice your hair loss until 1/3rd or 1/2 of the original density is gone." Guess when that density was being lost? It was during your teens/etc, before you "started losing your hair". The snowball was rolling for a period of (very androgen heavy) years before it got big enough to notice.

IIRC it has also been demonstrated that males who don't have adult DHT levels during puberty will never go bald later even if normal DHT levels are restored. Their follicles don't get the snowball of damage started during the most androgen-heavy years, and what comes later in life isn't really enough to start it.

 

[BetaBoy]

occipital hairs do not have androgen receptors, so they are resistant to DHT. They still miniaturize due to aging.

Do you have a source for either of these claims? I've never seen any evidence suggesting that occipital HFCs do not have the androgen receptor and that cellular senescence causes miniaturisation.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

It's true there are many open questions with hair cloning. I hope there will be a maintenance treatment to supplement the procedure.

 

[Derelict]

Scalp tension is not stupid, it explains a lot of things. And give a study about this claim: occipital hairs do not have androgen receptors

What really is stupid, is believing long term hormonal treatments like fina/duta will only impact hairloss.

Fina and duta are one of the few ways to combat hair loss, if someone is willing to accept minor sides for their hair then they are the first line of treatment in tackling hair loss, they shouldn't be vilified so much. There are people who get no sides at all on them, im not one of those people but they exist. There are of course people who got severe sides too but they are in the minority.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

People endlessly debate the minutia of different responders to Finasteride (and Dutasteride). But look at the big picture - NOBODY gets their baldness really reversed by it.

(I mean nobody goes from Norwood#3+ to being a Norwood#1 fullhead who needs little or no future maintenance regimen for years afterwards. That's the outcome if we could truly reverse all the androgen damage.)

Even chemical castration doesn't regrow large amounts of hair. Only a sustained sex-change regimen will do it. No amount of blocking/reducing androgen exposure (but staying male) will reverse the follicle damage to a significant degree in the big picture.

Reversing a recent bit of loss by a moderate amount (maybe it looks decent now but it's still half-miniaturized compared to when you were 13yo)? I'm sorry but that is not a big reversal in the big picture - even if it occurs over a large area of your head.


Hair transplant surgeons tell you that "you don't even notice your hair loss until 1/3rd or 1/2 of the original density is gone." Guess when that density was being lost? It was during your teens/etc, before you "started losing your hair". The snowball was rolling for a period of (very androgen heavy) years before it got big enough to notice.

IIRC it has also been demonstrated that males who don't have adult DHT levels during puberty will never go bald later even if normal DHT levels are restored. Their follicles don't get the snowball of damage started during the most androgen-heavy years, and what comes later in life isn't really enough to start it.

"snowball"
You have changed the subject and confused with two different issues: the damage to the hair density and the damage to each follicle.
The decrease of density is of course "snowball", you have to lose 1/4 of your density before you can lose 1/2. But this is not what we discussed before.
The damage to (each) follicle, in my opinion, may not be very long term (=snowball in one's life time).
And I would like you to provide evidence for your claim: "IIRC it has also been demonstrated that males who don't have adult DHT levels during puberty will never go bald later even if normal DHT levels are restored." And I think Androgenetic Alopecia in women could prove you wrong (even though you say "males" in your claim).

 

[NeverBaldEver]

Scalp tension is not stupid, it explains a lot of things. And give a study about this claim: occipital hairs do not have androgen receptors

What really is stupid, is believing long term hormonal treatments like fina/duta will only impact hairloss.

I think this thread is to discuss the reliability of cloned follicles, and should not focus on the efficacy or side effects of Fina/Duta.

 

[NeverBaldEver]

It's true there are many open questions with hair cloning. I hope there will be a maintenance treatment to supplement the procedure.

Fina is an obvious answer, cry for me.

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Fina is an obvious answer, cry for me.

If you can take fina you don't need hair cloning.

 

[Derelict]

Yeah hair cloning is only really for nw6 and 7's for the most part.

 

[pegasus2]

Do you have a source for either of these claims? I've never seen any evidence suggesting that occipital HFCs do not have the androgen receptor and that cellular senescence causes miniaturisation.

"Aging of hair affects the hair color, the hair production, and the structural properties of the hair fiber with its consequence for manageability and overall appearance of the hair. While most dermatological literature on age-related hair changes has focused on hair loss, it is equally important that the hair fibers that emerge from the scalp exhibit significant age-related changes that have an equal impact on the overall cosmetic properties of the hair.[12] Depending on the individual's original hair color, quantity, quality, and hair care habits, there is a great variability in the age of onset of first signs of hair aging.

Age-related deterioration of cosmetic properties of hair is related to changes in hair pigmentation (graying), diameter, curvature, structural properties (stretching, bending, torsional rigidity), lipid composition, and the interdependence of these changes. It is these changes that are ultimately experienced by subjects that have retained their hair as they age."

"Senescent alopecia has been defined as non-androgen-dependent hair thinning found in those over 60 years of age with a negative family history for common baldness. Much like pattern hair loss, it involves a progressive decrease in the number of anagen follicles and hair diameter. And yet, data comparing senescent alopecia with pattern hair loss using microarray analysis have demonstrated significant differences in the gene expression profiles suggesting that they represent different entities"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6369639/

 

[Timii]

If you can take fina you don't need hair cloning.

Not really, I'm on finasteride and yes,it stopped my hair loss, but this doesn't mean I'm satisfied with my current density...

 

[coolio]

"snowball"
You have changed the subject and confused with two different issues: the damage to the hair density and the damage to each follicle.
The decrease of density is of course "snowball", you have to lose 1/4 of your density before you can lose 1/2. But this is not what we discussed before.
The damage to (each) follicle, in my opinion, may not be very long term (=snowball in one's life time).
And I would like you to provide evidence for your claim: "IIRC it has also been demonstrated that males who don't have adult DHT levels during puberty will never go bald later even if normal DHT levels are restored." And I think Androgenetic Alopecia in women could prove you wrong (even though you say "males" in your claim).

It's been like 10-15 years since I read some of this stuff and I don't have the sources all nicely stacked in front of me. Sorry.

I was thinking of the pseudohermaphrodite guys born with the 5-apha-reductase deficiency, and the research done on them. (Dominican Republic) IIRC it was demonstrated that with the DHT deficiency during puberty, they didn't get androgenic hair loss later in life even if DHT levels were later restored.

Androgen levels are pretty low in older men, falling since puberty, and yet we still continue to grow balder during the later half of life. On the other hand we get bombarded with high androgens early on, and yet even most guys with balding susceptibility can make it through their teens & early 20s before it's showing. The rate of loss does not really match the androgen levels during different stages of life. But it does suggest a pattern of follicles growing more susceptible to androgen damage as it worsens. Snowball effect.

This also explains why there is a wide spread of difference in how much baldness hits different men. Some men get little or no hair loss despite doing absolutely nothing about it, ever. Others are fighting an epic battle against the process (decades of Finasteride, etc) and still can't even stop the loss. The snowballing of androgen sensitivity has a severe 'leveraging' effect on the process once it gets rolling. But as the non-balding man is getting older, his androgen levels are falling fast enough that the snowball can never get going.

 

[BetaBoy]

"Androgen receptors were also detected in the nuclei of cultured beard and axillary DPC, but the DPC from occipital scalp hair follicles showed little staining with the antibody."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7999680

sci-hub.tw/10.1111/1523-1747.ep12335779
This paper suggests there are just 30% less ARs in occipital HFCs than in frontal HFCs.

 

[BetaBoy]

"Aging of hair affects the hair color, the hair production, and the structural properties of the hair fiber with its consequence for manageability and overall appearance of the hair. While most dermatological literature on age-related hair changes has focused on hair loss, it is equally important that the hair fibers that emerge from the scalp exhibit significant age-related changes that have an equal impact on the overall cosmetic properties of the hair.[12] Depending on the individual's original hair color, quantity, quality, and hair care habits, there is a great variability in the age of onset of first signs of hair aging.

Age-related deterioration of cosmetic properties of hair is related to changes in hair pigmentation (graying), diameter, curvature, structural properties (stretching, bending, torsional rigidity), lipid composition, and the interdependence of these changes. It is these changes that are ultimately experienced by subjects that have retained their hair as they age."

"Senescent alopecia has been defined as non-androgen-dependent hair thinning found in those over 60 years of age with a negative family history for common baldness. Much like pattern hair loss, it involves a progressive decrease in the number of anagen follicles and hair diameter. And yet, data comparing senescent alopecia with pattern hair loss using microarray analysis have demonstrated significant differences in the gene expression profiles suggesting that they represent different entities"
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6369639/

sci-hub.tw/10.1016/j.clindermatol.2010.07.007

This study found that old age played a statistically insignificant part in hair loss in the elderly and that the main driver were androgen.

 

[BetaBoy]

I know. How is that different from what I said?

Aging therefore plays no part in miniaturisation of HFs.