Replicel Is On Fire Lately — Data In Feb.

[nameless]

Can you explain a little bit what is the inductivity problem? And how will they solve it?

I can't explain it any better than I already have. I'm not a scientist. The point is that cell-based hair researchers are saying that inductivity is the big hold-up when it comes to curing hair loss.

I transferred a post to this thread by Dr. Aaron Gardner who was working for Dr. Collin Jahoda (yes, that Collin Jahoda) at the time he made the post. In the post he admitted that he's interested in Replicel's results but he also said other cell-based researchers can't regrow hair with cultured cells because inductivity is lost during culture, and he surmised that Replicel will run up against the same problem. I'll see if I can find his post again.

OK here is Dr. Aaron Gardner's post again and keep in mind that this post is coming from out of the office of Collin Jahoda.


05-22-2014 12:16 AM#103agardner

As for Replicel I honestly don't know as I've not seen any data. I know they reported the findings of their clinical trial in Japan but I've not seen the data myself. I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups, but, they may be doing something different that has allowed them to get past this. Again, it will be very interesting to see the findings and I think it's a very valid approach as a whole but I don't know the specifics.

 

[rclark]

They mention that they think the hairfollicle needs to be in anagen phase during the injection for the treatment to work in the interview hellouser did in 2015, this is the reason you need time inbetween injections. Which means more hair restored the more injections.

That's very true. Histogen only lasts one hair growth cycle. That simply means between
two to five years.

Once that's over, you have to get more injections.

Also, they seem to be marketing to women more than men. At least that's my view of it.

 

[GotHair?]

The point of REplicel was always for them to immunize your hair follicles. Basically it is a form of vaccination. The 5 year data has to be compared with every one of trial participants. And if compared to 6 month data they haven't lost more than 5% of total hair count in 4 and a half years I would determine that as a vaccine. They did show in 6 month data some minor regrowth and total hair count increase in 10 or 12 out of 14 participants however I don't expect that will change much compared to 5 year data.

For a lot of people if REplicel stops hair loss progression getting hair transplant afterwards might be the cure. I myself am hesitant to go the hair transplant route because of the scarring left in the back since I like to have short hair or buzz cuts.

 

[nameless]

Christiano doesn't know as much as you think she does - people give her more credit than she deserves in my opinion. I think Replicel's technology using dermal sheath cells will be effective and will grow hair, i just don't know how effective. The real question is can they make it better/more efficient...

Even if Christiano is overrated what about Jahoda/Gardner, who are also trying to solve the inductivity problem?

A little while back this very site did an interview with the Tsuji team and it's my recollection that even the great Tsuji team said they still have to solve the inductivity problem.

The whole point of using iPS cells to treat hair loss is that by using iPS cells scientists can get around the inductivity problem. Here read this scientific abstract from Stanford-Burnham, which was put together by the research team that included Alexey Terskikh. This is the famous iPS cell research study that caught the world's attention because the team found a way around the inductivity problem and produced human hairs from cultured cells.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/smri-usc012715.php

Here highlighted are the key statements from the above linked article:

The research team developed a protocol that coaxed human pluripotent stem cells to become dermal papilla cells. They are a unique population of cells that regulate hair-follicle formation and growth cycle. Human dermal papilla cells on their own are not suitable for hair transplants because they cannot be obtained in necessary amounts and rapidly lose their ability to induce hair-follicle formation in culture.

"In adults, dermal papilla cells cannot be readily amplified outside of the body and they quickly lose their hair-inducing properties," said Terskikh. "We developed a protocol to drive human pluripotent stem cells to differentiate into dermal papilla cells and confirmed their ability to induce hair growth when transplanted into mice."

 

[lemoncloak]

Even if Christiano is overrated what about Jahoda/Gardner, who are also trying to solve the inductivity problem?

A little while back this very site did an interview with the Tsuji team and it's my recollection that even the great Tsuji team said they still have to solve the inductivity problem.

The whole point of using iPS cells to treat hair loss is that by using iPS cells scientists can get around the inductivity problem. Here read this scientific abstract from Stanford-Burnham, which was put together by the research team that included Alexey Terskikh. This is the famous iPS cell research study that caught the world's attention because the team found a way around the inductivity problem and produced human hairs from cultured cells.

https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-01/smri-usc012715.php

Here highlighted are the key statements from the above linked article:

The research team developed a protocol that coaxed human pluripotent stem cells to become dermal papilla cells. They are a unique population of cells that regulate hair-follicle formation and growth cycle. Human dermal papilla cells on their own are not suitable for hair transplants because they cannot be obtained in necessary amounts and rapidly lose their ability to induce hair-follicle formation in culture.

"In adults, dermal papilla cells cannot be readily amplified outside of the body and they quickly lose their hair-inducing properties," said Terskikh. "We developed a protocol to drive human pluripotent stem cells to differentiate into dermal papilla cells and confirmed their ability to induce hair growth when transplanted into mice."

In this study they used embryonic stem cells, not ips cells. I think I read somewhere recently that they tried with ips cells and they weren't as successful but I can't remember who said that maybe it's not true.
Then there was that dr Ooyama who was experimenting with ips cells (last person on shiseido's japanese video) but we haven't heard from him.
Oh and don't we know that the inductivity problem has been solved in dp's? By Tsuji and Lauster? That's what I got from the interview and the patent

 

[jc3303]

And in the next 3 or 4 days you only want to hear good stuff about Replcel, right?

FU

Top researchers the world over are saying that cell-based treatment can't cure hair loss until the inductivity problem is solved.

you keep repeatedly comparing apples and oranges, over and over and over again on every page of this thread.

Replicel is culturing already differentiated dp cells, they are not differentiating stem cells into dp cells (like in that last paper you posted). 2 very different approaches

Also I was under the impression the epithelial cells were the last hurdle remaining for new follicle creation

 

[nameless]

you keep repeatedly comparing apples and oranges, over and over and over again on every page of this thread.

Replicel is culturing already differentiated dp cells, they are not differentiating stem cells into dp cells (like in that last paper you posted). 2 very different approaches

Also I was under the impression the epithelial cells were the last hurdle remaining for new follicle creation

Hey fella, I respond to the questions/statements that people post to me.

If I'm repeating myself it's because the questions/statements that people post to me keep begging for the same response, as does your post.

Since you're asking me again about the same crap I'll respond with the same information I've already posted.

As I have posted before, virtually all researchers are saying that the inductivity problem still needs to be solved in order for cell-based treatments to work. I have posted numerous examples of hair researchers saying this. Let me post here yet again what Dr. Aaron Gardner said:

05-22-2014 12:16 AM#103agardner

As for Replicel I honestly don't know as I've not seen any data. I know they reported the findings of their clinical trial in Japan but I've not seen the data myself. I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups, but, they may be doing something different that has allowed them to get past this. Again, it will be very interesting to see the findings and I think it's a very valid approach as a whole but I don't know the specifics.

Sure Gardner says that Replicel might be doing something different and that could make their treatment successful. I already acknowledged that. I have said that I do not know for certain if Replicel will work. I'm just highly doubtful is all. But Dr. Gardner also said that based on what he does know he thinks that Replicel will run into the same brick wall that everyone else is running into. That's what it means when he said,

"I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups"

Dr. Gardner is obviously saying that Replicel will likely run into the same inductivity brick wall that everyone else is running into. And when Dr. Gardner posted this he was working with Jahoda so when Dr. Gardner said this it was coming out of the Jahoda lab. I think the Jahoda knows a lot more about this stuff than you or I do.

Could Jahoda and the other researchers be wrong about the importance of inductivity in DSCs? I guess so. But they know a lot more about this stuff then I do so I'm going to defer to their opinion. This means I'm going to accept their opinion until/unless new information comes out that proves they're wrong.

 

[jc3303]

Hey fella, I respond to the questions/statements that people post to me.

If I'm repeating myself it's because the questions/statements that people post to me keep begging for the same response, as does your post.

Since you are questioning me again about the same crap I'll respond with the same information I've already posted.

As I have posted before, virtually all researchers are saying that the inductivity problem still needs to be solved in order for cell-based treatments to work. I have posted numerous examples of hair researchers saying this. Let me post here again (for the f'n time) what Dr. Aaron Gardner said:

05-22-2014 12:16 AM#103agardner

As for Replicel I honestly don't know as I've not seen any data. I know they reported the findings of their clinical trial in Japan but I've not seen the data myself. I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups, but, they may be doing something different that has allowed them to get past this. Again, it will be very interesting to see the findings and I think it's a very valid approach as a whole but I don't know the specifics.

Sure Gardner says that Replicel might be doing something different and that could make their treatment successful. I already acknowledged that. I have said that I do not know for certain if Replicel work. I'm just highly doubtful is all. But Dr. Gardner also said that based on what he does know he thinks that Replicel will run into the same brick wall that everyone else is running into. That's what it means when he said,

"I would imagine they have the same issues as other and other groups"

Dr. Gardner is obviously saying that Replicel will likely run into the same inductivity brick wall that everyone else is running into. And when Dr. Gardner said this he said this it was coming out of the Jahoda lab. I have a lot more faith in Jahoda/Gardner than I have in YOU.

The inducitivity problem arises when stem cells are differentiated into dp cells, which is what Jahoda was doing. Replicel is not differentiating stem cells into dp cells. They are taking dp cells from your follicles and culturing them, you're not even reading or responding to my point. They are not the same approach

I feel honored that you gave me my first dislike for raising a valid point

 

[nameless]

The inducitivity problem arises when stem cells are differentiated into dp cells, which is what Jahoda was doing. Replicel is not differentiating stem cells into dp cells. They are taking dp cells from your follicles and culturing them

Not according to the researchers.

The researchers are saying that the inductivity problem comes from expanding (culturing) the cells.

 

[nameless]

Here is another post by Dr. Aaron Gardner in which he's explaining why fresh hair cells that go straight from the donor to the recipient, without being cultured, grow hair.

agardner

Because the study used fresh DS sections from inductive follicles. The cells weren't expanded in culture. This expansion step is when inductivity is lost, but is required to generate the large numbers of cells required to make thousands of follicles.

Note that in his explanation he states:

"The cells weren't expanded in culture. This expansion step is when inductivity is lost."

He's coming right out and saying that expansion aka culture is when inductivity is lost. It can't be dumbed down any further for you.

This is the 3rd time I've posted this Gardner post in this thread in the past few days. You take issue with me for repeating myself but I repeat myself because some posters have the comprehension powers of an f'n rock.

 

[nameless]

And here is a quote from an article from a scientific study I posted just a few hours ago in this very thread:

"Human dermal papilla cells on their own are not suitable for hair transplants because they cannot be obtained in necessary amounts and rapidly lose their ability to induce hair-follicle formation in culture."

This is not "War and Peace". The above statement very simply says DP cells lose their ability to induce hair growth in culture.

According to Jahoda's lab the same thing applies to DSCs, which are the cells that Replicel is using.

 

[hanginginthewire]

what treatments do you feel hopeful about nameless?

 

[nameless]

what treatments do you feel hopeful about nameless?

Follica might be better than the available treatments.

Also, I do believe the cell-based therapies will work as soon as they solve the inductivity problem. I think that problem is almost solved. I think it will be solved this year or next year at the latest. But then it will take a few years to get the treatment to market after the problem is solved. There may be ways to speed things up but before that's even possible they have to solve the inductivity problem first.

 

[Ghostofchristmas]

Jesus! You guys have turned this into a rocket science debate. I just want my f*****g hair back man. Who'a Jahoda? Sounds like a villain from lord of the rings

 

[Captain Rex]

hey @nameless, i hope you will be happy now.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep42777

what is the most interesting part is the Minoxidil section.

iDPSCs mimic the pharmacological response of DP cells to minoxidil sulfate

Minoxidil is a clinically used hair growth promoter that enhances hair KC proliferation and activates hDP cells to induce growth factors44. IGF-1 is among these growth factors, and has been shown to exhibit a potent hair elongation effect45,46,47,48. To examine whether iDPSCs would be useful for future drug discovery for hair diseases, their pharmacological response to minoxidil was compared with that of hDP cells (Fig. 5a). Addition of minoxidil sulfate enhanced the expression of DP marker genes ALPL and IGF1 in iDPSCs more intensely than in hDP cells, while LEF1 and BMP47,14,36 were moderately up-regulated in both populations (Fig. 5b). When minoxidil sulfate was added to hKCs-hDP cells or hKC-iDPSC co-cultures mimicking the HF bulb (Fig. 5a), iDPSCs showed stronger up-regulation of ALPL, BMP4 and IGF1 than did hDP cells (P < 0.05) (Fig. 5b).

credit - Paul Pheonix

 

[nameless]

Who'a Jahoda? Sounds like a villain from lord of the rings

LOL!

He's one of the top hair loss researchers in the world. He's the guy who first established that implanted hair cells can grow hair.

 

[Captain Rex]

LOL!

He's one of the top hair loss researchers in the world. He's the guy who first established that implanted hair cells can grow hair.

so nameless, do you think this inductivity problem will be solved soon considering the research paper that I have posted?
because as far as I know if this is solved, it will end our misery right now

 

[Armando Jose]

minoxidil sulphate solving inductivity problem of DPCs? ??
it sound very interesting

 

[Stupidon]

At this time, the stock is down another 12 cents. The stock has dropped over 40% in 3 days. It was $1.22 on Feb 21 and now it's trading at .75.

And?

 

[CharAblaze]

follica seems really promising. they must have something. the whole RAIN marketing would make no sense otherwise.

I'm actually hyped for Follica. The man behind Follica is from one of the best universities in the world and the project is already scouting potential dermatologists. Plus they state that they already succeeded in growing new hair on bald scalp. The question is how much hair can it grow and of what quality they will be (and their resistance towards DHT and other factors). Give me some damn results and hope, I need it now.