- Reaction score
- 1,104
Probably in 5 years lol
RIKEN Announcement: Succeeded in Developing Tech for HF Regenerative Medicine: Study to be Published Feb 10
- Thread starter pegasus2
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 1,104
I do think that cloning is not anymore a science fiction thing when it comes down to hair, but it's not something we might experience in the near future, it's not something like others say; around the corner. I don’t want to sound like a pessimst, but humans, especially scientists, aren't god, maybe in movies, but not in reality.
Scrap that idea out of your mind; Stemson,... Tsuji,... for now, maybe later.
Scrap that idea out of your mind; Stemson,... Tsuji,... for now, maybe later.
- Reaction score
- 1,104
Didn't they said that a year ago as well!? I see you are not on treatment. I would recommend taking action, than waiting for news, really.
- Reaction score
- 614
The point here is the breakthrough in the age old inductivity issue. They now have a culture medium that allows the cloned hairs to maintain their ability to recruit stem cells once they've been transplanted and thereby maintain hair cycling.
Replicel / HairClone / whoever else could learn from this, their cell expansion treatments all bank on the cells retaining their ability to recruit and induce HFSC differentiation and haven't quite succeeded.
Replicel / HairClone / whoever else could learn from this, their cell expansion treatments all bank on the cells retaining their ability to recruit and induce HFSC differentiation and haven't quite succeeded.
What does me being on treatment have to do with this? It was all speculations before plus something a random youtuber said. What changed is that they publicly stated they have the technology and they are ready to test it
- Reaction score
- 1,242
The difference, maybe the only one until now, is that it was human hair in mice, but they seem to grow anything.
Regarding the funding of approximately 5 mil $ this treatment shouldn't be that expensive? No information about how many subjects they need or plan to treat etc. ?
- Reaction score
- 177
completes 3 hair cycles over 80% of the time? So assuming a hair cycle is 2 - 6 years that means that 80% will last a minimum of 6 years?
- Reaction score
- 614
They're referring to the mouse hair cycle of a couple of weeks. In theory yes this would correspond to our 5 year hair cycle but the take home point is that the cells showed an ability to recruit stem cells in vivo and thereby renew the cycle.
- Reaction score
- 1,104
Agreed!
If they are actually seeking small-scale donations, they should hit up western media sources of all kinds (from Reuters/AP all the way to the New York Post/Daily Mail). And set up an English-language donation portal. They'd get (and even surpass) their $4.8 million easily.
Actually you can, you are not certain it will work, but many times it just does.
Treatments for androgenic alopecia have a hard time being consistent between mice and humans because this is a disease that just doesen't show in them.
However, Tsuji's research is about hair cloning, and not some treatment for Androgenetic Alopecia, so i think there's a higher chance that findings will be consistent.
Remember that if a molecule doesen't show efficacy, there's not much you can do, but with hair cloning they will be able to adjust and gradually find the optimal process.
That's a respectable attitude.
that is simply not true, and it is not only for androgenic alopecia where its near impossible to direct translations from mice studies into human studies.
If it was, MANY diseases would have been cured decades ago. You wouldn't believe how many diseases you can cure in a mouse study, and it have been criticized within the medical field too.
Why do they use mouse study then, because not its not so popular to have a chimpanzee in the lab. People rarely care for mice and they have a relative short lifespan and is just an unpopular animal in generel in many nations around the world. Mice is also cheap and breed pretty fast and you can do many gene alterations to them. the ethics around mice is almost non-existent.
- Reaction score
- 1,104
Very true! There is no point to hype up, and being again dissapointed.
Did i say it is 100% certain mice studies will translate to humans?
As i said, even though i think, COMPARED TO Androgenetic Alopecia TREATMENTS, there will be a higher chance of success, in any case they will be able to adjust their findings, not like with drugs that either work or don't.
Well the problem with mice study is that the mice is used have modified genes, like no immune defense and things like that, then you can do almost anything do a mouse and things will happen.
But since humans have immune defense, then its quite hard to work around. Because the immune defense does what it can do remove what attacks the body, the body even starts to compensate for on going treatments. That is why its more interesting to see long term treatments and clinical trails, so we know if the body starts to fight and compensate for the treatment.
And when overcome the immune defense problem, then there is the blood flow, will humans be able to re-create that blood flow?
Many here have big dreams about high density hair, and it have shown that if you just re-create high density hair again, then it will die out because of the lack of blood flow.
I'm all in for RIKEN way to move forward.
But i'm simply more interested in the long term, and if they actually can make it work, this is also why i'm more of a fan boy to the Replicel approach with regeneration. To me that seems to be more approachable, than doing maybe 10.000 nylon strings into the scalp and hope for the best in the long term.
But let us see how it goes with RIKEN, and their first proof of concept in humans, or their first phase 1. Would be great with a 24 months study or more.
- Reaction score
- 1,104
I'm also quite interested into that.
Stemson gives out many "promises" on interviews, presentations, websites etc... it remains unproven however.
That's not the reason that treatments are not consistent between mice and humans, it's because mouse models are constructed to replicate the expression of single genes or symptoms and then to test for the efficacy of that single thing.
When this translates to humans, that single thing might not be sufficient to reverse the condition alone or the targeting of that single thing might not be achievable without toxic or unintended downstream effects. Androgenic alopecia is a perfect example of why these things don't translate well because it's a very polygenic condition that can be targeted from multiple angles. All of the prior mouse models that "cured" baldness or regrew hair probably did so quite well when JUST the follicle or AR is targeted on the mouse, but the issue is that you can't target JUST the follicles on the human body without effecting things systematically and destroying other body systems. Otherwise you could just get the strongest topical AA possible and you'd basically have a cure, infact I think we already have examples of this in some of the strongest AAs on the market used for things like cancers. I'm sure one of the more experienced/knowledgeable posters here could quote you some very potent AAs that would essentially cure hair loss (not regrowth), but can't be used because they can't be used in doses needed without going systematic.
Last edited: