- Reaction score
- 2,634
First up, Dr. Higgins has moved away from Dr. Jahoda's and Dr. Christiano's work and is now running her own lab in London, which is awesome because this means we've got another player in the game of hair loss research.
Next, we chatted briefly about the delays with research and she mentioned that she along with many other researchers are quite busy doing many other things on the side and not just research, particularly teaching which is a full time job in itself. So all of our complaints about researchers not doing enough just got shot down, lol. But I also mentioned all the other obstacles they face from my chat with Dr. Atac and Dr. Lindner, so things move slowly for numerous reasons and well beyond the control of researchers.
Furthermore, Dr. Higgins also thinks that a cure for baldness shouldn't necessarily require something so invasive like creating follicles from scratch and then implanting them like a hair transplant (that would be quite expensive). She said that the cells within the dermal papilla get lost somewhere, essentially separate themselves from the DP... so we're probably better off figuring out a way to have them migrate back to the dermal papilla (where the cells go when they leave the DP is a mystery, but they may still remain in the vicinity of the follicle). Sidenote: I wonder now though if this would lend truth to Swisstemple's theory that reducing PGD2 would essentially clean up the follicle's environment and allow it to be 'fertilized'. Perhaps that would be needed for something like Replicel?
I asked if Replicel could be a solution and if Dermal Sheath Cup cells do in fact switch between DSC and DP cells and she said yes, they alternate (kind of like a pendulum). When asked if Replicel's method of injecting DSC cells is a potential method, she said yes as well.
Earlier this year we've been hearing a lot about Piloscopy from Dr. Carlos Wesley where the follicle is cut in half and then implanted into the recipient area and having some anectotal evidence of regeneration. But if you guys saw my thread where I posted her presentation on a 'Pint of Science' she mentioned that the follicle CAN regenerate, but smaller. So, even if regeneration is possible in terms of 1 to 1, we're really only double what's available and most people have about 6,000 grafts available to use from donor hair. So anyway, the human head has anywhere from 80/90,000 hairs to around 110,000 hairs, depending on many different variables. So let's do estimates and math;
If you go full Norwood 7 bald, then you're going to lose about 175-200cm/2 of an area of hair. For that, you'd need about 12,000 - 16,000 thousand grafts to fill the entire bald scalp with FULL original density at around 60-90 grafts per 1cm/2 (these are rough numbers). So 16,000 is the high end. And since most people only have around 6,000 grafts available, we're about 1/3rd of the way there. So even if you were to do a mega session hair transplant all at once and all follicles did regenerate, you're still about 2/3rd of the way there.
So that's still not enough, even if you regenerate it all. PLUS, even if it does regenerate, the hair's are thinner anyway, so what good is thin hair that likely looks vellus? Dr. Higgins did mention one interesting detail though; it's possible for a miniturized mouse follicle to return to it's full size after a COMPLETE hair cycle (anagen, catagen and telogen). But in humans hair on the scalp grows for about 7 years, so you'd be waiting a long time to see if the same was possible. I asked if plucking it would get around this wait period, and she said maybe (again there is evidence in mice, but not men). But plucking THAT much hair would be nuts. I should also mention there was another presentation about plucking hairs and regeneration, I think it someting to do with the number of hairs and their proximity. I'll post more about that in another thread. But another thought; why not go beyond the typical donor limitation with Piloscopy and let the hairs regenerate on their own. I'm fairly certain that framing the face with a proper hairline and dense hair is far more important than the hair at the back of your head that nobody cares to see anyway.
Oh, one more thing, I also met with Dr. Cooley and asked about ACELL's effect on regeneration and the follicle being cut in half, he said that the cut has to be JUST RIGHT in order for that to happen.
Finally, in her Pint of Science video there was a comment she made about 'rollers with spikes'. To clarify on this, there was just an idea from her that it would be great to have a device that would deposit DPs into the scalp as it's being rolled. This device obviously doesn't exist, but it's definitely one that would be pretty cool. She also mentioned that it would have to know the depth of which the DPs are being deposited into, because it also relies on the depth, I can't remember, but certain elements coming into play to allow the follicle to grow relying on epithelial cells, dermis and epidermis, don't quote me on that though.
I also asked whether it'd be possible to inject DP cells directly into the follicle's dermal papilla, but this would be an arduous process, and you would most likely destroy the host DP.
So, that's about it. One more thing from me; ARI, the team that was working on DP cell injections funded by Aderans, is now being shopped around. I think Dr. Higgins would be the perfect candidate to pickup and lead the project as it's (I believe) closely related. It'd be pretty great because it only needs Phase III trials and it's basically set for commercial use. I wonder though, if it could be release in Japan right now?? It's gone through so many years of trials and the FDA is really strict... Japan should give it a pass based on all the safety results.
Finally, I want to say a very big thank you to Dr. Claire Higgins for also (like others I interviewed) putting up with my ignorance on the matter of hair loss research. I really did feel pretty primitive among so many great minds at the congress. So, many many thanks from me and the forum members!
Next, we chatted briefly about the delays with research and she mentioned that she along with many other researchers are quite busy doing many other things on the side and not just research, particularly teaching which is a full time job in itself. So all of our complaints about researchers not doing enough just got shot down, lol. But I also mentioned all the other obstacles they face from my chat with Dr. Atac and Dr. Lindner, so things move slowly for numerous reasons and well beyond the control of researchers.
Furthermore, Dr. Higgins also thinks that a cure for baldness shouldn't necessarily require something so invasive like creating follicles from scratch and then implanting them like a hair transplant (that would be quite expensive). She said that the cells within the dermal papilla get lost somewhere, essentially separate themselves from the DP... so we're probably better off figuring out a way to have them migrate back to the dermal papilla (where the cells go when they leave the DP is a mystery, but they may still remain in the vicinity of the follicle). Sidenote: I wonder now though if this would lend truth to Swisstemple's theory that reducing PGD2 would essentially clean up the follicle's environment and allow it to be 'fertilized'. Perhaps that would be needed for something like Replicel?
I asked if Replicel could be a solution and if Dermal Sheath Cup cells do in fact switch between DSC and DP cells and she said yes, they alternate (kind of like a pendulum). When asked if Replicel's method of injecting DSC cells is a potential method, she said yes as well.
Earlier this year we've been hearing a lot about Piloscopy from Dr. Carlos Wesley where the follicle is cut in half and then implanted into the recipient area and having some anectotal evidence of regeneration. But if you guys saw my thread where I posted her presentation on a 'Pint of Science' she mentioned that the follicle CAN regenerate, but smaller. So, even if regeneration is possible in terms of 1 to 1, we're really only double what's available and most people have about 6,000 grafts available to use from donor hair. So anyway, the human head has anywhere from 80/90,000 hairs to around 110,000 hairs, depending on many different variables. So let's do estimates and math;
If you go full Norwood 7 bald, then you're going to lose about 175-200cm/2 of an area of hair. For that, you'd need about 12,000 - 16,000 thousand grafts to fill the entire bald scalp with FULL original density at around 60-90 grafts per 1cm/2 (these are rough numbers). So 16,000 is the high end. And since most people only have around 6,000 grafts available, we're about 1/3rd of the way there. So even if you were to do a mega session hair transplant all at once and all follicles did regenerate, you're still about 2/3rd of the way there.
So that's still not enough, even if you regenerate it all. PLUS, even if it does regenerate, the hair's are thinner anyway, so what good is thin hair that likely looks vellus? Dr. Higgins did mention one interesting detail though; it's possible for a miniturized mouse follicle to return to it's full size after a COMPLETE hair cycle (anagen, catagen and telogen). But in humans hair on the scalp grows for about 7 years, so you'd be waiting a long time to see if the same was possible. I asked if plucking it would get around this wait period, and she said maybe (again there is evidence in mice, but not men). But plucking THAT much hair would be nuts. I should also mention there was another presentation about plucking hairs and regeneration, I think it someting to do with the number of hairs and their proximity. I'll post more about that in another thread. But another thought; why not go beyond the typical donor limitation with Piloscopy and let the hairs regenerate on their own. I'm fairly certain that framing the face with a proper hairline and dense hair is far more important than the hair at the back of your head that nobody cares to see anyway.
Oh, one more thing, I also met with Dr. Cooley and asked about ACELL's effect on regeneration and the follicle being cut in half, he said that the cut has to be JUST RIGHT in order for that to happen.
Finally, in her Pint of Science video there was a comment she made about 'rollers with spikes'. To clarify on this, there was just an idea from her that it would be great to have a device that would deposit DPs into the scalp as it's being rolled. This device obviously doesn't exist, but it's definitely one that would be pretty cool. She also mentioned that it would have to know the depth of which the DPs are being deposited into, because it also relies on the depth, I can't remember, but certain elements coming into play to allow the follicle to grow relying on epithelial cells, dermis and epidermis, don't quote me on that though.
I also asked whether it'd be possible to inject DP cells directly into the follicle's dermal papilla, but this would be an arduous process, and you would most likely destroy the host DP.
So, that's about it. One more thing from me; ARI, the team that was working on DP cell injections funded by Aderans, is now being shopped around. I think Dr. Higgins would be the perfect candidate to pickup and lead the project as it's (I believe) closely related. It'd be pretty great because it only needs Phase III trials and it's basically set for commercial use. I wonder though, if it could be release in Japan right now?? It's gone through so many years of trials and the FDA is really strict... Japan should give it a pass based on all the safety results.
Finally, I want to say a very big thank you to Dr. Claire Higgins for also (like others I interviewed) putting up with my ignorance on the matter of hair loss research. I really did feel pretty primitive among so many great minds at the congress. So, many many thanks from me and the forum members!