How do you know he has more dht? Did you both get scalp biopsies? But yes, it's not the amount of DHT, it's the amount of androgen receptors that DHT binds to. All men have enough DHT to cause hair loss if their androgen receptors are sensitive enough. Still, the fact remainst that without androgens to bind to the receptors the receptors can't be activated. .5 mg of Dutasteride only inhibits 51% of scalp DHT so that leaves a lot of DHT to bind to the AR. If you completely eliminate DHT in the scalp then only testosterone can bind to them and without any DHT that's not going to be enough to cause hair loss.
Is this real or just another fake news? CRISPR/Cas9 Therapy For Androgenic Alopecia: Moogene Medi
- Thread starter SaveTheMane
- Start date
How do you know he has more dht? Did you both get scalp biopsies? But yes, it's not the amount of DHT, it's the amount of androgen receptors that DHT binds to. All men have enough DHT to cause hair loss if their androgen receptors are sensitive enough. Still, the fact remainst that without androgens to bind to the receptors the receptors can't be activated. .5 mg of Dutasteride only inhibits 51% of scalp DHT so that leaves a lot of DHT to bind to the AR. If you completely eliminate DHT in the scalp then only testosterone can bind to them and without any DHT that's not going to be enough to cause hair loss.
- Reaction score
- 24
finasteride and dutasteride are never the perfect cure for hair loss, they are just the most effective cure we have now. The whole point for this CRISPR is to turn off the androgen receptors on scalp follicles, which is the same as eliminating sensitivity in your hair. DHT level won't be a matter by then since dht can't even reach your follicles.
Kintor working on AR degrader i hope it would work well.
- Reaction score
- 24
Actually what if you can edit it in the genome in embryos? Would that be permanent?
This is not quite accurate. You can knockout the androgen receptor only in the scalp very easily. The problem is the safety of CRISPR/CAS9 isn't good enough to do this yet.
Pretty easily? Are you expert in this feild ?
The big issue here in my opinion will be pricing, and it's probably the reason why we don't already have a "cure" close to the market in the form of a ASO. The existing SNA and ASO treatments on the market or near market are all priced at 6 figure dosing on a yearly basis, primarily covered by insurance if you have it in the USA. Why would anyone bother developing this for a non life threatening condition? No one will use it, the price incentives don't exist for development.
I have the same concerns about the Bayer/Hope Med antibody. There is no way that treatment will be affordable even if it moves mountains. It's yearly price is probably going to be akin to a hair transplant. Just look at winlevi in the USA, 600$ a tube without insurance.
- Reaction score
- 581
would men with high androgen receptor density throughout their bodies
look more masculine and
get more sides from finasteride?
- Reaction score
- 313
Indeed people take oral dutasteride and then they blame testosterone for causing hair loss, not realizing they still have significant amount of DHT in their scalps. Most people to this day have no idea that serum concentration is not the same as tissue. 2.5mg reduces scalp DHT levels by 80%.
If they're targeting the androgen receptor with their gene therapy, it won't work. If they manage to keep all the activity in the scalp, it may help a little, but it won't cure anything. They're better off using CRISPR to increase aromatase expression in the scalp, assuming they can target the scalp only and the effects won't wander toward other parts of the body. Should be interesting to see what unfolds, but I definitely wouldn't be first in line for this type of treatment.
It's targeting SRD5A2.
- Reaction score
- 24
If what they developed is only a temporary treatment, then it is totally meaningless, for both the company and the customers. No one is gonna pay $100,000 a year for a temporary gene therapy that needs to be taken every year for its effectiveness, they can barely make any money out of it because even the rich classes are better off with a regular hair transplant. They either set their goal in developing a way to permanently cure male pattern baldness with gene editings, or shutdown any gene editing researches related to hairloss completely if the outcome can't be permanent in the end.
Last edited:
This is a very good point. Companies developing very expensive treatments targeting the 5-AR producing gene and the AR aren't doing it because it's going to be moderately effective. The only way they could sell such expensive treatments is if they completely prevent male pattern baldness, which they will. Eunuchs and men born without the 5-AR enzyme do not go bald, this is a fact in the literature. If someone takes a treatment that completely turns off the AR in their scalp that is no different from being castrated, and castration stops baldness dead in its tracks. It doesn't reverse it, but that's not the goal of the treatment. Simply being able to 100% prevent hair loss with no side effects would be worth a lot of money.
And this is why the pipeline is pathetic, there's no business incentives for companies to push the status quo unless it's a permanent and 100% effective treatment. Insurance won't cover this for 99% of people so the profits are non-existent in most use cases.
I always see people on this forum talking about how much money a company with an effective treatment would make, without realizing how false that is. Without insurance companies involved the profit of any drug is abysmal for the developer. If hairloss treatments were an insurable condition from a drug perspective, it'd have been cured from a clinical standpoint years ago.
- Reaction score
- 581
Lebron would pay 10 mil for a full head of hair without sides
You would find 1000, maybe 10.000 people paying a million for a full head of hair. Thats 1 billion already. Probably more. Cmon now
His point was moderately effective treatments like Replicel and Follicum or mildly effective treatments like Samumed. There's not that much profit in those. Just because there is profit doesn't mean its worthwhile to pursue. You would make money working a job for $15 an hour but why would you do that when you can go across the street and work for $30 an hour. It's the same thing with investors, why invest in something that has potential revenues of a few hundred million when you can invest in something that will make billions.
This is pure nonsense man, and not even close to true. Are their people who would pay 10 mil for a teenage level of density and hair? Sure. Is it enough for a drug company to be able to convince investors to invest? No.
A billion dollars is also absolutely nothing to a big pharma company, they want recurring revenue and high number of annual users. Pharma companies don't even care to try and develop a slightly improved competitor to finasteride, a drug that brings in 500m+ annually around the globe and has done so for 20+ years. You think a billion dollars is justification to develop anything at all?
Last edited:
stemson initially will be for high-quality consumers, this means for rich, for average joe it is at least 10 years away