Simple comparison to learn what follicular growth factors

[elguapo]

We all have hairs on various areas of our body that grow at different rates, different cycles, and different thicknesses. So I don't understand why they can't extract the follicles of these different types of hairs, look at them under a microscope, do whatever chemical testing they do, and figure out with certainty the different factors which affect hair growth. I'm not saying this is an "easy" task, but it seems to be something we should be capable of, given the technology available today.

Any thoughts on this?

 

[Solo]

I´ve wondered this myself, and I think many scientifics would have done so. If we haven´t got an answer based in a experiment of this kind, maybe it´s because of the impossibility to study it, because of the complexity of the whole biochemical and phisiological mechanism.

 

[michael barry]

Guys,
Testing like this has been done. If you culture body/beard hairs with testosterone and a receptor blocker like RU58841 that blocks the receptors so the testosterone is not transcripted.................body hair growth is slowed.

This is why topical spironolactone is used in some women with hirsuitism (peach fuzz hair on their faces).


For whatever reasons, the same experiements SEEM to show that head hairs from male pattern baldness areas in balding men have hair growth (keratinocyte activity, epilitheal cell division, outer rootsheath cells, DNA activity) slow down some.


Growth stimulators that have been tested and proven are proanthocyanidns, minoxidil sulfate, and copper peptides (tricomin trials). Minoxidil by far has the most testing behind it. The old essential oils were used in conjunction with electromagnetic therapy in one pubmed experiment and seen a little hair growth also, but nothing like minoxidil. or the other two. These stimulants, in the cases of minoxidil anyway, will make body hair grow longer and faster too. I would imagine the other two would do that also. Anti-androgens suppress body hair growth. I tried revivogen on my wrist for a bit over two months. It definitely slowed growth on one wrist vs. the other. I concluded the stuff does some good.


Its interesting that you bring this up.....................Ive been plannin' on starting to test a few things on my forearms and perhaps the hair on the back of my hands and reporting what the results were. I wanted to take some pics before I begin. I thought I'd try to keep this up for four months or so. This would be a good way to test anti-androgens or growth stimulants that we could do ourselves and post results to each other.

 

[elguapo]

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I assumed something along this line has been done. But then again, sometimes you think something has been done because it seems so simple, so basic, and then you come to find out that nobody has done anything like it.

I know it isn't trivial to get volunteers to allow docs to extract hair follicles, be it from the top of a head that will eventually be bald, and perhaps reveal the remaining scar, even if it is small, or from an arm or a leg. But for the sake of science, I gladly would.

I actually volunteered to have a hair from my scalp, which over the course of time will go bald, if my genes continue their current path. I wanted to take that hair and transplant it to another area other than my scalp, where it would theoretically have the same exposure to DHT, via the blood stream. I just want to prove beyond all doubt that the skin of the scalp, not just the follicles growing in that skin, is not partly responsible for hair loss. I don't have any basis for this experiment, I just thought it wouldn't hurt to try, you know?

How funny would it be if all we had to do was transplant all the hairs on our scalps to another slab of skin, and transplant that slab of skin onto our scalps. But I know I am reaching.

Later.

 

[michael barry]

elguapo,

Stephen Foote proposes much the same thing. He believes DHT falls back down the lymph nodes after creation in the outer root sheath (where type two alpha five reductase enyzme is present), and sends the pumping nodes into hyperdrive........................which more or less slams them shut, creating a backlog of lymph fluid filled with waste material and stagnant protiens, causing a bevy of inflammatory activitiy and extra fluid pressure on the scalp. This is why he believes that men with bald heads get shiny and very "slick". He is of the opinion that this appearance is caused by fluid tension stretching the scalp smooth, and it needs to be "released". However, once a follicle is damaged enough to miniaturize, its super hard to "bring it back" to life, even with minoxidil, peptides, proanthocyanidins, etc.


Like you, Id like to see this tried, just to end all arguments. There is an hairtransplant outfit called DHI that supposedly is extracting hairs one at a time using a special instrument theyve designed. Perhaps one could go there and see if a Doctor would attempt to move a hair from the frontal sides up to the front of the widow's peak and see what happens. Id think that less than 7 or 8 hairs would tell the tale if Stephen is right in his theory or not. Stephen's theory is the only alternate baldness theory that Ive researched that even could possibly have any crecedence at all in my opinion. None of the others have an explanation of why transplanted hair grows. I think androgens do have a negative impact on hair follicles in predisposed areas...........................but even I am bewildered by the fact that the direct effect isnt nearly as potent as it seemingly would be in expederiments. Just 12% of DNA activity slowin' down shouldn't shut down a hair. Its either the immuno repsonse or the edema that does the rest. The experiment you proposed would prove which one it was once and for all.

Still keepin' my fingers crossed for intercytex......have a great afternoon

 

[Bryan]

Re: Simple comparison to learn what follicular growth factor

We all have hairs on various areas of our body that grow at different rates, different cycles, and different thicknesses. So I don't understand why they can't extract the follicles of these different types of hairs, look at them under a microscope, do whatever chemical testing they do, and figure out with certainty the different factors which affect hair growth. I'm not saying this is an "easy" task, but it seems to be something we should be capable of, given the technology available today.

Scientists are at work on that as we speak, but it's not at all an easy task. Sooner or later, they'll figure out why scalp follicles are sensitive to androgens. But I don't suggest holding your breath while waiting for that! :wink:

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Thanks for the replies. Yeah, I assumed something along this line has been done. But then again, sometimes you think something has been done because it seems so simple, so basic, and then you come to find out that nobody has done anything like it.

Huh?? You seem to be confusing two different issues. There have been several experiments showing that scalp hair follicles and body hair follicles have opposite responses to sex hormones. What remains to be explained are the exact biochemical REASONS for that difference in response. THAT is what doctors and scientists are currently researching.

I know it isn't trivial to get volunteers to allow docs to extract hair follicles, be it from the top of a head that will eventually be bald, and perhaps reveal the remaining scar, even if it is small, or from an arm or a leg. But for the sake of science, I gladly would.

I actually volunteered to have a hair from my scalp, which over the course of time will go bald, if my genes continue their current path. I wanted to take that hair and transplant it to another area other than my scalp, where it would theoretically have the same exposure to DHT, via the blood stream. I just want to prove beyond all doubt that the skin of the scalp, not just the follicles growing in that skin, is not partly responsible for hair loss. I don't have any basis for this experiment, I just thought it wouldn't hurt to try, you know?

You're WAAAAY behind the times! That's already been done: Orentreich first demonstrated "donor dominance" in the late 50's, and it's been well-accepted ever since. And Nordstrum did an excellent experiment in the 70's which fully supports it: he transplanted balding scalp hair follicles to a patient's arm, and they continued balding right on schedule! I'm surprised you're not already familiar with this information. These studies have been much-discussed by me, Stephen Foote, Michael Barry, and others.

BTW, I think DHT in the bloodstream is a relatively minor influence on hair growth.

Bryan

 

[Bryan]

Like you, Id like to see this tried, just to end all arguments. There is an hairtransplant outfit called DHI that supposedly is extracting hairs one at a time using a special instrument theyve designed. Perhaps one could go there and see if a Doctor would attempt to move a hair from the frontal sides up to the front of the widow's peak and see what happens.

I don't understand what you mean by the "frontal sides".

I think androgens do have a negative impact on hair follicles in predisposed areas......but even I am bewildered by the fact that the direct effect isnt nearly as potent as it seemingly would be in expederiments. Just 12% of DNA activity slowin' down shouldn't shut down a hair.

Michael, you have to keep things in perspective: the DNA activity was slowed down by "just" 12% in ONLY A FEW DAYS!! What happens to DNA activity when those same follicles are constantly exposed to the same androgens FOR YEARS AND YEARS? :wink:

Its either the immuno repsonse or the edema that does the rest.

It seems fairly clear that the immune response is involved. The notion that edema plays a role is sheer speculation. There's no evidence for that whatsoever.

Bryan

 

[elguapo]

You're WAAAAY behind the times! That's already been done: Orentreich first demonstrated "donor dominance" in the late 50's, and it's been well-accepted ever since. And Nordstrum did an excellent experiment in the 70's which fully supports it: he transplanted balding scalp hair follicles to a patient's arm, and they continued balding right on schedule! I'm surprised you're not already familiar with this information. These studies have been much-discussed by me, Stephen Foote, Michael Barry, and others.

The 70/s!? Man, I must be behind. I guess I am guilty of my own pet peeve of not researching my own question, sorry. =) No offense, but your discussions are either over my head (mostly), or just too argumentative. But thanks for answering that, and putting it to rest. I just never heard of this study before, but I figured somebody must have done it. So the follicles transplanted from balding scalp to the arm balded at the same time as the others around the original site? That's amazing. Great experiment, just what I was hoping for.

Thanks guys.

 

[Bryan]

But thanks for answering that, and putting it to rest. I just never heard of this study before, but I figured somebody must have done it. So the follicles transplanted from balding scalp to the arm balded at the same time as the others around the original site?

Yep. Here, read the first post in the thread on that study that I started myself right here in this forum just over a year ago. It quotes most of that study, word-for-word:

http://www.hairlosstalk.com/discussions ... =nordstrom

Bryan

 

[CCS]

hmmm...

If someone takes a very small blade, like smaller than a trasplant surgeon blade, and stabbed a sebaceous gland to death, and then applied an antiseptic, do you think the near by follicle would die?

 

[Bryan]

I don't know of any reason to think it would die.

 

[CCS]

I was just wondering because in this thread or a different one someone thought that backed up sebum and waste products in the sebum gland contributed to hair loss. But if killing the sebum gland has no effect on the follicle, then I don't see how the blug can be a contributing factor to hair loss.

 

[Bryan]

Yeah, that's Armando's theory. I almost mentioned it, myself!

Funny how some people have their own eccentric theories of what causes balding: washing with SLS-containing shampoos, contact inhibition, "backed-up" sebum from sebaceous glands, the galea theory, etc. All kinds of kooky ideas.

Bryan

 

[CCS]

I'm going to ask my hair transplant surgeon. She'd know the answer.

 

[powersam]

i cant find it right this second but someone (S.Foote maybe) posted a study that was done on mice which had almost no sebaceous gland at all, ie so much smaller than normal as to be almost none existent.

the study said the mice had large problems with hairs growing backward into the skin and the follicle dying due to this. or something like that. i'll try and find the study but it would seem to relate to your question about killing the sebaceous gland.

nb/ i dont think sebum is involved in male pattern baldness just that you might find the study interesting

 

[powersam]

heres part of it

The sebaceous gland has an important role in hair biology1. The asebia (ab) mutant mouse has rudimentary sebaceous glands and develops alopecia2, 3; here we elucidate the genetic basis for this recessive phenotype. Histopathological studies of abJ(ABJ/Le abJ/abJ; ref. 3) and recently discovered ab2J(DBA/1LacJ -ab2J/ab2J; J.P.S., unpublished data) allelic mice indicate that the hair shaft in these mice, which is unable to shed its sheath, grows in reverse toward the subcutis, leading to chronic foreign body inflammatory reactions followed by follicle loss and dermal scarring in adult mutant mice.

taken from http://www.nature.com/ng/journal/v23/n3 ... 9_268.html