Tons of sh*t in science is irrelevant.
and your article is about iPSCs. Tsuji is not using iPSCs
So your article is irrelevant.
Update From The God Himself - Dr. Takashi Tsuji
- Thread starter kingjohn
- Start date
Tons of sh*t in science is irrelevant.
and your article is about iPSCs. Tsuji is not using iPSCs
So your article is irrelevant.
Other types of stem cells are far more prone to stem cell transplant rejection. At least, iPSCs are created from your own cells in lab and they are far more likely to be not rejected by your body. These new breakthroughs will make iPSCs in future far more attractive for research and clinical trials.
- Reaction score
- 977
Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA or mDNA)[3] is the DNA located in mitochondria, cellular organelles within eukaryotic cells that convert chemical energy from food into a form that cells can use, adenosine triphosphate (ATP). Mitochondrial DNA is only a small portion of the DNA in a eukaryotic cell; most of the DNA can be found in the cell nucleus and, in plants and algae, also in plastids such as chloroplasts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA
Mtochondrial is only the energy factory of human cells, never read about an immunosuppression problem with it, interesting thought
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-019-0227-7
De novo mutations in mitochondrial DNA of iPSCs produce immunogenic neoepitopes in mice and humans
a very recent paper, august 2019
Resume; The utility of autologous induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) therapies for tissue regeneration depends on reliable production of immunologically silent functional iPSC derivatives. However, rejection of autologous iPSC-derived cells has been reported, although the mechanism underlying rejection is largely unknown. We hypothesized that de novo mutations in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA), which has far less reliable repair mechanisms than chromosomal DNA, might produce neoantigens capable of eliciting immune recognition and rejection. Here we present evidence in mice and humans that nonsynonymous mtDNA mutations can arise and become enriched during reprogramming to the iPSC stage, long-term culture and differentiation into target cells. These mtDNA mutations encode neoantigens that provoke an immune response that is highly specific and dependent on the host major histocompatibility complex genotype. Our results reveal that autologous iPSCs and their derivatives are not inherently immunologically inert for autologous transplantation and suggest that iPSC-derived products should be screened for mtDNA mutations.
Last edited:
- Reaction score
- 316
Have you tried tineye for image search? It's pretty handy.
Agree on google, don't know if it's the bureaucracy or if they've just become assholes lately.
- Reaction score
- 316
I'm sorry but 25 terminal hairs per cm2 fuckin sucks. Transplants are more than twice that. The average white male has 8-10 times that. We're talking leg hair density here. Unless follica comes up with better numbers -and I don't see this coming easily since they're exploiting an evolutional loophole, not working with stem cells as they were meant to grow naturally- all you follica fanboys are gonna be very disappointed.
The next decade is expected to be the decade of regenerative bio, once Tsuji is commercially viable I wouldn't be surprised if we saw copycats around the globe. It's gonna take time and money yeah.. but not as much as some people think.
- Reaction score
- 1,242
The point that you don't get is that Follica is repeatable and it's "new" hair not the ones you got from the back of your head like a FUE/FUT. Pray to God that they really achieved 25 hairs/cm“ and I would gladly fly to the US several times to achieve more than 25 hairs/cm².
Not everybody needs to get from NW7 to NW1, most of the people, especially the early stages, want to halt Hairloss and get 1-2 Norwood back, so it would be a cure for future generations or you combine it with other treatments, we'll have to see
I agree with this. I’m not sure why we’re discussing follica in this thread though.
Treatments like Follica just don’t address the root cause of hair loss. You can mix finasteride, minoxidil, ket, and soon follica in any cocktail you want but it’s still a losing battle.
Tsuji’s method is ambitious, but it’s been a work in progress for a very long time.
Well, I've never heard that transplants are twice that, but the average white male doesn't have "8-10" times that many hairs; average hairs per square centimeter for males is 124-200 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10417585) - a significant variation in density, with fair-skinned, fair-haired people have less density, and darker haired, darker-skinned having more. So, if you're naturally on the low end of that range, 25 hairs per square centimeter would represent a 20%+ of your prepubescent baseline. Further, that's NEW hair, not hair taken from some other place on your scalp and implanted, which is all a transplant is. For a white male with light-colored hair and a lower Norwood (<NW3), that takes you back to a NW0-1. There is nothing currently available that comes close to producing that sort of de novo growth, and for low NWs like me, it's essential a "cure," albeit probably one that will need regular maintenance via follow-on treatments and continued use of anti-androgens.
This exactly, but I would caution that we don't know if its repeatable; for now, they are claiming 25 new hairs per square cm, and haven't publicly stated - as far as I know - that additional treatments result in additional growth.
It has nothing to do with "gutfeeling." Follica has only stated publicly that they can achieve 25 hairs per square cm; if the protocol's results were compoundable, they'd probably have said so. Additionally, other research suggests that it is easier to reinvigorate newly miniaturized hair than to wake up long dormant hair, so those who are high NWs that have been slick bald for a long time are going to have a harder time growing new hair. So it does make sense - given current data - that higher NWs are harder to recover than lower ones, and the areas that went first (hairlines, temples, crowns, etc.) are least likely to return (this is why it's critical to get on the Big Three the moment you notice loss - every saved follicle counts). Can Follica improve their technique? Who knows, but they certainly intend on trying, as they are going to continue to research novel compounds that may result in greater density. But clearly there is a limitation to the wound response, and that it will take further research to fully exploit it (if it can be further exploited at all).
Last edited:
IMO Follica probably doesn't claim repeatability for two reasons:
#1, They probably haven't proved repeatability in trials. Probably because they haven't formally trialed it. Probably because they are focused on the first round results. Repeatability is a much more variable issue.
#2, They still have nothing to gain from playing up how well their product works at this stage. They have spent the last decade being privately funded and not looking for attention. More attention only draws more potential competition. They have no unique drugs so they are very vulnerable to copycatting.
- Reaction score
- 373
Hi, sorry if I get it wrong but I think it contradicts the following:
"suggests that revitalizing newly miniaturized hair is more difficult than waking up long, inactive hair."
You mean the newly mianiaturized hair is more difficult? Well, Follica announced that it rejuvenates existing (miniaturized) hairs and also gets new hair. Therefore I believe that the most beneficial are the diffuse thinners.
H
Senior Member
- Reaction score
- 775
You think we can live through the people who can afford his treatment for the rest of our lives and be happy because they're happy?
- Reaction score
- 1,242
I wonder if Follica will be able to repair somehow "damaged" skin (FUE/FUT scars and long dead hairless skin without or little follicles left). Maybe this is the most important thing. Would gladly mix Follica with SM, Duta, finasteride, PRP and every other sh*t if it could repair scars and bring back about 20-30 hairs/cm²
You're right; I edited that sentence and ended up mixing up the the sentiment - I meant that long-lost hair is harder to regain than recently lost hair.
At this point, all we can do is speculate. Personally, I'm not counting on compoundability, because I only trust what has already been proven and stated. If it is compoundable, that would certainly be a very pleasant surprise, and basically a functional cure.
Firstly, even slick bald skin still has follicles, they've just miniaturized so much that they're invisible; there is no such thing has follicle-less skin, unless it's been damaged by some trauma. As to whether or not Follica could repair damaged skin, it's certainly possible; after all, dermabrasion is already used clinically to revitalize old skin (laser, needling, peels, etc.). Can it do it to such an effect that de novo hair can grow in previously scarred tissue? Who knows, but I think it's certainly a non-zero probability. That being said, if I were contemplating a hair transplant, I'd hold off a couple of years until we see what Follica can and can't do; it would really suck to get a hair transplant, then a year or so later Follica comes out with amazing results that can't be achieved in scarred tissue.
Last edited:
I’m in a similar situation, how much are you expecting it to cost in 10 years though?
- Reaction score
- 164
Depends on the context of course. 25 hairs per cm2 represents about 10-15 grafts. For completely bald areas, that is far too low to give decent coverage. In fact, it would make matters worse; a bald spot looks better than sparse, thinning hair, which looks sick and unhealthy.
However, if you would be completely bald and go the transplant route, you would be able to achieve maybe 30 grafts per cm2, which is most likely a mediocre outcome. Combined with the hairs from Follica however, it would amount to 40-45 grafts per cm2 which is infinitely better and would probably achieve the illusion of complete coverage.
Pretty much. We're all speculating.
But I would be surprised if Follica DID claim repeatability at this stage. It amounts to a very lofty claim and I doubt they have much trial evidence to back it up. (Observed evidence by now? Yeah, maybe. But, a trial to formally settle the question? That's another matter.)
It would take a dedicated trial to test compoundability Probably 3+ years by the time you include the pre & post trial setup times. That's a serious investment and it wouldn't make sense to do it before the protocol is very well polished. But if the protocol was so polished several years ago then I would expect them to have gone to market, not postponed it several more years to finish a compoundability trial. If the method is compoundable then that will be proven out soon enough once it hits the market.
Lots of "probably" and speculation. But that's all we can do.
I'm just glad that Follica appears to be near the market at all. It's been a generation since ANYTHING new came out.
My best guess would be 150-250k however mine or anyone elses best guess is still speculation. Could be lower or much much higher.
If you have the money for it NOW, then topical finasteride and an FUE hair transplant are the best way to go. I do not have the money for FUE right now but am hopping on topical finasteride.