Dkk1 Stimulate Hair Follicles For Hair Growth When They Appear Dead

[Thinning87]

I posted this on ***;

This presentation sheds a lot of light and clearly explains what the more knowledgeable forumers probably had understood by reading the Upenn papers that came out in the last few months. Obviously all this makes so much sense because the same pathways have been the object of studies by Histogen and other researchers in the past. Histogen did achieve some results working on similar pathways, and who knows hopefully Cots will surprise us.

The issue here what has Follica been up to in the last 12-18 months with regards to fgf9. Hopefully they have made some really progress. Hopefully they are not out of money (they were funded a long time ago unfortunately). But at the conclusion of the presentation he pretty much said this is what Follica is working on so hopefully this means we can assume they have enough cash.

As to trying this on your own, I would say we must consider wounding (dermarolling was pretty much spot on it seems to me) and maybe natural hair cycles? I don't really have the knowledge to say... But remember you must be able to activate the pathway the right way at the right time after wounding, otherwise the wound turns into a scar which is actually pointless to say the least. That's why it's likely that we would need a more solhisticated device like the one that Follica is working on and patenting

[Swooping]

You should watch the full presentation because although that point was mentioned, he also makes the point that a method combined with wounding can overcome this difficulty.

Also dkk1 was the topic of a paper out of UPenn some time ago so I suggest checking that out too (in full)

Hypothethically speaking he is making a point of that yes, no way he has achieved that though (de novo neogenesis). For future regenerative medicine this will be an option maybe sometime. Has he shown ever proof of inducing this in humans? Only mice that I know of.

Just did a basic search and I dont see it being used as a topical in conjunction with wounding/derma rolling. I wonder though, if inhibiting PGD2, DHT and DKK1 through a variety of compounds would yield results....??

Well as you said hellouser i guess better than doing nothing?

[Thinning87]

Source? Please and thank you

It's the one where Xu goes through the process of explaining the theory beging prostaglandins and concludes that the evidence pretty much points to them being right and it's only a matter of finding the needle in the stack ie the right pathway to work on among the many possibilities

[nameless]

Just did a basic search and I dont see it being used as a topical in conjunction with wounding/derma rolling. I wonder though, if inhibiting PGD2, DHT and DKK1 through a variety of compounds would yield results....??

DKK1 inhibits hair growth. But it may also be true that simply antagonizing
DKK1 may not cause hair growth because you may also have to add the growth factors that cause hair growth. It may take both the same way that if you use the prostaglandin method of hair growth you have to use both PGD2 antagonist and a PGE2 stimulator. You have to do both sides of the equation - remove that which inhibits hair growth and add that which encourages hair growth. Both.


The same concept could apply to growth factors and DKK1. You might have to do both - DKK1 antagonist plus the correct growth factors and the correct growth factors are found inside of the fat cells presumably. So perhaps adding the fat cell growth factors plus negating DKK1 could be the key.

[Thinning87]

Hypothethically speaking he is making a point of that yes, no way he has achieved that though (de novo neogenesis). For future regenerative medicine this will be an option maybe sometime. Has he shown ever proof of inducing this in humans? Only mice that I know of.

p

Man you are so desperate to destroy something, even in light of the latest developments, that you would make a comment like this despite the fact that you couldn't possibly have a clue or make an educated guess over what they may or may not have achieved. Who knows what they have achieved? I don't know... I'm not saying they have already achieved this... I'm saying that's what they're working on.

What we know is they publicly talked about the theory exactly a year ago, which means they had already been working on it for an unknown period of time. Probably at most a year before the news release. So it's something between 1-2 years that they have been making some tests. We definitely know from the article by the scientist that the next step was going to be preclinical testing and then humans. We also know they patented the delivery method and some kind of wounding device at the end of last year.

All we can do is hope they have been doing preclinical with this and are looking at potential new clinical trials.

[hellouser]

Lots of good stuff in this thread! Probably the best news out of the congress thus far for the most near treatment (potentially, if it works).

[Swooping]

Man you are so desperate to destroy something, even in light of the latest developments, that you would make a comment like this despite the fact that you couldn't possibly have a clue or make an educated guess over what they may or may not have achieved. Who knows what they have achieved? I don't know... I'm not saying they have already achieved this... I'm saying that's what they're working on.

What we know is they publicly talked about the theory exactly a year ago, which means they had already been working on it for an unknown period of time. Probably at most a year before the news release. So it's something between 1-2 years that they have been making some tests. We definitely know from the article by the scientist that the next step was going to be preclinical testing and then humans. We also know they patented the delivery method and some kind of wounding device at the end of last year.

All we can do is hope they have been doing preclinical with this and are looking at potential new clinical trials.

"All we can do is hope they have been doing preclinical with this and are looking at potential new clinical trials."

"Hope" , yes it is good to have hope. But you don't get far in life with only hoping. I rather take action in my own hands for what you know maybe they won't even have a cure the next 10+ year and that is a very high possibility. I don't want to destroy anything I am just very rational and realistic. I HOPE just as much as you that they will deliver us a cure, I just don't see it coming realistically short term that's all, but we'll see. Time will tell us!

Btw about DKK1, and WNT pathway this is pretty interesting about it. Instead of inhibiting DKK1 these guys want to use a agent that directly activates the WNT pathway instead of inhibiting DKK1 and repressing WNT.

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364645

Really wonder how they got permission to do that in terms of cancer risks etc..? Pretty crazy lol

Some more info;

Public title A Single-Center, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo Controlled Study of the Safety, Tolerability and Pharmacokinetics of Various Concentrations of Topical SM04554 Solution in Male Subjects with Androgenetic Alopecia.

The study drug is a topical SM04554 solution. SM04554 is a small molecule that may activate the wnt pathway. The dosage amounts are: 0.05%; 0.15%; and 0.45%. Administration of the study drug will be once daily for 14 days at the study clinic; study drug is applied topically to the scalp. There are three cohorts of 10 participants. Cohort 1 will be administered the 0.05% solution, Cohort 2 will be administered the 0.15% solution and Cohort 3 will be administered the 0.45% solution. Participants will complete a series of tests prior to the start of the study. During the study the participants’ scalp will be assessed by the study doctor on a daily basis and prior to administration of the study drug. Hair growth assessments will also be completed by the study doctor and the participant 1 day following the completion of the treatment and 14 days following completion of the treatment.

http://www.samumed.com/

[Thinning87]

"All we can do is hope they have been doing preclinical with this and are looking at potential new clinical trials."

"Hope" , yes it is good to have hope. But you don't get far in life with only hoping. I rather take action in my own hands for what you know maybe they won't even have a cure the next 10+ year and that is a very high possibility. I don't want to destroy anything I am just very rational and realistic. I HOPE just as much as you that they will deliver us a cure, I just don't see it coming realistically short term that's all, but we'll see. Time will tell us!

Btw about DKK1, and WNT pathway this is pretty interesting about it. Instead of inhibiting DKK1 these guys want to use a agent that directly activates the WNT pathway instead of inhibiting DKK1 and repressing WNT.

https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=364645

Really wonder how they got permission to do that in terms of cancer risks etc..? Pretty crazy lol

Some more info;





http://www.samumed.com/

No one cares what you think about hoping or doing. You were saying something about the presentation that is measliding and to your own admission you hadn't even seen the full presentation. No one could care less about what you think is true or not, just don't go around and spread negativity when to your own admission you haven't even seen the full video. So don't tell me what you how or do not hope, no one asked you so no one cares. Idiot

[Swooping]

No one cares what you think about hoping or doing. You were saying something about the presentation that is measliding and to your own admission you hadn't even seen the full presentation. No one could care less about what you think is true or not, just don't go around and spread negativity when to your own admission you haven't even seen the full video. So don't tell me what you how or do not hope, no one asked you so no one cares. Idiot

Stay hoping mate!! It's easy to do if you know shit all about hairloss and the complications that come with it. Keep believing those press releases constantly back from the 80's where a cure is released every 5 years. Naive kid . And what did i exactly say about the presentation that is misleading? That i KNOW that they did not induce de novo hair follicle neogenesis in humans? Its the truth mate, TILL he proves otherwise. You must be stupid to believe that, but you can't view things objectively but are hopeful from your own desperate emotions.

DKK1 application and wounding will induce de novo in humans YEAH RIGHT LOL. Go ask that question to aaron gardner what he thinks of that .

Secondly the thing's Cotsarelis said against Desmond in the interview were laughable and just shows where he stands. Even desmond who is always extremely positive admitted somewhat, that he was very dissapointed by them I'll stop this discussion though, wasted enough time on you.

[nameless]

No one cares what you think about hoping or doing. You were saying something about the presentation that is measliding and to your own admission you hadn't even seen the full presentation. No one could care less about what you think is true or not, just don't go around and spread negativity when to your own admission you haven't even seen the full video. So don't tell me what you how or do not hope, no one asked you so no one cares. Idiot

Swooping is a pretty smart guy. I can vouch for that.

But I do think that he's missing an important point.

The thing is that in hair loss treatments we have learnt over and over again that you have to attack both sides of the equation. You have to remove that which inhibits hair growth and you have to increase that which promotes hair growth to get the best results. For example, with minoxodil we have learnt that it's best to add propecia. Minoxidil stimulates hair growth via PGE2 stimulation and the propecia negates androgen that inhibits hair growth. So when you take minoxidil and propecia you are working on both sides of the equation. You are negating androgen and you are increasing PGE2. When you look at Cotseralis's prostaglanding model for hair growth you also fix both sides of the equation because Cots said to negate PGD2 and to increase PGE2. Both. You have to work both sides of the equation.

When it comes to growth factors you might have to do the same thing - increase the growth factors that prompt hair growth AND negate the factor that inhibits hair growth - DKK1. I have a hunch that negating sufficient DKK1 plus adding the correct growth factors (the ones found in fat) might be sufficient to regrow hair.

Do you think this is plausible

[nameless]

Stay hoping mate!! It's easy to do if you know shit all about hairloss and the complications that come with it. Keep believing those press releases constantly back from the 80's where a cure is released every 5 years. Naive kid . And what did i exactly say about the presentation that is misleading? That i KNOW that they did not induce de novo hair follicle neogenesis in humans? Its the truth mate, TILL he proves otherwise. You must be stupid to believe that, but you can't view things objectively but are hopeful from your own desperate emotions.

DKK1 application and wounding will induce de novo in humans YEAH RIGHT LOL. Go ask that question to aaron gardner what he thinks of that .

Secondly the thing's Cotsarelis said against Desmond in the interview were laughable and just shows where he stands. Even desmond who is always extremely positive admitted somewhat, that he was very dissapointed by them I'll stop this discussion though, wasted enough time on you.

I just did put the question to Dr. Gardner. The way I put it to Gardner is "What if inhibition of DKK1 is only half of the equation and the other half of the equation is to add growth factors?"

Keep in mind that in all hair loss treatments we have seen so far the best results come when we work on both sides of the equation - negating what causes hair loss, and adding what prompts hair growth. Both. In the case of minoxidil (a hair growth stimulant) it works better when you add propecia, which negates the dht that inhibits hair growth. So when you use minoxidil and propecia you are working on both sides of the equation. If you look at what Cotseralis said about prostaglandins, he said you would negate PGD2 (which inhibits hair growth) and you would increase PGE2 (a hair growth stimulant). So in the prostaglandin model you work both sides of the equation. In other words, perhaps in the growth factor model you also have to work both sides of the equation. You have to add growth factors that stimulate hair growth and you have to negate the one factor that inhibits hair growth - DK11.

Isn't this plausible?

[Thinning87]

Stay hoping mate!! It's easy to do if you know shit all about hairloss and the complications that come with it. Keep believing those press releases constantly back from the 80's where a cure is released every 5 years. Naive kid . And what did i exactly say about the presentation that is misleading? That i KNOW that they did not induce de novo hair follicle neogenesis in humans? Its the truth mate, TILL he proves otherwise. You must be stupid to believe that, but you can't view things objectively but are hopeful from your own desperate emotions.

DKK1 application and wounding will induce de novo in humans YEAH RIGHT LOL. Go ask that question to aaron gardner what he thinks of that .

Secondly the thing's Cotsarelis said against Desmond in the interview were laughable and just shows where he stands. Even desmond who is always extremely positive admitted somewhat, that he was very dissapointed by them I'll stop this discussion though, wasted enough time on you.

The point from your earlier message was "from the presentation we can conclude the different cell conditions in mice and humans make it impossible to apply this theory to humans". It's misleading because Cotsarelis himself points out a way around this problem (wounding).

No reply on "they always say five years away" point because it's the argument a donkey at best could come up with.

If you believe dkk1 and wounding together cannot induce de novo follicle formation you should present evidence to show this. You can't simply say "it hasn't been done yet so it's obviously not possible" because the point here is that this is a technique they are trying. We don't know yet if it'll work or not, but just because we don't know it doesn't mean it cannot work.

The official story is that Follica is trying this stuff. Desmond is not the oracle and if he's not optimistic about something it doesn't mean anything. You inferring that this is failure because it hasn't been done yet proves that you're the desperate one.

You're just an old bald dude who is desperate about his situation and for that reason comes on a baldness forum to spread negativity to younger sufferers without really knowing what the subject is. It's the psychology of the loser who wants others to be in the same situation as him in order to feel less pain. To your own admission, you haven't even viewed the full video and here you are already telling us what Cotsarelis, a man more intelligent than you, can or cannot do in his lab.

Go away loser

[Swooping]

The point from your earlier message was "from the presentation we can conclude the different cell conditions in mice and humans make it impossible to apply this theory to humans". It's misleading because Cotsarelis himself points out a way around this problem (wounding).

No reply on "they always say five years away" point because it's the argument a donkey at best could come up with.

If you believe dkk1 and wounding together cannot induce de novo follicle formation you should present evidence to show this. You can't simply say "it hasn't been done yet so it's obviously not possible" because the point here is that this is a technique they are trying. We don't know yet if it'll work or not, but just because we don't know it doesn't mean it cannot work.

The official story is that Follica is trying this stuff. Desmond is not the oracle and if he's not optimistic about something it doesn't mean anything. You inferring that this is failure because it hasn't been done yet proves that you're the desperate one.

You're just an old bald dude who is desperate about his situation and for that reason comes on a baldness forum to spread negativity to younger sufferers without really knowing what the subject is. It's the psychology of the loser who wants others to be in the same situation as him in order to feel less pain. To your own admission, you haven't even viewed the full video and here you are already telling us what Cotsarelis, a man more intelligent than you, can or cannot do in his lab.

Go away loser

I never said it wasn't possible in the future. What are you smoking, stop the drugs mate. I said that DKK-1 without wounding doesn't work given the fact that it has been tried topically and clinical trials are ongoing if it was the key they would see hair growth as a side effect.

Furthermore i think you need to watch the presentation another time LOL. I only needed to watch the summary of him. You don't even know what the heck he is trying to achieve and how incredibly hard that is. It's not only wounding and DKK-1 you little dumbass. Check what he says about FGF9 and the difference between mice and humans. Then I'll give you another hint;

6) And finally I brought up fgf9 and its potentials. He believes fgf9 is still a very new discovery with many years of preclinical research ahead of it, when I asked for an estimated date he said at least 10 years. He then went on to mention that just to go from Rogaine liquid to Rogaine foam it took the company over 8 years of studies and data collection before they were allowed to sell it and Minoxidil has been on the market for many years. Now imagine if we are trying to bring out a completely new agent. The timeframes are quite long indeed.

Haha, you are really that stupid as you look. And your last thing about me being a old man, i think you would be surprised how i look, how my hair has progressed from nw4 with temporal regrowth to nw1.5 almost now and how many people i try to help. God you are a sad individual

[Thinning87]

I never said it wasn't possible in the future. What are you smoking, stop the drugs mate. I said that DKK-1 without wounding doesn't work given the fact that it has been tried topically and clinical trials are ongoing if it was the key they would see hair growth as a side effect.

Furthermore i think you need to watch the presentation another time LOL. I only needed to watch the summary of him. You don't even know what the heck he is trying to achieve and how incredibly hard that is. It's not only wounding and DKK-1 you little dumbass. Check what he says about FGF9 and the difference between mice and humans. Then I'll give you another hint;

6) And finally I brought up fgf9 and its potentials. He believes fgf9 is still a very new discovery with many years of preclinical research ahead of it, when I asked for an estimated date he said at least 10 years. He then went on to mention that just to go from Rogaine liquid to Rogaine foam it took the company over 8 years of studies and data collection before they were allowed to sell it and Minoxidil has been on the market for many years. Now imagine if we are trying to bring out a completely new agent. The timeframes are quite long indeed.

Haha, you are really that stupid as you look. And your last thing about me being a old man, i think you would be surprised how i look, how my hair has progressed from nw4 with temporal regrowth to nw1.5 almost now and how many people i try to help. God you are a sad individual

Oh now that you are saying that you really hurt my feelings... By the way I don't look like anything because I'm talking thorough a forum. Idiot. By the way out up a picture of yourself and your hair let's see if you really do look good.

[nameless]

I posted this on ***;

Regarding doxycyclone: Remember that when finasteride came to market they first tried many other drugs like it before they brought finasteride to market. Those other drugs are called precursors and they were abandoned for various reasons. Some won't reach the target area, some metabolize too quickly, some are not safe for the long term, etc, etc, etc.

My point is that just because doxycyclone will negate DKK1 in a test tube does not necessarily mean it will do it in a human, much less at a specific target area of the skin of the scalp. It's very complicated getting a drug to a specific spot in the right dose and with the right activity to do the job. So just because doxycyclone will inhibit DKK1 in a test tube does not mean you can get it to the right location and that it will be strong enough once it gets to that location to do the job.