follicept - what's this?

[Swooping]

I read the aape thread with human igf-1, i wonder how they made it, dead body? Tons of blood? if so can it be dangerous? It's hard to believe they made enough of this stuff to the point they can sell it worldwide with no issue, anyway i don't think we can tell human recumbinat is trash and the human one is much better, 99% of the biotech industry use ecoli for a reason, it works the same, and i actually found a study here it say in some disease e.coli is better for safety reason, if it doesn't work with e.coli it will never work with human one anyway

AAPE is made through lipoaspiration to answer your question. The human adicopytes which are extracted contain stem cells. This is cultured and subsequently the proteins are extracted to explain it in a simple manner. I personally wouldn't call these products dangerous.

Although if you would induce high dosages with a high frequency of application then yes it can be dangerous, primarily oncogene transformation (cancer). For example becaplermin (brand name regranex) is human recombinant PDGF for foot ulcers. It has a block box warning and an increased mortality from cancer has been shown. However the concentration in this product is 0.01% = 100ug = 100 microgram/g. That is pretty insane, and a serious treatment/medication. This is on a whole different level though.

I guess there is a reason why regulatory institutions allow products like AAPE (FDA approved) and follicept can use IGF-1 too at low dosages.

[tiktok]

We all need to agree the guys posts are counter-productive (and just plain wrong a lot of the time) and ignore him.

[gladiator]

I understand why you chose for e.coli, because of your initial findings. Also, I understand it's not feasible to go from a other source. However I quote;



So that statement is incorrect from your "PhD". They may surely behave differently. In fact human source can be better and that possibility is highly plausible. From a quick glance on NCBI it seems like it too. Anyway good luck with your trial.

Blah , blah , blah ,blah , blah is all you guys do all day .
This guy ( follicept ) is actually doing something , while the rest of you impatient people can't let him work and ****ing wait, instead you sit on a hairless forum and speculate on this and that and this and that while real people are out there getting the job done, , it's not that long , just let him do his shit then worry about it when it's happening , hairloss might be a problem but it sure seems anxiety is levels above ,
If this bloke grows hair it will be evident and people will jump on board end of story . If I sold hammers I would target tradespeople over regular people as there opinions are based on experiences , is more than likely why he has ground zero as a Internet hairloss forum as you lot are so scrutinising and your expectations are so ****ing high , if he make s if he gets your approval the majority of balding people will be more than stoked!

[follicept]

What kind of ingredients are you waiting on, Devon, out of curiosity? Or is that classified?

Classified but the wonderful UPS guy brought them today! Working all weekend to make the batch for Monday.

[Keki]

I read the aape thread with human igf-1, i wonder how they made it, dead body? Tons of blood? if so can it be dangerous? It's hard to believe they made enough of this stuff to the point they can sell it worldwide with no issue, anyway i don't think we can tell human recumbinat is trash and the human one is much better, 99% of the biotech industry use ecoli for a reason, it works the same, and i actually found a study here it say in some disease e.coli is better for safety reason, if it doesn't work with e.coli it will never work with human one anyway

[Swooping]

You cannot mimic the in vivo macro environment 100% in vitro, even for human recombinant IGF-1. Our animal tests were done with e.coli based, and so we did not switch to yeast or human based sources for consistency, cost, and enough similarity that we are confident it will work.

I understand why you chose for e.coli, because of your initial findings. Also, I understand it's not feasible to go from a other source. However I quote;

According to our PhD in medicinal chemistry/post doc in pharmacodynamics, they are identical, no reason they would behave differently.

So that statement is incorrect from your "PhD". They may surely behave differently. In fact human source can be better and that possibility is highly plausible. From a quick glance on NCBI it seems like it too. Anyway good luck with your trial.

[Jagger]

What kind of ingredients are you waiting on, Devon, out of curiosity? Or is that classified?

[serenemoon]

You cannot mimic the in vivo macro environment 100% in vitro, even for human recombinant IGF-1. Our animal tests were done with e.coli based, and so we did not switch to yeast or human based sources for consistency, cost, and enough similarity that we are confident it will work.

+1.

[follicept]

Well your PhD is most likely wrong then? I'll check this up with Sigma Aaldrich/Peprotech and on NCBI. I'm on my mobile phone but it would be strange that no differences would be present. Then again I didn't read too much about this so don't quote me 100% on this. Nonetheless it probably won't be even feasible economically for you guys to use IGF-1 solely from human source from a product sell point.

You cannot mimic the in vivo macro environment 100% in vitro, even for human recombinant IGF-1. Our animal tests were done with e.coli based, and so we did not switch to yeast or human based sources for consistency, cost, and enough similarity that we are confident it will work.

[Swooping]

Most recombinant technology uses e.coli. According to our PhD in medicinal chemistry/post doc in pharmacodynamics, they are identical, no reason they would behave differently.

Well your PhD is most likely wrong then? I'll check this up with Sigma Aaldrich/Peprotech and on NCBI. I'm on my mobile phone but it would be strange that no differences would be present. Then again I didn't read too much about this so don't quote me 100% on this. Nonetheless it probably won't be even feasible economically for you guys to use IGF-1 solely from human source from a product sell point.

Human cell expressed recombinant proteins
Proteins, especially therapeutic proteins were initially extracted from human and animal tissues or blood. However, limitations in availability of the biological material, and the potential pathogen contaminations, led to the development of recombinant proteins traditionally produced in mammalian cells, insect cells, bacteria and yeast. Although this approach is very beneficial in terms of enhanced safety, lower immunogenicity, increased half-life and improved bioavailability, it is still hampered by the fact that these cells just do not have the machinery to produce authentic human proteins. Only a human cell can provide the micro-environment required to produce native human proteins. The human cell factory gives access to the umpteen components like the enzymes, proteases, cellular organelles, and chaperone proteins necessary to properly process, modify, and fold the translated protein into the mature protein capable of carrying out its biological function in the context of the human system. Additionally a non-human expression system can have important glycosylation differences that can significantly affect protein activity, function, and half-life and non-human glycosylation (like that carried out in the CHO expression system) can also cause immunogenicity problems.

In a nutshell, the virtues of these proteins are:
They contain all the post-translational modifications (which affects the activity, function and half-life) seen in human proteins.
• They mimic native human proteins in terms of sub-unit assembly, folding, secretion and other processes.
• They show the same chemical & biological properties like stability, isoelectric point, solubility, binding affinities and biological activity.
• They are produced in serum free medium; hence they exhibit minimal batch to batch variability and are pathogen free products.

[follicept]

@follicept, will you be testing/using human derived IGF-1 if the e.coli derived version does not work? Any reason to think they would behave differently?

Most recombinant technology uses e.coli. According to our PhD in medicinal chemistry/post doc in pharmacodynamics, they are identical, no reason they would behave differently.

[gainspotter]

He'll be back as soon as someone makes a hurtful comment or he realises how ridiculous a shaved head looks.

[Hemo]

@follicept, will you be testing/using human derived IGF-1 if the e.coli derived version does not work? Any reason to think they would behave differently?

[Jagger]

@TheUltimatePoet I read a person who spoke about IGF-1 on an english forum. He has explain that it can work only if all parameters are in a normal balance. I understood that Finasterid inhibate 5AR2 (not DHT). So Follicept could not work if you take it or have some side effects like hairs on all your body or something like that. I'm not a scientist, i just give you what some people think.

Wouldn't that be something we could probably come up with some really convincing Bigfoot fakes if we just covered someone in Follicept for a month.

[Hemo]

Regarding the whole 'dropping everything and getting on follicept' thing, I feel that you guys should also compare follicept to finasteride (and maybe a finasteride + minoxidil combination as well). I have read about trialling follicept along with minoxidil to compare the results, but if you guys are going to claim that it's a stand alone treatment then you guys should compare it to finasteride as well. So that would mean trialling follicept along with minoxidil and finasteride.

But I guess you guys at Promotheon have already thought about that?

Pretty sure that this is the ultimate goal, but in order to get to market asap, the most straightforward way to test Follicept is as a standalone treatment. That way, it's also clear that Follicept is what's causing any potential loss/improvement and not the additional treatment. Fin and Minox would likely require more stringent approvals through the university since they aren't classified as a cosmetic, which would drag the testing process out further.