• 08-02-2015 08:55 PM
    Renee
    Hair follicle neogenesis induced by cultured human scalp dermal papilla cells
    Looks like this is a new study because it sites christiano's/ jahoda's work from 2013.


    Research Article
    Hair follicle neogenesis induced by cultured human scalp dermal papilla cells

    Jizeng Qiao1, Agatha Zawadzka1, Erica Philips1, Anya Turetsky1, Susan Batchelor2, Jillian Pea****2, Steven Durrant2, Darren Garlick2, Paul Kemp2 & Jeff Teumer1†
    † Author for correspondence

    Aim: To develop a method by which human hair follicle dermal papilla (DP) cells can be expanded in vitro while preserving their hair-inductive potential for use in follicular cell implantation, a cellular therapy for the treatment of hair loss. Materials & methods: DP cells were isolated from scalp hair follicles in biopsies from human donors. DP cell cultures were established under conditions that preserved their hair-inductive potential and allowed for significant expansion. The hair-inductive potential of cells cultured for approximately 36 doublings was tested in an in vivo flap-graft model. In some experiments, DiI was used to label cells prior to grafting. Results: Under the culture conditions developed, cultures established from numerous donors reproducibly resulted in an expansion that averaged approximately five population doublings per passage. Furthermore, the cells consistently induced hair formation in an in vivo graft assay. Grafted DP cells appeared in DP structures of newly formed hairs, as well as in the dermal sheath and in the dermis surrounding follicles. Induced hair follicles persisted and regrew after being plucked 11 months after grafting. Conclusion: A process for the propagation of human DP cells has been developed that provides significant expansion of cells and maintenance of their hair-inductive capability, overcoming a major technical obstacle in the development of follicular cell implantation as a treatment for hair loss.


    http://www.futuremedicine.com/doi/abs/10.2217/rme.09.50
  • 08-02-2015 09:01 PM
    Renee
    Looks like these researchers solved the main issue.
  • 08-02-2015 09:23 PM
    Renee
    Looks like this is old from 2009 intercytex.
  • 08-02-2015 09:42 PM
    nameless
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Renee View Post
    Looks like this is old from 2009 intercytex.

    Can you please clarify things. First you said that the study cites work done by Christiano and Jahoda in 2013 but then you say this study is actually from 2009. How can a 2009 study cite work done by Jahoda and Christiano in 2013. Please clarify.
  • 08-03-2015 01:16 PM
    BDDFreak
    yeah this study also sites another study from january 2015. I think this is new.
  • 08-03-2015 04:51 PM
    allTheGoodNamesAreTaken
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nameless View Post
    Can you please clarify things. First you said that the study cites work done by Christiano and Jahoda in 2013 but then you say this study is actually from 2009. How can a 2009 study cite work done by Jahoda and Christiano in 2013. Please clarify.

    "Cited by:

    ...


    Chris Mason, Elisa Manzotti. (2009) Bioaesthetics and regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine 4:5, 635-637.
    Online publication date: 1-Sep-200917-Sep-2009."
  • 08-03-2015 05:43 PM
    BDDFreak
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by allTheGoodNamesAreTaken View Post
    "Cited by:

    ...


    Chris Mason, Elisa Manzotti. (2009) Bioaesthetics and regenerative medicine. Regenerative Medicine 4:5, 635-637.
    Online publication date: 1-Sep-200917-Sep-2009."

    Thats the publication date of that study which is cited, not the study which is in question at the top. Look at all the "online publishing dates" of material under "cited by". There are various online publishing dates. For example:

    Heidi Debels, Moustapha Hamdi, Keren Abberton, Wayne Morrison. (2015) Dermal Matrices and Bioengineered Skin Substitutes. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Global Open 3, e284.
    Online publication date: 1-Jan-2015.
    CrossRef
  • 08-03-2015 05:50 PM
    JayM
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BDDFreak View Post
    yeah this study also sites another study from january 2015. I think this is new.

    The list is studies that have cited this study. If you look at the volume it was released in it was in 2009.
  • 08-03-2015 06:02 PM
    BDDFreak
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JayM View Post
    The list is studies that have cited this study. If you look at the volume it was released in it was in 2009.

    Oh my fault, that makes sense. Thanks!
  • 08-18-2015 03:47 AM
    Replicel55
    So if they solved it why did intercytex shut down and why arent they running trials?

» IAHRS

hair transplant surgeons

» The Bald Truth

» Recent Threads

Sun Exposure after Hair Transplant
02-26-2009 02:36 PM
Last Post By SarahCarter
04-22-2024 04:24 PM
Scar Grafting with Dr Cole
06-21-2012 02:00 PM
Last Post By northeastguy
04-22-2024 10:14 AM
Misinformation Online - The Bald Truth, Friday April 19th, 2024
04-19-2024 02:36 PM
Last Post By JoeTillman
04-19-2024 02:36 PM
purchase requisition in business central
12-19-2023 05:38 AM
Last Post By David9232
04-19-2024 11:39 AM
An inconvenient truth about FUE
04-19-2024 07:24 AM
Last Post By Dr. Lindsey
04-19-2024 07:24 AM