follicept - what's this?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • NeedHairASAP
    Senior Member
    • Jul 2011
    • 1410

    Originally posted by Boldy
    Hey guys,

    This post will contain facts mainly for informational purpose for the readers of this site, not to discourage the owners of this product or what so ever. I think that it is important to stay with both feet on the ground, and stay realistic. I respect the effort put into this project, and am not sure where it went wrong. Weather it was just an over enthusiastic entrepreneur who had some connections to a professor who didn't gasp the difference between mice and human, or lack of research, but it does not matter, still respect for the try.

    Exhibit 1:


    ATM regulates insulin-like growth factor 1-secretory clusterin (IGF-1-sCLU) expression that protects cells against senescence.

    Abstract
    Downstream factors that regulate the decision between senescence and cell death have not been elucidated. Cells undergo senescence through three pathways, replicative senescence (RS), stress-induced premature senescence (SIPS) and oncogene-induced senescence. Recent studies suggest that the ataxia telangiectasia mutant (ATM) kinase is not only a key protein mediating cellular responses to DNA damage, but also regulates cellular senescence induced by telomere end exposure (in RS) or persistent DNA damage (in SIPS). Here, we show that expression of secretory clusterin (sCLU), a known pro-survival extracellular chaperone, is transcriptionally up-regulated during both RS and SIPS, but not in oncogene-induced senescence, consistent with a DNA damage-inducible mechanism. We demonstrate that ATM plays an important role in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) expression, that in turn, regulates downstream sCLU induction during senescence. Loss of ATM activity, either by genomic mutation (ATM-deficient fibroblasts from an ataxia telangiectasia patient) or by administration of a chemical inhibitor (AAI, an inhibitor of ATM and ATR), blocks IGF-1-sCLU expression in senescent cells. Downstream, sCLU induction during senescence is mediated by IGF-1R/MAPK/Egr-1 signaling, identical to its induction after DNA damage. In contrast, administration of an IGF-1 inhibitor caused apoptosis of senescent cells. Thus, IGF-1 signaling is required for survival, whereas sCLU appears to protect cells from premature senescence, as IMR-90 cells with sCLU knockdown undergo senescence faster than control cells. Thus, the ATM-IGF-1-sCLU pathway protects cells from lethality and suspends senescence.



    Exhibit 2:

    Insulin-like growth factor-1 regulates the SIRT1-p53 pathway in cellular senescence

    Summary
    Cellular senescence, which is known to halt proliferation of aged and stressed cells, plays a key role against cancer development and is also closely associated with organismal aging. While increased insulin-like growth factor (IGF) signaling induces cell proliferation, survival and cancer progression, disrupted IGF signaling is known to enhance longevity concomitantly with delay in aging processes. The molecular mechanisms involved in the regulation of aging by IGF signaling and whether IGF regulates cellular senescence are still poorly understood. In this study, we demonstrate that IGF-1 exerts a dual function in promoting cell proliferation as well as cellular senescence. While acute IGF-1 exposure promotes cell proliferation and is opposed by p53, prolonged IGF-1 treatment induces premature cellular senescence in a p53-dependent manner. We show that prolonged IGF-1 treatment inhibits SIRT1 deacetylase activity, resulting in increased p53 acetylation as well as p53 stabilization and activation, thus leading to premature cellular senescence. In addition, either expression of SIRT1 or inhibition of p53 prevented IGF-1-induced premature cellular senescence. Together, these findings suggest that p53 acts as a molecular switch in monitoring IGF-1-induced proliferation and premature senescence, and suggest a possible molecular connection involving IGF-1-SIRT1-p53 signaling in cellular senescence and aging.



    Exhibit 3:

    IGF-1 Enhances Expression of iPS Cell Reprogramming Factors and Telomerase activities in Human Dermal Fibroblasts: A potential Role for IGF-1 in Induction of Pluripotent Stem Cells and Antisenescence

    Background: Reprogramming somatic cells into induced pluropotent stem cells (iPS) using transcription factors (Oct4, Sox2, Klf4 and c-myc) offers a novel approach for regenerative medicine. However, the iPS cell generation has several obstacles, including the poor efficiency of iPS reprogramming and frequent re-entry of iPS cells into the stage of senescence during passage. Insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) and its downstream phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) signaling pathway may maintain the proliferative potential of stem cells. This study was to test the effects of IGF-1 on iPS cell generation and senescence.

    Conclusion: IGF-1 may enhance expression of programming factors and telomerase activities in human dermal fibroblasts transduced into iPS cells, while inhibiting expression of the senescence-inducing protein p53. The effects of IGF-1 may be mediated by the PI3 kinase/Akt pathway. Our data demonstrate that the novel biological effects of IGF-1 on iPS generation, and may allow development of an enhanced therapeutic option by employing iPS for treating cardiovascular diseases.



    Exhibit 4:

    Abstract
    The accumulation of senescent stromal cells in aging tissue changes the local microenvironment from normal to a state similar to chronic inflammation. This inflammatory microenvironment can stimulate the proliferation of epithelial cells containing DNA mutations which can ultimately lead to cancer. Using geriatric skin as a model, we demonstrated that senescent fibroblasts also alter how epithelial keratinocytes respond to genotoxic stress, due to the silencing of IGF-1 expression in geriatric fibroblasts. These data indicate that in addition to promoting epithelial tumor growth, senescent fibroblasts also can promote carcinogenic initiation. We hypothesized that commonly used therapeutic stromal wounding therapies can reduce the percentage of senescent fibroblasts and consequently prevent the formation of keratinocytes proliferating with DNA mutations following acute genotoxic (UVB) stress. Sun-protected skin on the lower back of geriatric human volunteers was wounded by dermabrasion and the skin was allowed to heal for three months. In geriatric skin, we found that dermabrasion wounding decreases the proportion of senescent fibroblasts found in geriatric dermis, increases the expression of IGF-1, and restores the appropriate UVB response to epidermal keratinocytes in geriatric skin. Therefore, dermal rejuvenation therapies may play a significant role in preventing the initiation of skin cancer in geriatric patients.





    Exhibit 5:

    Bioactive IGF-1 release from collagen–GAG scaffold to enhance cartilage repair in vitro


    Abstract
    Tissue engineering is a promising technique for cartilage repair. Toward this goal, a porous collagen–glycosaminoglycan (CG) scaffold was loaded with different concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and evaluated as a growth factor delivery device. The biological response was assessed by monitoring the amount of type II collagen and proteoglycan synthesised by the chondrocytes seeded within the scaffolds. IGF-1 release was dependent on the IGF-1 loading concentration used to adsorb IGF-1 onto the CG scaffolds and the amount of IGF-1 released into the media was highest at day 4. This initial IGF-1 release could be modelled using linear regression analysis. Osteoarthritic (OA) chondrocytes seeded within scaffolds containing adsorbed IGF-1 deposited decorin and type II collagen in a dose dependent manner and the highest type II collagen deposition was achieved via loading the scaffold with 50 μg/ml IGF-1. Cells seeded within the IGF-1 loaded scaffolds also deposited more extracellular matrix than the no growth factor control group thus the IGF-1 released from the scaffold remained bioactive and exerted an anabolic effect on OA chondrocytes. The effectiveness of adsorbing IGF-1 onto the scaffold may be due to protection of the molecule from proteolytic digestion allowing a more sustained release of IGF-1 over time compared to adding multiple doses of exogenous growth factor. Incorporating IGF-1 into the CG scaffold provided an initial therapeutic burst release of IGF-1 which is beneficial in initiating ECM deposition and repair in this in vitro model and shows potential for developing this delivery device in vivo.



    Exhibit 6:

    GW25-e4120 IGF-1 Inhibits Apoptosis of Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Through PI3/Akt Pathway

    In this report, we show that the signaling cascade involved in IGF-1 protectes VSMC against Apop-1-induced apoptosis, while PDGF has no effect. In addition, pretreatment of Apop-1 transfected VSMCs with phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase inhibitor wortmannin, or infection with an adenoviral construct expressing the dominant negative Akt gene (Adeno-dnAkt) blocked the cytoprotective effect of IGF-1, whereas the MEK inhibitor PD98059 had no effect. Conversely, infection with an adenoviral construct expressing the constitutively active Akt (Adeno-MyrAkt) gene, protected VSMC from apoptosis induced by Apop-1 even in the absence of IGF-1, suggesting that IGF-1 prevents VSMC apoptosis induced by Apop-1 through activation of the PI3K/Akt pathway. Furthermore, IGF-1 elevated phospho-Akt expression in Apop-1 transfected VSMCs and Apop-1 decreased phospho-Akt expression. Importantly, IGF-1 inhibited cytochrome c release from mitochondria and blocked activation of intrinsic initiator caspase-9 in Apop-1 transfected VSMCs




    Exhibit 7:



    Abstract

    Apoptosis and cell proliferation are two important cellular processes that determine the accumulation of pulmonary artery smooth muscle cells (PASMC) during pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) is an endocrine and autocrine/paracrine growth factor that circulates at high levels in the plasma and is expressed in most cell types. IGF-1 has major effects on development, cell growth and differentiation, also tissue repair. Inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) has been shown to serve many vasoprotective roles in vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs) including inhibition of VSMC proliferation and migration and stimulation of endothelial cell growth. In this study, we investigated the involvement of iNOS in the process of IGF-1-induced inhibition of PASMC apoptosis. We also examined the role of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) in the IGF-1-induced iNOS activation. Our results show that exogenous IGF-1 induced the up-regulation of iNOS in PASMC. Immunofluorescence of IGF-1 and iNOS showed a decreased immunostaining of both IGF-1 and iNOS in the cytoplasm and the perinucleus under serum deprivation condition. iNOS inhibition in PASMC in vitro markedly induced IGF-1-mediated anti-apoptosis as assessed by the cell viability measurement, Western blot, mitochondrial potential analysis and nuclear morphology determination. A p38 MAPK inhibitor blocked all the effects of IGF-1 on iNOS. Our findings suggest that IGF-1 inhibits cells apoptosis in PASMC by activating the p38 MAPK–iNOS transduction pathway. This mechanism may contribute to the accumulation of PASMC in early human PAH.




    Exhibit 9:



    Myostatin, a TGF-β family member, is associated with inhibition of muscle growth and differentiation and might interact with the IGF-1 signaling pathway. Since IGF-1 is secreted at a bioactive level by adipose tissue-derived mesenchymal stem cells (ASCs), these cells (ASCs) provide a therapeutic option for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy (DMD). But the protective effect of stem cell secreted IGF-1 on myoblast under high level of myostatin remains unclear. In the present study murine myoblasts were exposed to myostatin under presence of ASCs conditioned medium and investigated for proliferation and apoptosis. The protective effect of IGF-1 was further examined by using IGF-1 neutralizing and receptor antibodies as well as gene silencing RNAi technology. MyoD expression was detected to identify impact of IGF-1 on myoblasts differentiation when exposed to myostatin. IGF-1 was accountable for 43.6% of the antiapoptotic impact and 48.8% for the proliferative effect of ASCs conditioned medium. Furthermore, IGF-1 restored mRNA and protein MyoD expression of myoblasts under risk. Beside fusion and transdifferentiation the beneficial effect of ASCs is mediated by paracrine secreted cytokines, particularly IGF-1. The present study underlines the potential of ASCs as a therapeutic option for Duchenne muscular dystrophy and other dystrophic muscle diseases.



    Exhibit 10:


    Abstract
    Objective
    Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) increases the growth of cultured hair follicles and plays a role in regulating hair migration during the development of hair follicles in transgenic mice. However, the exogenous effect of IGF-1 on hair growth in wild-type mice has not been reported. In the present study, we examined whether IGF-1 was an important regulator of hair follicle growth in wide-type mice in vivo.

    Design
    C57BL/6 mice were injected with different concentrations of IGF-1 on dorsal skin. The treated tissues were analyzed by immunoassay methods for TGF-β1 and BrdU.

    Results
    Local injection of IGF-1 increased hair follicle number and prolonged the growing phase during the transition from anagen to telogen. Meanwhile, immunology analyses revealed that IGF-1 also stimulated the proliferation of follicle cells in anagen of the matrix and down regulated TGF-β1 expression in hair follicles.

    Conclusions
    These observations suggest that IGF-1 is an effective stimulator of hair follicle development in wide-type mice in vivo and may be a promising drug candidate for baldness therapy.


    Exhibit 11:


    Abstract
    Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-induced oxidative stress increases in skeletal muscle with aging and decreases the viability of implanted cells. Type 1 insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1) promotes the survival of skeletal muscle cells under oxidative stress. It is unknown whether IGF-1 protects muscle-derived stem cells (MDSCs) from oxidative stress. In this study, we genetically engineered rat MDSCs to overexpress IGF-1 and determined cell viability, apoptosis, and VEGF secretion under oxidative stress. Overexpression of IGF-1 prevented MDSCs from H2O2-induced caspase-dependent apoptotic cell death by upregulating the PI3K/AKT pathway, accompanied with an increase of NF-κB, p-NF-κB, Bcl-2, and VEGF, as well as a decrease of Bax. In contrast, pre-administration of picropodophyllinb, wortmannin, 1L-6-hydroxymethyl-chiro-inositol-2-((R)-2-O-methyl-3-O-octadecylcarbonate), or pyrrolidine-dithiocarbamate, specific inhibitors of IGF-1R, PI3K, AKT, and NF-κB, respectively, followed by treatment with H2O2, resulted in cell death of MDSCs. Our data indicated that IGF-1 suppresses apoptosis and enhances the paracrine function of MDSCs under oxidative stress via enhancing IGF-1R/PI3K/AKT signaling. Thus, IGF-1 gene-modified MDSCs present a potential application in the treatment of muscle wasting, such as urethra intrinsic sphincter deficiency.

    Comment

    • sdsurfin
      Senior Member
      • Sep 2013
      • 713

      and none of what i said is a claim that follicept will definitely work. Again, I have no idea. But the reasons that have been stated for it NOT to work are all at pretty badly thought out. My biggest concern is that the death of HF cells hinges on several channels, including inflammatory processes, and I'm not sure IGF-1 is enough to offset/fix the other channels. It really all depends on how much influence it has on hair growth in people. Past studies have suggested in plays a large role, but without testing this with follicepts new vehicle, none of us can really say how successful/not it can be. In short, unless you are a pro hair researcher, and as with any medical progress, just hang tight, shut up and wait.

      Comment

      • serenemoon
        Senior Member
        • Jan 2014
        • 214

        Thanks for the explanation sdsurfin!! Makes sense.

        Comment

        • nameless
          Senior Member
          • Feb 2013
          • 965

          @Boldy, The company's reason for not giving experimental samples to the forum members is reasonable and logical. The company's point is that it's risky and irresponsible to send out experimental medicines through the mail to people the company is many many miles away from, that the company has not conducted baseline workups on and have not been medically cleared for taking this experimental medicine. What do you think Merk would have said if you asked Merck to let forum members be in the original propecia studies through the via mail with no medical workups and no baseline established? What would Glaxo have said if you asked them to do the same with dutasteride? What if you had asked the same of Upjohn for the original Rogaine studies? It wouldn't happen Boldy. Responsible professional drug company personnel would reject that proposal. And by the way, the proponent of that idea is Arishi, and yes I mean the same Arishi who bashes Nigam for marketing cell-based experimental treatments to people before all of the kinks are worked out of cell-based hair loss treatments. So Arishi has a long history of bashing Dr. Nigam for doing exactly what Arishi is trying to pressure Follicept into doing here.

          Boldy, if I was Devon I would reject the idea too. It's risky and it's unprofessional.

          That having been said, I need a chance to read through your scientific points before I can comment on those issues. But just so you know, I am HIGHLY doubtful that Follicept will work. That aside,

          1. The arguments that the company has perpetrated a fraud are thus far unfounded.

          2. It is totally reasonable for the company to reject the idea of allowing forum members to test their product vial the mail. As a matter of fact, if the company did agree to do that then they would not be following industry protocol and they would be taking needless, irresponsible, and reckless risks.

          3. IGF-1 in a topical might get into the follicles better than IGF-1 injected because injected IGF-1 would likely shoot straight in and permeate the follicles directly in the path of injection only whereas topically applied IGF-1 could theoretically get into virtually all the follicles since the topical solution would be spread over the entire scalp.

          4. I also think that it's hard to imagine that IGF-1 alone can reverse hair loss as well or better than Rogaine. At minimum I think that they may need to add more growth factors.

          5. I also have concerns about whether or not the company is using a potent enough dose of IGF-1. I get the sense that the dose is low.

          6. I also have concerns because they are using e.coli IGF-1 rather than human IGF-1.

          Comment

          • Keki
            Senior Member
            • Mar 2015
            • 232

            I wonder where are all those studies of igf-1 injected on human and their results, seems everybody is using increlex from ages but 0 proof, only anedoctal stuff from few user in bodybuilder forums or people who actually injected themself chinese stuff but 0 complete study on this argument, and it's very strange, my idea is people actually injected themself with real crap and actually no one on earth know what's the real effect of igf-1 on human scalp at this point

            Comment

            • sdsurfin
              Senior Member
              • Sep 2013
              • 713

              Nice finds NeedHair Asap. I will pass those on to Dr. Hsu.
              Pretty much all of those abstracts bode very well for this treatment. And as Dr. Hsu has told us, prolonged use of IGF-1 is probably bad for hair cells, but acute use may be great. Unlike a lot of people, I actually agree with follicept that while everything is possible, this actually has great promise. At the very least, it could be a stepping stone in the right direction, as we are now dealing with the most direct chemicals that control hair and cell fate.

              Also, that was a nice way to find backup evidence for what I just wrote to boldy, namely that IGF-1 works against senescence, and that none of what he provided as evidence for follicept not working makes much sense when you're talking about direct causation. IGF-1 does all kinds of things in the body and bloodstream, and works differently in different cells/locations. I really do think that once follicept figures out exactly what the follicle needs and when it needs it, they will develop a good treatment(provided they stay interested). we will see if they hit the nail on the head on the first try

              Also, it's been explained pretty thoroughly to us by trained scientists that e coli IGF is not any different for these purposes than human IGF. It drives me crazy that people on here think they know more than someone who has dedicated their whole life to biology and who is highly qualified. Finding one abstract that says human IGF is different does not mean that the general scientific consensus is such in terms of using it effectively, or that it makes a difference in this situation.

              I have doubts about anything non stem-cell/cloning related working for hair loss at this point purely due to how complex balding is, but I hope I'm proven wrong. it is possible that IGF -1 is not enough on its own, but the complete opposite might be true. Sometimes simplicity is really the key, and a single compound can go a really long way. we have already seen this with the blockage of the androgen receptor. If IGF-1 is as powerful at controlling anagen induction and other stuff as these papers suggest, then other growth factors might simply be unnecessary.

              Comment

              • sdsurfin
                Senior Member
                • Sep 2013
                • 713

                Originally posted by Keki
                I wonder where are all those studies of igf-1 injected on human and their results, seems everybody is using increlex from ages but 0 proof, only anedoctal stuff from few user in bodybuilder forums or people who actually injected themself chinese stuff but 0 complete study on this argument, and it's very strange, my idea is people actually injected themself with real crap and actually no one on earth know what's the real effect of igf-1 on human scalp at this point

                The studies simply have not been done. No one has shown exactly how these bodybuilders of hair loss forum guys injected stuff or for how long or with what source materials, so it doesn't really mean much. Its also quite different to put IGF into your bloodstream than to spread it on your skin and have it seep into the follicles. I can't imagine its easy to inject anything into the scalp in a way that efficiently reaches follicles, though i could be wrong about that. anyway IGF-1 and other growth factors are not safe things to be injecting into your body at concentrations that can get enough of it to the HF, so its understandable that human studies have not been done. this is why follicept is doing something quite different.

                Comment

                • Pelillos
                  Junior Member
                  • Apr 2015
                  • 3

                  Originally posted by bananana
                  @devon,

                  what happened to mice 3 months post treatment? You didnt show that data in the presentation.
                  Just curious.

                  tnx and good luck!
                  That mice are now following the Motorhead's Tour 2015.

                  Comment

                  • bananana
                    Inactive
                    • Feb 2012
                    • 525

                    Originally posted by Pelillos
                    That mice are now following the Motorhead's Tour 2015.
                    Probably a sarcastic comment, but can't say I understand what you meant.

                    I meant - did they continue to grow hair/fur or not?

                    tnx

                    Comment

                    • NeedHairASAP
                      Senior Member
                      • Jul 2011
                      • 1410

                      1. Wanting these guys to do out-of-house testing is obviously a legitimate desire.

                      The issue is this would cost $50k-$1M to have a contract research organization (CRO) to run a massive trial using follicept....

                      Obviously, from their perspective, if they can test it on a group of friends and family first... it saves them from spending a year or more and $50k-$1M testing something they have no clue will work. I just don't think we can hold follicept (as a company, not a product) up to the same standards as a billion dollar pharmaceutical company with a multi-million budget research department.

                      We should hold their product to the same standard as the billion dollar company's... but we need to be cognizant of that fact they just can't go to market in the same fashion as the billion dollar company can.... as a result we have to be extra skeptical (I repeat: skeptical. Not rude, nasty, speculative, defamatory, incendiary, etc.).

                      If they come back with good photos, and things look seemingly good enough, I'm happy to give it a try (and pay for it). I'll be pretty skeptical, so hopefully the photos are decent enough.

                      Anybody who is still skeptical, can wait. Forum trials just don't ever work. Look at chlorine dioxide. That guy gave out 40 bottles (mostly confirmed by 40 posters), then maybe 3-4 actually posted results (that sucked). And honestly, if two random people online post that they got not results in a forum trial.... it doesn't mean that much to me. It's obviously not promising, but it isn't damning-- in my opinion.

                      Same with forum people injecting IGF-1... what was their protocol? To me, there is a good chance they probably f***d it up somewhere in the process, or didn't do it enough or any number of things.... I just don't get why people thinking one or two amateur anonymous forum guys getting no results (whether igf-1, CB, RU, etc. etc. etc.) automatically means the substance should be written off..... to me that is strange logic.


                      2. My sense is that devon and crew don't want to spend a ton of time/money on follicept if it doesn't actually beat minox (and beat it by a relatively significant margin)


                      3. They are doing trials now. And if the evidence they come back with sucks, I'm sure they'll be berated thoroughly... I think we can all agree with that. So, I don't see much reason (i.e. need) for our white knight (i.e. our lord and savior) Arashi... who doesn't notice that Devon is giving him as many answers as he can, and being as polite in the dialogue as possible whilst Arashi is a dickhead.

                      Comment

                      • Pelillos
                        Junior Member
                        • Apr 2015
                        • 3

                        Originally posted by bananana
                        Probably a sarcastic comment, but can't say I understand what you meant.

                        I meant - did they continue to grow hair/fur or not?

                        tnx
                        It's an interesting question; I'd like to know too.

                        Comment

                        • Swooping
                          Senior Member
                          • May 2014
                          • 801

                          Whoops.. Boldy just crushed follicept there. Great information. It is always a pleasure to read your posts.

                          Comment

                          • Link
                            Junior Member
                            • Dec 2014
                            • 4

                            The use of IGF-1 in the body can result in dangerous adverse reactions. I wonder how great the chances are of getting it into the bloodstream by using Follicept, and how it could affect our health.

                            I understand IGF-1 is prohibited for professional athletes. They should probably not use Follicept.

                            Comment

                            • joachim
                              Senior Member
                              • May 2014
                              • 562

                              Originally posted by Link
                              The use of IGF-1 in the body can result in dangerous adverse reactions. I wonder how great the chances are of getting it into the bloodstream by using Follicept, and how it could affect our health.

                              I understand IGF-1 is prohibited for professional athletes. They should probably not use Follicept.
                              this was already adressed multiple times. the igf1 dose is so low (thus considered cosmetical) that even if the whole dose would go systemic (which it doesn't) it wouldn't be harmful at all. hence there will be no safety issues

                              Comment

                              • Link
                                Junior Member
                                • Dec 2014
                                • 4

                                Thank you. I e-mailed the company and they told me the same.

                                However, professional athletes should be careful with Follicept. Even the slightest trace of IGF-1 in their bloodstream might be enough for them to be banned from their competition.

                                Comment

                                Working...