Hey guys, thought we should discuss Dr Gardner's work a bit more in depth being one of the most important talks at the conference. He presented 2 studies of his at the conference, one is related to wound healing and the other is DP induction. Here are the actual presentations if you haven't seen them yet:
Dermal-Epidermal Interactions in 3D Culture Restore Markers of DP Inductivity
His first presentation is really fascinating. What they are doing is going down a list and adding a specific growth factor to see if it retains the inductivity of DP cells. They then take note of the results and will add combination of growth factors that were 'hits'...fascinating stuff. It will take time to try out all the combinations, but the outcome is the key to hair regeneration. That is why he was not keen on giving a timeline on how long it will take, since they may find the right ****tail of growth factors within the next 12 months or might take 2-3 years! Hope that explains what's going on in the presentation a bit better
As for his second presentation, he has realised that type 2-macrophages play a huge role in wound healing and hair regeneration! There's still a lot more work to be done on the macrophage theory but nevertheless it is fascinating!
Interesting work with growth factors, but isn't histogen basically a ****tail of growth factors and wnts. There is already some data on the effect of different fibroblast Gfs on hair growth. this paper for example has great data, http://www.eksid.com/online/pdf/4-2-103.pdf. are they trying to find the best ****tail of growth factors and applying it as treatment for hair regrowth, or are theytrying to develop a fully functional follicle with the addition of growth factors ?
Interesting work with growth factors, but isn't histogen basically a ****tail of growth factors and wnts. There is already some data on the effect of different fibroblast Gfs on hair growth. this paper for example has great data, http://www.eksid.com/online/pdf/4-2-103.pdf. are they trying to find the best ****tail of growth factors and applying it as treatment for hair regrowth, or are theytrying to develop a fully functional follicle with the addition of growth factors ?
I believe injecting growth factors would definitely help with hair growth but that is not the issue. Many of these growth factors and specifically fgf9 which was studied by follica, is heavily involved in the growth of cancers.
Expression of fibroblast growth factor 9 is associated with poor prognosis in patients with resected non-small cell lung cancer.
Ohgino K1, Soejima K2, Yasuda H1, Hayashi Y3, Hamamoto J1, Naoki K1, Arai D1, Ishioka K1, Sato T1, Terai H1, Ikemura S1, Yoda S1, Tani T1, Kuroda A1, Betsuyaku T1.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVES:
Fibroblast growth factor (FGF) 9 is a member of the FGF family, which modulates cell proliferation, differentiation, and motility. Recent studies show that the activation of FGF signals including FGF9 is associated with the pathogenesis of several cancers; however, its clinicopathological and biological significance in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is unclear. The purpose of this study was to clarify the characteristics of NSCLC with FGF9 expression.
MATERIALS AND METHODS:
We evaluated the expression of FGF9 in resected NSCLC specimens and corresponding non-tumorous lung tissue samples using cDNA microarray and evaluated its clinicopathological characteristics.
RESULTS:
Nine out of 90 NSCLC specimens (10%) had "high" FGF9 expression compared with corresponding non-cancerous lung tissues. Histologically, of the 9 NSCLC specimens with high FGF9 expression, 5 were adenocarcinoma, whereas none were squamous cell carcinoma. FGF9 expression was not associated with sex, smoking history, or clinical stage. However, in patients with high and low FGF9 expression, the postoperative recurrence rates were 78% and 24% (p=0.033), respectively. Overall survival was significantly shorter in patients with high FGF9 expression than in those with low FGF9 expression (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION:
Our data indicate that FGF9 may be a novel unfavorable prognostic indicator and a candidate therapeutic target of NSCLC.
Well when someone posts a claim it's on them to provide a source, how is someone supposed to verify the claims if all you provide is a vague reference to where you have seen something?
Dr Aaron Gardner's Research (2014)
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by hgs1989
Bookmarks