New clinical trial intended to prove the Androgenetic Alopecia theory.

[Bryan]

isn't androgen receptor sensativity a variable?

I can't resist throwing in my one two cents' worth on that: I think "androgen receptor sensitivity" is discussed WAAAAY too much on hairloss sites. I wish people would drop it!

 

[Bryan]

Other than the specific androgen receptor polymorhism an individual has (which there's nothing you can do about), no, I don't think it's a significant issue. I don't know why there's so much chatter about it!

 

[Bryan]

I should also add here that although there are very complex biochemical factors which can affect the sesitivity of androgen receptors, I don't know of any practical way that an individual can decrease that sensitivity. So why all the chatter about this issue? :dunno:

 

[Bryan]

I should also add here that although there are very complex biochemical factors which can affect the sesitivity of androgen receptors, I don't know of any practical way that an individual can decrease that sensitivity. So why all the chatter about this issue? :dunno:

because of the "switch"

I don't know what you mean by that.

 

[Bryan]

Should have pointed out that the mentioned study shows they are spending money on the subject....to me .....that means that it must be of some importance.

The only real reason I can see for them to spend money on it is to show that the specific androgen receptor polymorphism that an individual has can be a very useful tool to show him how likely he is to develop male pattern baldness, and perhaps start taking drugs like Propecia as a preventive measure.

 

[Bryan]

on another note...I just found this:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21167691

Cool! A third recent study on the specific ways that androgens cause male pattern baldness by causing the release of harmful growth-suppressors from the hair follicle dermal papilla!

 

[freakout]

Boba155 you should stay on this forum more often so there's always someone who sticks to the facts

But frankly, I've never heard of a successful implemetation of 'gene therapy'. I don't suppose you're thinking of gene splicing. How do you propose to do it - methylation?

But I've heard that they're testing breast cancer treatments based on epigenetics.

I have a question: Can standard DNA analysis distinguish a 'genetic difference' between balding follicle and non-balding?

 

[freakout]

Here is a FACT and a sure fire 100% tested process that will make your hair grow like hell. No known 'treatment' can beat this:

Transplant them onto mice;
Wait less than four months and get them back.

After getting them back, you got a few years before hair miniaturizes. Plus there's a possiblity that the mice could reprogram the follicles to grow hair forever.

 

[freakout]

isn't androgen receptor sensativity a variable?

One receptor reacts with one hormone molecule. They cause a chemical reaction or bind and both 'disappear' into another compound. The cell will have to produce receptors again to become 'sensitive'.

But before it produces a receptor, there has to be something in its niche environment to tell it. It can also be commanded by the brain, for example, thru the nervous system to do so.

Finally, it's the cell that decides whether to become sensitive or not because it is the only one who knows if it is a condition to execute the command.

The problem is, the mouse study suggests hair follicles are not even responding to androgens directly, thus, not producing AR receptors.

So there is the QUESTION: Why would a follicles produce a receptor and react to kill itself????? A self-contained Androgenetic Alopecia theory connotes hair follicle suicide.

It does not make sense!! Something in humans not present in mice is telling it or forcing it to miniaturize.

 

[freakout]

ALL, not only the galea's hair, scalp hairs can be afected by androgens
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1693

The discussion shifted from in vitro to in vivo. In vitro results do not always translate to in vivo.

 

[freakout]

Disabling ARs would systematically be castration

I suppose you're refering to "AR genes"? The gene is merely associated with androgens or baldness. The gene can have numerous other functions.
----------------------

Secondly, I was referring to the study that Freakout posted showing that vellus hairs when transplanted onto mice grew terminal. Nordstrom's study showed that transplanting vellus hairs grew vellus. There is a discrepancy here.

The discrepancies:
Human internal environment versus mouse internal environment.
Hamilton study: Castration itself does not promote regrowth.
Full regrowth to terminal hair in ALL 28 men and 11 women in various strains of mice. This does not happen in humans.

(This study was in 2003. Are there studies that contradict this after 2003? I would avoid discrediting any study.)

This is not much of a conclusion:
Androgens is not the inhibiting factor. Something in humans not present in mice is.

I think androgens is, initially, key to male baldness, not women's. Androgens influence this inhibiting factor in male baldnes. In women, the same inhibiting factor is influenced by something else. Finding and successfully addressing it is the key hair regrowth.

We might be surprised in was just in our pockets all this time!

 

[armandein]

ALL, not only the galea's hair, scalp hairs can be afected by androgens
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1693

The discussion shifted from in vitro to in vivo

Bryan said in this same post:

"I can't prove that, but androgens do have the same effects on hair follicles in vitro that they do in vivo"

.

 

[freakout]

I Broke the Mystery of Male Pattern Baldness.

It's called Biology 101. Cell activity in completely interactive. The body is a community of 50 trillion individual cells. Sensory and response systems is a universal attribute of life!

But since you think it was just "made up" you probably know better. So YOU provide the answers to idonttobebalding.

 

[freakout]

Like I said, YOU seem to know better by saying I "made it up". Don't ask me if you know something better to say.

 

[freakout]

There is a genetic trait that directly affects one component of the androgen response (such as building muscle). ... relaying the receptor-stimulated gene messages to the rest of the cell (an event called ‘transcription’).
http://www.musculardevelopment.com/arti ... ey-md.html[/i]

It's androgens that make men a lot stronger than women. Each time we flex a muscle, the cells in the muscles begin responding to androgens (among others). The quick response of the muscles from the brain can only be communicated thru the nervous system.

That's why exercises can bring down androgen levels. So we wonder why exercises do not seem to prevent baldness. Is it because androgens are not directly responsible for baldness?

Sensory (sensitivity) and response (reaction) is a universal attribute of life from bacteria to humans. We will be dead without those.

So the 'guy' who said' I "simply made up" my statements, just showed this forum his complete ignorance of the basics in biology and life! :woot:

And he's attempting to become an AR expert??? :dunno:

 

[hairhoper]

None of your posts make any sense.

 

[Boba155]

None of your posts make any sense.

This is the reason male pattern baldness will not be cured for at least another fifty years. This post perfectly captures it.

Simply put, the general public is not smart enough to grasp current scientific research, and nor do they even want to try.

Quite sad really.

 

[freakout]

Androgen receptors cannot be controlled by cognitive function, duh, nice try buddy

Thanks for calling me buddy, buddy boy

Biology for DUMMIES Lesson No. 1

When you flex your muscles, the cells of the muscles will begin responding to various kinds of biochemicals. It's called metabolism. They can only respond if they produce the particular receptor for the particular biochemical. The COMMAND to flex the muscle is received by the cells comes from the brain thru the nervious system.

I'm no biology teacher but would you like me to give you Lesson No. 2 for DUMMIES?

Or would you rather show your ignorance again and again? :woot:

 

[squeegee]

what about DKK-1 as the culprit in Androgenic Alopecia...??

 

[freakout]

I was wondering why no one had done it yet. Could it be that hair transplant surgeons were not aware that mice can make miniaturized hair grow long and thick like hell?

Or perhaps transplanting them onto mice and getting them back might pose a problem on rejection.

Only immunologists can answer that with a thought experiment.

When Jahoda (1999) transplanted the bottom part of one derma papilla without a scalp tissue on his wife's arm, they grew several brand new follicles in a bunch. There was also no rejection which was how he found out that hair follicles are immune-privileged.

When he analyzed the brand new follicles, it contained DNA signitures from BOTH donor and recipient!! The new follicles were "born" and had their own unique genome with the donor and recipient being the father and mother!!

Back to the mice experiment: What would happen to the scalp biopsy on the mice in three months? Would it also be infused with a DNA signature from the recipient mice?

If it does, it might be rejected by the original human donor once he gets it back due to the presence of a new DNA signature.

This is just speculation on our part and it can't be answered without being tested with an actual experiment OR be answered by a bonafide immunologist.

So when I said "100%", I was actually joking. It's more of 50% and plausible.