didnt Tsuji finish preclinical work?
Stemson is going to use minipigs in the next stage of their hair cloning research
- Thread starter werefckd
- Start date
Lol what?? Terskikh published papers too, you're spitting non sense.
Anyways, Stemson is way past the "paper publishing" / basic research stage now. Operational company that received 22.5M in funding. They are in a totally different level. "Where is the evidence of Stemson's progress?" lol.
Tsuji is ready for human trials.....
Yes, he is "ready" since 2018, lol
He never said that. He is ready since this year. You really act like your daddy works at Stemson or something. There's no other explanation for being such a fanboy. If like to see both of them succeed. For now Stemson hasn't even figured out how to consistently grow hair in animal models
- Reaction score
- 122
you honestly believe they can affors swimming along without anything remotely astonishing to show for for 10 years? who would invest in a company to do 12 years of clinical research and then 5 years of clinical trials? hell youd earn more money with bonds at that rate. if you invest 15 mil in a hair cloning company you want to see progress not in 10 years but in 3-4. i also do not understand how people are coming up with those numbers??
in his last interview, alexey said to the following question:
"how long do you think it will take you to get this to market? "
he said "i have a number in my mind but i am not going to say it. i will say though that it is still a long road so it will take us at least 3-4 years, probably a little bit longer"
that was in november 2020. to me 3-4 but probably a bit longer reads like 6-7 years should be a realistic time frame? they would be able to do 3-4 more years to figure out all the issues like dht resistency and then another 3 years for clinical trials. why do people come up with 10-12? what are they supposed to do in that time frame? what would possibly take a f*****g decade to figure out? they either have a product and an idea which they pitch to their investors or they do not
this is like making a company with the goal to cure cancer. i found this company. we will cure csncer. we dont know exactly how to do it yet but we want to collect 15 mio and we will use this new technology called rna cancer vaccines. how does that sound? stupid AF.
i just cannot imagine them doing ground research for like 10 years, this is a massive time frame we are talking about here. and whx would alexey say "minimum 3-4 years" you do not suggest half the time as a minimum
Derivation of Hair-Inducing Cell from Human Pluripotent Stem Cells
Dermal Papillae (DP) is a unique population of mesenchymal cells that was shown to regulate hair follicle formation and growth cycle. During development most DP cells are derived from mesoderm, however, functionally equivalent DP cells of cephalic hairs originate from Neural Crest (NC). Here we...
journals.plos.org
this is the paper they published. what are you talking about??
- Reaction score
- 122
Microenvironmental reprogramming by three-dimensional culture enables dermal papilla cells to induce de novo human hair-follicle growth
Growth of de novo hair follicles in adult skin occurs by a process known as hair neogenesis. One way of initiating neogenesis is to place dermal papillae isolated from the hair follicle in contact with an overlying epidermis where they reprogram the epidermis to adopt a follicular fate. This...
www.pnas.org
there are work arounds this issue which has been partially solved. you need to culture the cells in a sphere which resembles their natural habitat to achieve maintenance of inductivity during proliferation
Yes but scientists know about this "solution" for almost a decade now (the paper you cited is from 2013). And guess what, in practice that method ended up not working. I wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is.Microenvironmental reprogramming by three-dimensional culture enables dermal papilla cells to induce de novo human hair-follicle growth
Growth of de novo hair follicles in adult skin occurs by a process known as hair neogenesis. One way of initiating neogenesis is to place dermal papillae isolated from the hair follicle in contact with an overlying epidermis where they reprogram the epidermis to adopt a follicular fate. This...www.pnas.org
there are work arounds this issue which has been partially solved. you need to culture the cells in a sphere which resembles their natural habitat to achieve maintenance of inductivity during proliferation
I didn't read all that, but I read the part where you put words in my mouth. I said if they succeed it will be available to purchase in 5-10 years, not that they would start human trials in 12 years. I don't know what you read, but it wasn't my post.
Make up your mind guy, is stemson coming in 5 years, or is finasteride going to be the only solution in 40 years
Make up your mind guy, is stemson coming in 5 years, or is finasteride going to be the only solution in 40 years
- Reaction score
- 122
hence why stemson is using fibroblasts to induce IPSC and then neural crest, that gets cultured and then converted to DP. they have one problem though:
"IPSC-DP cells resulted in formation of hairs with GFP-positive dermal papillae and dermal capsules albeit with much lower frequencies (1 hair out of 50) then in case of hESC-DP cells. The presence of GFP-positive cells within DP of these hairs was confirmed in sections"
this is what they are working on right now. the DP cells derived from embryonic stem cells where 50 times more likely to grow actual hair whereas there was lots of failure with their IPC method. they showed that i can be done but not very reliable as of the writing of this report. once they have figures out how to get the number way up they can engineer them to have a similar expression pattern to that of dht resistant cells. i think this may not necesarily be the hard part. i mean who says they would not be dht resistant? for all we know it could inherit the expression pattern of the fibroblast whoch may not even express 5AR or the AR at all? so this could be as much of an issue qs a non issue. remember, the vulnerable cells in the horseshoe pattern where told to be this fucked up at some point during development. who says the engineered cells will even behave this way?
Interesting info, where did you get that quote?
That may really be the reason they are not progressing as fast as they thought they would in the beginning.
EDIT: oh it's from the same study. So Terskikh already knew about that challenge even in 2015
- Reaction score
- 122
i just reread their paper and i think making them dht resistant might not be that hard after all. you dont even have to understand what is truly going on to do that. much like how they do not know exactly what molecules triggers the differentiation from neural crest cells to dermal papilla cells. they actually used Fetal Bovine Serum which is actually blood from a cow fetus with lots of signaling molecules and transcription factors in it, rhey basically recreate the condition that was present during embryogenesis this way without fundamentally understanding what factors are involved. if the resulting cell has the right behavior and expression pattern, they are set.
they just have to figure out what is different during embryogenesis between the hair on top of your head vs on the back in terms of signaling molecules and then they can put their neural crest cells throigh that process and check iteratively whether they have properties similar to donor area hair cells
they just have to figure out what is different during embryogenesis between the hair on top of your head vs on the back in terms of signaling molecules and then they can put their neural crest cells throigh that process and check iteratively whether they have properties similar to donor area hair cells
"its hard seeing Stemson genetic cure costing little when other genetic cures are 1 million dollars minimum. I think theyll get there. I just dont think they’ll get the automation machinery to work. for all we know it could take 1 year and 50 scientists to clone all the hair for 1 human in 2030. im just being practical. And yeah I think they want to help people. but so is biogen with their 50k a year Alzheimers drug, right."
- Reaction score
- 122
yes of course, rhis is a well kkow problem with IPC therapeutics, it is still a young fiels
- Reaction score
- 122
you are just straight up making sh*t up arent you? what genetic cure even??
this is not my comment, I wanted to know your opinion on this subject, people with knowledge write here
- Reaction score
- 122
i think thats total nonsense. first this has nothing to do with genetic therapy, second, i do not think it will be that expensive actually, certainly that does not seem to be their company philosophy and if they manage to perfect or improve the rate a
of behavior of their cells, it should be a lot cheaper as well. alexey clearly sais this is for people who cannot get a aHT bc of a lack of donor hair. in fact, people overstimate the market of rich billionaires who have such aggressive hair loss, cannot get a mormal hair transplant and at last, even care avout it to get such a treatment. it is a fantasy much like the idea that big pharma is suppressing research because "treatments are more lucrative than cures"
Stem cells/iPSCs, as well CRISPR/Cas9 are relatively new technologies and requires time to create technology for mass production with high efficacy and quality.
Commercial outfits are building the tools and know-how to manufacture treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells in the quantities required for clinical use.
In the laboratory, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can seem like magic: derived from differentiated cells, they can then morph into surprisingly good replacements for pancreatic, brain, eye, heart and other cells. Some are being used in clinical trials to treat people with chronic conditions, including diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, that are driven by damage to such cells (see page S8).
But it’s magic done slowly, for one patient at a time. “Essentially, all the cells are made by hand, by highly trained scientists sitting in a clean room,” says Nabiha Saklayen, a physicist and chief executive of Cellino Biotech in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a start-up developing a platform for manufacturing iPS cell therapies. “That’s not scalable.”
James Shapiro, a surgeon at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, concurs. Shapiro leads a team readying for a clinical study of pancreatic islet cells, created from iPS cells, that can take on the vital task of producing insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Testing such transplants in a handful of patients “will be exciting and will move the needle quite a bit”, he says.
“But it won’t address the big challenge ahead for personalized medicine: how on Earth could we ever do this kind of work for thousands of patients?” Shapiro says. “Right now it takes a technician and a crew of other research associates working day and night to baby these cells along to grow them into islet-like cells.”
To become practical therapies, stem-cell-based regenerative treatments must conquer two overlapping manufacturing challenges: achieving highly standardized automated production; and doing so in vastly greater volumes than at present.
To make an iPS-cell-based therapy, scientists first change the genes expressed by the starter cells to de-differentiate them into a pluripotent state. Gradual refinement of the techniques involved has made that relatively straightforward. But those pluripotent cells must then be differentiated at scale into the desired cell type — typically a much more formidable undertaking, says Jeffrey Millman, a bioengineer at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
Biotech firms are responding to the challenge with an amazingly diverse range of technologies, says Bollenbach. Some companies are evolving production systems that were originally created to deliver other cell therapies, such as CAR-T cells used to treat blood cancers.
Other firms were launched to provide mass production and differentiation of iPS cells. In April, TreeFrog Therapeutics in Bordeaux, France, announced production of a single batch of 15 billion iPS cells in a week — an encouraging milestone. The company’s technology allows cells in the bioreactors to self-organize into aggregates similar to those formed by natural stem cells and protects them from shear stresses. TreeFrog is now working with several partners to build towards clinical trials for Parkinson’s disease and other conditions.
Stem-cell start-ups seek to crack the mass-production problem
Commercial outfits are building the tools and know-how to manufacture treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells in the quantities required for clinical use.
In the laboratory, induced pluripotent stem (iPS) cells can seem like magic: derived from differentiated cells, they can then morph into surprisingly good replacements for pancreatic, brain, eye, heart and other cells. Some are being used in clinical trials to treat people with chronic conditions, including diabetes and Parkinson’s disease, that are driven by damage to such cells (see page S8).
But it’s magic done slowly, for one patient at a time. “Essentially, all the cells are made by hand, by highly trained scientists sitting in a clean room,” says Nabiha Saklayen, a physicist and chief executive of Cellino Biotech in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a start-up developing a platform for manufacturing iPS cell therapies. “That’s not scalable.”
James Shapiro, a surgeon at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, concurs. Shapiro leads a team readying for a clinical study of pancreatic islet cells, created from iPS cells, that can take on the vital task of producing insulin in people with type 1 diabetes. Testing such transplants in a handful of patients “will be exciting and will move the needle quite a bit”, he says.
“But it won’t address the big challenge ahead for personalized medicine: how on Earth could we ever do this kind of work for thousands of patients?” Shapiro says. “Right now it takes a technician and a crew of other research associates working day and night to baby these cells along to grow them into islet-like cells.”
To become practical therapies, stem-cell-based regenerative treatments must conquer two overlapping manufacturing challenges: achieving highly standardized automated production; and doing so in vastly greater volumes than at present.
To make an iPS-cell-based therapy, scientists first change the genes expressed by the starter cells to de-differentiate them into a pluripotent state. Gradual refinement of the techniques involved has made that relatively straightforward. But those pluripotent cells must then be differentiated at scale into the desired cell type — typically a much more formidable undertaking, says Jeffrey Millman, a bioengineer at Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
Biotech firms are responding to the challenge with an amazingly diverse range of technologies, says Bollenbach. Some companies are evolving production systems that were originally created to deliver other cell therapies, such as CAR-T cells used to treat blood cancers.
Other firms were launched to provide mass production and differentiation of iPS cells. In April, TreeFrog Therapeutics in Bordeaux, France, announced production of a single batch of 15 billion iPS cells in a week — an encouraging milestone. The company’s technology allows cells in the bioreactors to self-organize into aggregates similar to those formed by natural stem cells and protects them from shear stresses. TreeFrog is now working with several partners to build towards clinical trials for Parkinson’s disease and other conditions.
Stem-cell start-ups seek to crack the mass-production problem
Commercial outfits are building the tools and know-how to manufacture treatments using induced pluripotent stem cells in the quantities required for clinical use.
www.nature.com
SLAS Technology’s October Issue Featuring “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” Now Available
Newswise — Oak Brook, IL – The October edition of SLAS Technology features the cover article, “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” by Miho Sasamata, Daisuke Shimojo, Haruna Sasaki-Iwaoka, Yukiko Yamagishi, Ph.D. (Astellas Pharma Inc., Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, Japan), Hiromitsu Fuse, Yohei Nishi, Hidetoshi Sakurai, M.D., Ph.D., and Tatsutoshi Nakahata (Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan).
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are attractive for use in early drug discovery because they can differentiate into any cell type. However, maintenance cultures and differentiation processes for iPSCs require a high level of technical expertise. To overcome this problem, technological developments such as enhanced automation are necessary to replace manual operation. In addition, a robot system with the flexibility and expandability to carry out the maintenance cultures and the required differentiation processes would also be important.
The authors of “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” created a platform to enable the multiple processes required for iPSC experiments using the Maholo LabDroid -- a humanoid robotic system with superior reproducibility and flexibility. The accuracy and robustness of Maholo LabDroid enabled the authors to cultivate undifferentiated iPSCs for 63 days while maintaining the ability to differentiate the three embryonic germ layers. Maholo LabDroid maintained and harvested iPSCs in six-well plates, then seeded them into 96-well plates, induced differentiation and implemented immunocytochemistry. Maholo LabDroid was then confirmed to be able to perform the processes required for myogenic differentiation of iPSCs isolated from a patient with muscular disease and achieved a high differentiation rate with CV <10% in the first trial.
Newswise — Oak Brook, IL – The October edition of SLAS Technology features the cover article, “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” by Miho Sasamata, Daisuke Shimojo, Haruna Sasaki-Iwaoka, Yukiko Yamagishi, Ph.D. (Astellas Pharma Inc., Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki, Japan), Hiromitsu Fuse, Yohei Nishi, Hidetoshi Sakurai, M.D., Ph.D., and Tatsutoshi Nakahata (Center for iPS Cell Research and Application (CiRA), Kyoto University, Sakyo-ku, Kyoto, Japan).
Induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) are attractive for use in early drug discovery because they can differentiate into any cell type. However, maintenance cultures and differentiation processes for iPSCs require a high level of technical expertise. To overcome this problem, technological developments such as enhanced automation are necessary to replace manual operation. In addition, a robot system with the flexibility and expandability to carry out the maintenance cultures and the required differentiation processes would also be important.
The authors of “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” created a platform to enable the multiple processes required for iPSC experiments using the Maholo LabDroid -- a humanoid robotic system with superior reproducibility and flexibility. The accuracy and robustness of Maholo LabDroid enabled the authors to cultivate undifferentiated iPSCs for 63 days while maintaining the ability to differentiate the three embryonic germ layers. Maholo LabDroid maintained and harvested iPSCs in six-well plates, then seeded them into 96-well plates, induced differentiation and implemented immunocytochemistry. Maholo LabDroid was then confirmed to be able to perform the processes required for myogenic differentiation of iPSCs isolated from a patient with muscular disease and achieved a high differentiation rate with CV <10% in the first trial.
SLAS Technology’s October Issue Featuring “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” Now Available | Newswise
The October edition of SLAS Technology features the cover article, “Establishment of a Robust Platform for Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell Research Using Maholo LabDroid” by Miho Sasamata, Daisuke Shimojo, Haruna Sasaki-Iwaoka, Yukiko Yamagishi, Ph.D. (Astellas Pharma Inc., Tsukuba-shi, Ibaraki...
www.newswise.com
