The science behind the hair follicule

[HairLoss916]

Can anybody point me to any detailed links behind the actual science behind the death of a hair follicule? I understand DHT binds to the hair follicule or something and is able to slowly kill it.

I'm just curious as to what the research is in the matter. It seems to be that a thing like hair loss should of been cured decades ago given the technology we have. As far as profit incentive, there are plenty of men who would buy into a baldness cure or some kind of baldness vaccine (like a permanent finasteride you only inject once).

Also, with stem cell technology up and coming, I'm suprised there hasn't been any research on how to revive dead hair follicules.

 

[Bryan]

Androgens bind to cells in the dermal papillae of scalp hair follicles, causing them to release negative growth factors (growth suppressants, in other words) which than affect the rest of the follicle. That's it, in a nutshell.

 

[peter079]

People always say that it has to do with your follicles being susceptible to Dht, because that is how you were born. Some people are born susceptible and others aren't.
Well then how come I didn't start to loose hair when I was 12?
My body started producing dht when I was 12. Eg, body hair, pubic hair, erections etc. Why wasn't I loosing hair at 12?

Also, how come a hair follicle that was once resistent to dht all of a sudden becomes susceptible? Even after you are loosing hair you might notice a healthy follicle which seems to be winning the battle but one day it also decides to start dying?
I think there is a trigger or a mutation in the genes and/or follicles.
Everyone has T, everyone has DHT and everyone has 5AR. But not everyone has hairloss. There must be something else.

 

[HairLoss916]

People always say that it has to do with your follicles being susceptible to Dht, because that is how you were born. Some people are born susceptible and others aren't.
Well then how come I didn't start to loose hair when I was 12?
My body started producing dht when I was 12. Eg, body hair, pubic hair, erections etc. Why wasn't I loosing hair at 12?

Also, how come a hair follicle that was once resistent to dht all of a sudden becomes susceptible? Even after you are loosing hair you might notice a healthy follicle which seems to be winning the battle but one day it also decides to start dying?
I think there is a trigger or a mutation in the genes and/or follicles.
Everyone has T, everyone has DHT and everyone has 5AR. But not everyone has hairloss. There must be something else.

Well for one, I think people hit puberty at different times (not always around 12) and I think people's T production is different even after puberty. Also, the effectiveness of DHT to kill a hair follicle is probably also different from person to person.

I'm sure the human body is very analog in nature. It isn't DHT = Hair follicles die. There is probably a lot of gray area in how the hair follicle responds.

My main question/inquiry is about the exact science behind how DHT effects the hair follicle and why we can block all sorts of deathly and more complex diseases than DHT yet hair loss still eludes us after 100s of years. I know it isn't as big of a priority as polio, aids, or cancer, but I would argue it's very important as having a full set of hair aids the procreation of the species.

 

[Bryan]

People always say that it has to do with your follicles being susceptible to Dht, because that is how you were born. Some people are born susceptible and others aren't.
Well then how come I didn't start to loose hair when I was 12?
My body started producing dht when I was 12. Eg, body hair, pubic hair, erections etc. Why wasn't I loosing hair at 12?

Because your scalp hair follicles weren't as sensitive to androgens when you were just 12 years old, as they are now. Scientists clearly demonstrated that very same effect with stumptailed macaques, in a study done a few years ago. Testosterone given to hair follicle biopsies of fully-grown monkeys had the normal and expected effect of suppressing their growth; but the same amount of testosterone give to the hair follicle biopsies from younger monkeys had no effect at all. The same thing almost certainly happens in humans, too.

Also, how come a hair follicle that was once resistent to dht all of a sudden becomes susceptible? Even after you are loosing hair you might notice a healthy follicle which seems to be winning the battle but one day it also decides to start dying?

I don't think it happens "all of a sudden". It almost certainly happens over a period of time. Scintists are working to find the exact biochemical steps which lead to the condition of androgen suppression of scalp hair follicles.

 

[Bryan]

My main question/inquiry is about the exact science behind how DHT effects the hair follicle and why we can block all sorts of deathly and more complex diseases than DHT yet hair loss still eludes us after 100s of years.

Well, we _know_ how to do it, if we really wanted to! But castration just isn't an option for the average male! The trick is to find some method which isn't nearly as invasive as castration, but is still just as effective...

 

[peter079]

I know I said why a "12 year old doesn't loose hair", but I could have said why a 32 year old who has had thick hair all his life starts to loose it. He has had T, DHT, 5AR for many years and then becomes sensitive for some reason.

So basically (as Brian mentioned) it's this "turning on of sensitivity" in the follicle, is what scientist should be researching. Finding better ways to block DHT or 5AR is not the solution because these are normal enzymes and hormones that every male has and needs.

Scientist have been looking for the genes responsible to hairloss. In fact some japanese scientists have recently found the SOX-2-1 gene to cause hairloss. The problem is that altering genes usually has detremental effects. For example altering the SOX-2 gene can cause things like eye malformation, colorectal cancer and who knows what else.

 

[TheGrayMan2001]

My main question/inquiry is about the exact science behind how DHT effects the hair follicle and why we can block all sorts of deathly and more complex diseases than DHT yet hair loss still eludes us after 100s of years.

Well, we _know_ how to do it, if we really wanted to! But castration just isn't an option for the average male! The trick is to find some method which isn't nearly as invasive as castration, but is still just as effective...

I think it would be so great if they found something that could bind strongly just to these hair follicles and won't affect anything else major in the body's chemistry. Imagine not having to be on finasteride, just a little pill that prevents DHT from hurting your hair.

 

[HairLoss916]

Why has all the research been into blocking DHT instead of changing the DHT receptors in the hair follicle? Is there any biological reason for a hair follicle to accept DHT?

 

[TheGrayMan2001]

Why has all the research been into blocking DHT instead of changing the DHT receptors in the hair follicle? Is there any biological reason for a hair follicle to accept DHT?

That's just how they work. There's no way that we know of currently to specifically block certain receptors. Instead, most medicines block the chemicals that go to certain receptors. In this case, we prevent DHT from being created, and it doesn't bind as much to hair follicles.

 

[Bryan]

So basically (as Brian mentioned) it's this "turning on of sensitivity" in the follicle, is what scientist should be researching. Finding better ways to block DHT or 5AR is not the solution because these are normal enzymes and hormones that every male has and needs.

I think it would be so great if they found something that could bind strongly just to these hair follicles and won't affect anything else major in the body's chemistry. Imagine not having to be on finasteride, just a little pill that prevents DHT from hurting your hair.

Are you guys forgetting that we _do_ have such a thing in the works, at least theoretically? It's certainly possible to fight the effects of androgens just in the scalp, without having systemic consequences. That would be with a purely "local" topical antiandrogen; one example (although fairly weak) would be topical spironolactone. Another (much better) example would be topical RU58841. If only we could get RU58841 easily and cheaply! :dunno:

 

[Bryan]

Why has all the research been into blocking DHT instead of changing the DHT receptors in the hair follicle?

By using the term "blocking DHT", I'm going to assume that what you really mean is inhibiting 5a-reductase, which is what finasteride and dutasteride do. If you read my post just above, you'll see that it _is_ possible to have effective local androgen receptor blockers, although such agents are difficult to design and produce, and very expensive to come by. RU58841 is probably the best one of all, but it's not really commercially available, except through companies in China (I don't know if that really counts as "commercially available"! ).

Is there any biological reason for a hair follicle to accept DHT?

A human scalp hair follicle has no need whatsoever for androgens, even though it has androgen receptors.

 

[biglemoncoke]

i think they mean, there should be research of an ingested medicine that stops the dht from going up to the hair follicles.

 

[peter079]

Why has all the research been into blocking DHT instead of changing the DHT receptors in the hair follicle? Is there any biological reason for a hair follicle to accept DHT?

That's just how they work. There's no way that we know of currently to specifically block certain receptors. Instead, most medicines block the chemicals that go to certain receptors. In this case, we prevent DHT from being created, and it doesn't bind as much to hair follicles.

Do men without male pattern baldness have DHT attached to their scalp follicles? Or maybe their receptors don't accept DHT? Or is it more of an immune system thing, where everyone has DHT in their scalp but the men with the male pattern baldness gene are allergic to it, or something?

What we need is a medicine that destroys or alters (the shape?) of the androgen receptors in the scalp so they can't accept dht.

 

[S&L]

So basically (as Brian mentioned) it's this "turning on of sensitivity" in the follicle, is what scientist should be researching. Finding better ways to block DHT or 5AR is not the solution because these are normal enzymes and hormones that every male has and needs.

I think it would be so great if they found something that could bind strongly just to these hair follicles and won't affect anything else major in the body's chemistry. Imagine not having to be on finasteride, just a little pill that prevents DHT from hurting your hair.

Are you guys forgetting that we _do_ have such a thing in the works, at least theoretically? It's certainly possible to fight the effects of androgens just in the scalp, without having systemic consequences. That would be with a purely "local" topical antiandrogen; one example (although fairly weak) would be topical spironolactone. Another (much better) example would be topical RU58841. If only we could get RU58841 easily and cheaply! :dunno:

I'm confused about what you say concerning RU58841 , you talk of it like the only problem is getting it and that the price is high .
But you don not speak about safety concerns for a drug that has NOT been approved by any medical organisation . I know the efficacy of it makes it very tempting to use and I might consider it myself if I can get enough information about it and consider the risk acceptable but isn't it a little crazy ? ( to say the least )

 

[Bryan]

Do men without male pattern baldness have DHT attached to their scalp follicles? Or maybe their receptors don't accept DHT? Or is it more of an immune system thing, where everyone has DHT in their scalp but the men with the male pattern baldness gene are allergic to it, or something?

All men (even ones without male pattern baldness) have DHT and other androgens attached to their scalps. The receptors of all men (even ones without male pattern baldness) accept DHT and other androgens. The difference between balding and non-balding men is (mostly) that non-balding ones have a less intense follicular response to those same androgens. In balding men, androgens binding to the dermal papillae of scalp hair follicles causes them to generate various nasty chemicals (TGFbeta 1 and TGFbeta 2 would be good examples) which suppress the growth of the rest of the follicle. In non-balding men, that doesn't happen to nearly the same degree as it does in balding men. See what I'm saying?

What we need is a medicine that destroys or alters (the shape?) of the androgen receptors in the scalp so they can't accept dht.

Well, in a sense we have that already in the form of antiandrogens. They attach to androgen receptors, preventing real androgens from attaching to them. The problem is that topical antiandrogens that you can apply "locally" to the scalp are either only weak and partially effective, or are terribly expensive and difficult to obtain, or are not completely and exhaustively tested in humans, etc. Topical RU58841 appears to work well in the stumptailed macaque model, but hasn't been tested much in humans. That needs to change.

 

[Bryan]

I'm confused about what you say concerning RU58841 , you talk of it like the only problem is getting it and that the price is high .
But you don not speak about safety concerns for a drug that has NOT been approved by any medical organisation . I know the efficacy of it makes it very tempting to use and I might consider it myself if I can get enough information about it and consider the risk acceptable but isn't it a little crazy ? ( to say the least )

I certainly agree that it hasn't been tested much in humans. But it seems to work well in the stumptailed macaque animal model, so it definitely should be tested more in humans. It appears to be the most effective topical antiandrogen ever developed.

 

[HairLoss916]

Is there a thread dedicated to RU58841? Is there a reason why isn't approved in the states? Is this something you apply daily like minoxidil?

 

[Bryan]

Is there a thread dedicated to RU58841? Is there a reason why isn't approved in the states? Is this something you apply daily like minoxidil?

From time to time there are threads and comments about RU58841 on all the hairloss sites. It hasn't been "approved" here for the simple reason that nobody wants to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on it in the FDA approval process. Yes, you would apply it every day like minoxidil. It's a topical antiandrogen.

 

[HairLoss916]

Are there any tropicals that don't require you to use them everyday?

And why is daily use even required? Is it because whatever binds to the hair follicle falls off in a day?