Acne.org Products
Hey,
I really dont understand why you all arent jumping on Dr Deepak Srivastava's research. He turned SCAR FIBROBLASTS back into beating HEART MUSCLES, through the use of an injection of viruses that turned the scarring gene off - even in older scars.
They said the potential benefits is that it could one day be used to help other scarring, including body scars.
I cant help but think it deserves a lot more attention and funding than this boring hydrogel. I mean it wouldnt require excisions or any real surgical intervention, it would simply involve injections that turn genes off that are keeping scars the way that they are, then guiding them into something we want them to be - NORMAL SKIN
ps. i know i post like a troll. its the only way i can get your guys attention. ive been following this post for soooo long and i really dont see that the fuss is about with the hydrogel. i was hoping seabs ***the god of this topic with his knowledge** would be broadening himself out and using his expertise to look for other solutions....
Hey it was my first post here on this forum:
Posted 14 April 2012 - 09:11 AMHello people!
Check out this:
http://www.genome-en...car-tissue.html
April 3, 2012
Gene therapy reprograms heart scar tissue
They're targeting 3 different genes, what do you think about that?
This is interesting too:
http://www.dukehealt...sing-stem-cells
Duke Team Turns Scar Tissue into Heart Muscle Without Using Stem Cells
By Duke Medicine News and Communications
Scientists at Duke University Medical Center have shown the ability to turn scar tissue that forms after a heart attack into heart muscle cells using a new process that eliminates the need for stem cell transplant.
The study, published online April 26 in the journal Circulation Research, used molecules called microRNAs to trigger the cardiac tissue conversion in a lab dish and, for the first time, in a living mouse, demonstrating the potential of a simpler process for tissue regeneration.
If additional studies confirm the approach in human cells, it could lead to a new way for treating many of the 23 million people worldwide who suffer heart failure, which is often caused by scar tissue that develops after a heart attack. The approach could also have benefit beyond heart disease.
"This is a significant finding with many therapeutic implications," said Victor J. Dzau, MD, a senior author on the study who is James B. Duke professor of medicine and chancellor of health affairs at Duke University. "If you can do this in the heart, you can do it in the brain, the kidneys, and other tissues. This is a whole new way of regenerating tissue."
To initiate the regeneration, Dzau's team at Duke used microRNAs, which are molecules that serve as master regulators controlling the activity of multiple genes. Tailored in a specific combination, the microRNAs were delivered into scar tissue cells called fibroblasts, which develop after a heart attack and impair the organ's ability to pump blood.
Once deployed, the microRNAs reprogrammed fibroblasts to become cells resembling the cardiomyocytes that make up heart muscle. The Duke team not only proved this concept in the laboratory, but also demonstrated that the cell conversion could occur inside the body of a mouse -- a major requirement for regenerative medicine to become a potential therapy.
"This is one of the exciting things about our study," said Maria Mirotsou, PhD, assistant professor of cardiology at Duke and a senior author of the study. "We were able to achieve this tissue conversion in the heart with these microRNAs, which may be more practical for direct delivery into cells and allow for possible development of therapies without using genetic methods or transplantation of stem cells."
The researchers said using microRNA for tissue regeneration has several potential advantages over genetic methods or transplantation of stem cells, which have been difficult to manage inside the body. Notably, the microRNA process eliminates technical problems such as genetic alterations, while also avoiding the ethical dilemmas posed by stem cells.
"It's an exciting stage for reprogramming science," said Tilanthi M. Jayawardena, PhD, first author of the study. "It's a very young field, and we're all learning what it means to switch a cell's fate. We believe we've uncovered a way for it to be done, and that it has a lot of potential."
The approach will now be tested in larger animals. Dzau said therapies could be developed within a decade if additional studies advance in larger animals and humans.
"We have proven the concept," Dzau said. "This is the very early stage, and we have only shown that is it doable in an animal model. Although that's a very big step, we're not there yet for humans."
In addition to Dzau, Mirotsou and Jayawardena, study authors include: Bakytbek Egemnazarov; Elizabeth A. Finch; Lunan Zhang; Kumar Pandya; J. Alan Payne; Zhiping Zhang; and Paul Rosenberg.
Funding for the study was provided by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute; the Edna and Fred L. Mandel Jr. Foundation; the Foundation Leducq; Mirotsou is supported by the American Heart Association National Scientist Development Award; Rosenberg is supported by the NIH.
Study authors reported no conflicts.
So is it really possible to turn scar tissue into a normal hearth tissue (or skin tissue) without surgical excision of the scar tissue? I don't understand how is that possible? 
And is it scarless healing or scar free healing? 
Well scar tissue isn't dead, it's just as "alive" as normal skin and it's self replicating. All they are doing is telling the scar tissue what to do 
become heart muscles, skin or whatever. It's brilliant!
I don't get why everyone here is so determined on starting again, by cutting out the scar tissue, then
Rehealing the skin in a scar free way - I guess it's based on the old fashioned idea that scar tissue, once there, cannot be removed or altered - when studies like the above prove otherwise
Well scar tissue isn't dead, it's just as "alive" as normal skin and it's self replicating. All they are doing is telling the scar tissue what to do
become heart muscles, skin or whatever. It's brilliant!
I don't get why everyone here is so determined on starting again, by cutting out the scar tissue, then
Rehealing the skin in a scar free way - I guess it's based on the old fashioned idea that scar tissue, once there, cannot be removed or altered - when studies like the above prove otherwise
The stuff you mention has not got scar free results in skin. It has no results. I'd rather just use something like the hydrogel scaffold that reepithilized a 3rd degree burn in under 14days (under the 21days) that has clearly shown results in complete skin regeneration and survival.. And as the hydrogel has been shown to work with 3rd degree burns by reepithilizing normal skin, I'll use that. I'd rather cut my scars out within the next 1.5 years (using invivo as the precedent, and ignoring the new legislation that may come out, which will mean it will be approved faster). And let the hydrogel digest fast by the neutrophils in under 7 days, allowing faster cell growth, reepithilizing the tissuein under 14days before the scar response can happen, and allowing the apendages to grow.
All healing being equally, we'd all obviously prefer a method that doesn't include excising the scar tissue and waiting for it to heal. But as of now only the hydrogel has shown complete regeneration in skin so that's why I'm excited by it and throwing my support its way.
I mean, I'm not going to wait 6-10 years for some method to come out that would save me some slight discomfort if in 2 years I could use the hydrogel and get scar free healing with my appendages back. As for the Duke research, the researches themselves say it's quite a ways off and I don't read anywhere in the article that it reprogramed all the mouse's fibroblasts in the heart to cardiomyocytes. Another thing that I think bears mentioning is that skin, unlike other organs, has appendages that set it apart (sweat glands, hair follicles). So I'd be curious to know if think this method would allow for the skin scar to be reprogrammed with the appendages.
Great finds though. Here's to hoping that one of these methods goes from the lab, to the clinic and into our doctor's office before too much longer. 
Here's an interesting article about a new spray-on skin, which doesn't use stem cells, but instead uses fibroblasts and keratinocytes. While it doesn't sound as promising as the hydrogel, it's still news.
http://theweek.com/article/index/231586/the-spray-on-skin-that-heals-wounds
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
The thing I'd want to point out to him is the latest precedent we have with regards to the time for approval, which looks like at the most 1.5 years. And if you were to ask him a question, ask him, in their current funded state, what he thinks of the new legislation with regards to even quicker approval (which looks much faster than the latest precedent of 1.5 years) with regards to devices, which Vlad brought up on a previous page. Is this a good thing a bad thing, or something in between?
Here are some news about Mark Ferguson, I guess that after Renovo's investors he is now prepared to destroy Science Foundation of Ireland:
http://www.broadshee.../mark-ferguson/
Understanding The Science Foundation Of Ireland Leak Crisis
Module 1:
1. Some people are upset Prof Mark Ferguson has been entrusted with distributing 150 million of taxpayers cash with such an interesting recent business past.
2. Academics are upset Prof Ferguson has changed the criteria for deciding who gets how much cash, if any at all.
3. All this comes after an annual report showed the number of links between researchers funding by SFI and private companies had risen by 19 per cent.
4. Some claim their usual grant for research was cut off- without explanation.
5. Many eminent people within the scientific community have suggesting Peter Higgs, of Higgs Boson, wouldnt have got a cent under todays SFI funding criteria.
6. And a lot of them made their feelings known online.
7. Now, Prof Ferguson/SFI has obtained a High Court order to force UPC to reveal the identity of people who posted comments, articles about him/SFI. (Its not known what comments or which articles).
8. Yes, Sherlocks involved.
Here you can see insider transactions in Renovo:
http://www.stockoped...ctors-dealings/
From this I can conclude that only four of them that were employees in Renovo (M. Ferguson, S.O'Kane, A.Key and R. Cridland) really knew it was a scam, so that scum has really succeeded to convince all other members of Renovo's management team and employees that they were really developing real anti-scarring drugs, many of them were even buying Renovo's stocks! Unbelievable!
Here you can see insider transactions in Renovo:
http://www.stockoped...ctors-dealings/
From this I can conclude that only four of them that were employees in Renovo (M. Ferguson, S.O'Kane, A.Key and R. Cridland) really knew it was a scam, so that scum has really succeeded to convince all other members of Renovo's management team and employees that they were really developing real anti-scarring drugs, many of them were even buying Renovo's stocks! Unbelievable!
Sychronized swimming? It is bizzare in how they all sell massively on the same day, on 2007-07-02.
Please keep us posted!
the reason that Gerecht cannot continue is because she is still waiting for the funding.
Dr Harmon has to choose another gel because of other reasons.....
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
Please keep us posted!
the reason that Gerecht cannot continue is because she is still waiting for the funding.
Dr Harmon has to choose another gel because of other reasons.....
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
Skinregenerator do you mind if I ask, have you contacted Gerecht and Harmon?
Also, are you are saying Harmons gel is not the dextran 8020???
If so, I have to admit I was a bit puzzled when Harmon said to chuckstonchew, "they are adding antibiotics and adhesive." The paper had nothing in it about adding antibiotics.
Now I know, it makes sense, I mean didn't the dextran hydrogel get 100% survival rate were as the dressing alone group got a 60% survival rate. Also, though I have no evidence to back this claim up, wouldn't adding antibiotics and adhesive make it harder for the mammal neutrophils to digest a hydrogel by giving something extra to digest?
adding those things may help wound heal faster, but it may also facilitate scar formation.
Please keep us posted!
the reason that Gerecht cannot continue is because she is still waiting for the funding.
Dr Harmon has to choose another gel because of other reasons.....
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
Skinregenerator do you mind if I ask, have you contacted Gerecht and Harmon?
Also, are you are saying Harmons gel is not the dextran 8020???
If so, I have to admit I was a bit puzzled when Harmon said to chuckstonchew, "they are adding antibiotics and adhesive." The paper had nothing in it about adding antibiotics.
Now I know, it makes sense, I mean didn't the dextran hydrogel get 100% survival rate were as the dressing alone group got a 60% survival rate. Also, though I have no evidence to back this claim up, wouldn't adding antibiotics and adhesive make it harder for the mammal neutrophils to digest a hydrogel by giving something extra to digest?
adding those things may help wound heal faster, but it may also facilitate scar formation.
Please keep us posted!
the reason that Gerecht cannot continue is because she is still waiting for the funding.
Dr Harmon has to choose another gel because of other reasons.....
@golfpanther, was just getting ready to post an update!
I've been in contact with him - he's been busy finishing the application process for the DOD to work on the gel - and he's now on a week vacation.
We've decided we will speak on the phone after labor day to brainstorm and discuss different things that could be done.
On that note, I need your guys help. We've got until labor day to come up with some good ideas to present to him.
Let's go!
Skinregenerator do you mind if I ask, have you contacted Gerecht and Harmon?
Also, are you are saying Harmons gel is not the dextran 8020???
If so, I have to admit I was a bit puzzled when Harmon said to chuckstonchew, "they are adding antibiotics and adhesive." The paper had nothing in it about adding antibiotics.
Now I know, it makes sense, I mean didn't the dextran hydrogel get 100% survival rate were as the dressing alone group got a 60% survival rate. Also, though I have no evidence to back this claim up, wouldn't adding antibiotics and adhesive make it harder for the mammal neutrophils to digest a hydrogel by giving something extra to digest?
I reckon giving the neutrophils something extra to digest (like adhesive, antibiotics), would mean a hydrogel would digest slower and it would reepithilize slower and therefore have a bigger chance of scarring. The key is rapid digestion of the hydrogel and the result of fast digestion = fast reepithilization and no scar.
I question why would anyone add to it?
Anyway I'm backing the gerecht dextran 8020 in the paper only.
.
Good to hear he's still in touch with you chuckstonchew.
As far as ideas go, I would first ask him what involvement he would want from us to help get the project funding. For example, does he want us to set up a site where people can donate directly or use another site (like a petridish).
After getting that sorted out I think the next thing would be to set up a Facebook and Twitter page that would allow us to get the word out easily to people. It would help tremendously if Dr. Harmon and Gerecht (at least) could contribute to the pages with information about the hydrogel and it's possible applications.
Better still would be producing a video where they talk about these things. It would put a face to the researchers and would make for a more personal connection between them and funders.
You could also make videos with people who would greatly benefit from the successful funding and application of the hydrogel. This is the one I'm most apprehensive about because while I do have faith that it would work in humans, it has not been tested yet. Still, appealing to the public's pathos is always the best way to get attention.
Collaborating with organizations that help victims of severe burns or injuries would also be a good idea. In the U.S. that would include the Veterans Administration and possibly Shriners (though since they themselves to research and have hospitals there might be a conflict of interest). These types of organizations would have access to contacts that could increase visibility through media outlets.
Since they're still trying to get funding from the DoD we could even try to convince them that this research is necessary. Not sure how far along they are in the funding process but if we could find a funding advocate in Congress that would push things in our favor.
Just some ideas. A lot of this depends on Dr. Harmon's answer to the first question - What does he see our involvement being? I have the resources and ability to produce the videos if that's a route we want to take and experience in creating social media campaigns.
As far as the possibility of developing a new hydrogel with antibiotics that is definitely something to discuss with him. I think tt would make it harder to get public support if he was testing something different than what produced results in the paper (dextran 8020).
If there are going to be videos (should this thing come to fruition) then my advice would be to keep them "real". What I mean by that is that if you e.g. start playing sad piano music over them whilst having a voice over that says "Sarah used to be a happy, active girl... But now she spends most of her time at home. Alone..." then you lose me; if your situation is unfortunate it should speak for itself.
If there is a good reason to donate then just present that to the people and subsequently leave it up to them to decide if they will do so...or not. Don't try to convince people as then you come across as a phony.
Lapis, I agree. I wouldn't make an overly manipulative video like you describe with sad piano music. The trick with these kinds of things (along with film and television) is to elicit emotions in your audience without it feeling contrived. Basically, you do try to convince your audience of something, be it a theme, message, idea but without them knowing you're doing it. Any good film, television show or promotion does this. For the most part, I would just want simple interviews with the researchers describing what they're doing, briefly how it works and who it could potentially help. Basically, follow the template that sites like kickstarter and petridish use for their videos but with better production.
However, I will say that more overt techniques do work for some people. I may not like it but I can concede that I don't represent everyone's taste. Basically, I'd start with the subtler videos that focus on the researchers, device and applications and modify if necessary. So, start by appealing to ethos and showing that this is legitimate research being done at the best medical research university in America with very promising results. That will make people feel safe that the money is being put to good use.
Then, if others need a little extra push or that tactic doesn't work for them (it's too "sciency", boring etc.) shift to something tasteful that gives a face to the unmet medical need. Let's face it, talking about a device that could potentially result in complete regeneration for 3rd degree burn victims would never be as attention grabbing as simply showing someone with burns. You're right, they wouldn't have to say a word. I think of the campaign against meth that ran a little while ago here in Los Angeles. Just billboards with a picture of a person but as you drove closer it shifted to what that person looks like after abusing meth. Or the TV adds where the person took off all their facial prosthetics they'd had to get because of it (similar to the current smoking one). I have no idea if it made a single meth addict stop using but it did get my attention. Obviously that exact technique wouldn't be used for this but the idea of just using simple images without words would I think.
Anyway, depending on what Harmon says about what he sees our involvement being I could work at making videos like this and help any other way I can.
Have you asked him whether the hydrogel will be able to effectively treat all kinds of scars like surgical scars, acne scars, injury scars etc - not only burns and foot uclers? And whether the surface of the skin will look as natural as normal, uninjured skin?
That is the key question! And if the answer is 'yes' then don't worry, it will be available on the market sooner or later.
Good to hear he's still in touch with you chuckstonchew.
As far as ideas go, I would first ask him what involvement he would want from us to help get the project funding. For example, does he want us to set up a site where people can donate directly or use another site (like a petridish).
After getting that sorted out I think the next thing would be to set up a Facebook and Twitter page that would allow us to get the word out easily to people. It would help tremendously if Dr. Harmon and Gerecht (at least) could contribute to the pages with information about the hydrogel and it's possible applications.
Better still would be producing a video where they talk about these things. It would put a face to the researchers and would make for a more personal connection between them and funders.
You could also make videos with people who would greatly benefit from the successful funding and application of the hydrogel. This is the one I'm most apprehensive about because while I do have faith that it would work in humans, it has not been tested yet. Still, appealing to the public's pathos is always the best way to get attention.
Collaborating with organizations that help victims of severe burns or injuries would also be a good idea. In the U.S. that would include the Veterans Administration and possibly Shriners (though since they themselves to research and have hospitals there might be a conflict of interest). These types of organizations would have access to contacts that could increase visibility through media outlets.
Since they're still trying to get funding from the DoD we could even try to convince them that this research is necessary. Not sure how far along they are in the funding process but if we could find a funding advocate in Congress that would push things in our favor.
Just some ideas. A lot of this depends on Dr. Harmon's answer to the first question - What does he see our involvement being? I have the resources and ability to produce the videos if that's a route we want to take and experience in creating social media campaigns.
As far as the possibility of developing a new hydrogel with antibiotics that is definitely something to discuss with him. I think tt would make it harder to get public support if he was testing something different than what produced results in the paper (dextran 8020).
If you looking for donations and charties then try to contact this guy:
http://money.cnn.com...92713/index.htm
http://en.wikipedia..../Michael_Milken
He was one of the major Wall Street financiers during 1980's, he is now engaged in cancer research, I'm just not sure if he would be interested in regenerative medicine research and burn victims? 
'Have you asked him whether the hydrogel will be able to effectively treat all kinds of scars like surgical scars, acne scars, injury scars etc - not only burns and foot uclers? And whether the surface of the skin will look as natural as normal, uninjured skin?
That is the key question! And if the answer is 'yes' then don't worry, it will be available on the market sooner or later.'
Yes - this is definately a key question! The mouse photos in the original study looks like a proper skin surface - but the key question in a human is will it generate the skin as it was before - with no diference to the surrounding skin - or obvious lines where the regenerated - and regular skin meet
As for how to help - the bottom line is ... of course ...money!
I think we need to know how much they themsleves need to progress and to do their next round of experiments - then - if they are happy to - I would suggest that a registered charity set up called something 'Supporters of Geraht Lab' ...or something like that....the account of which is held by the university
and then what might be great is we could set up a permanant link on the corner of websites such as this - and ones with other people people affected by skin issues - such as burns, scars etc - which would link to information on what the lab wants to do with a link to paypal or somewhere where you could donate - and after that we could try to find some way of generating publicity among people who are likely to be interested in the hydrogel being developed -
what we really need to know though is how much they need to raise to do the next stage of experiments - if it was something like $100 000 I think it could be raised online - but if it's nearer a million that's a diferent story...
I think it's great that the army may get involved - for as well as needing this technology they have a reputation trying to complete regeneration projects in a speedy way - they don't hang about - and have been trying to do things like grow muscle with the view of trying to get to treatments in 1-2years rather than the standard 'it should be along in 5-10 years' that most institutions talk about
and of course - the big thing going for this regneration treatment is - and I've already said this a lot of times - but I just like typing it !!- is that this is a device! If a lab tomorrow anounced that they had discovered a drug [or stem cells] that promoted complete skin regeneration - if all went at it's fastest then it might be approved for use in something like 10 years! That's why I love the promise that this hydrogel holds - am just a bit sad that it's progress seems to be held up for now by funding!
I think everyone is completely underestimating what could be raised online. Case and point, look at this link:
Ten MILLION dollars raised for developing a watch for iPhone. Granted, the appeal of something like this might be more widespread because it's exploiting a pervasive technology that a large percentage of the population uses and finds hip, cool etc. However, it does provide ample support (along with several other projects that have received funding in the millions) that with the right promotion and targeting amazing amounts of money can be raised. Plus, with something like the hydrogel, a person can feel good about themselves for supporting something that could help others.
The other side of me says that perhaps targeting the masses isn't the way to go. Perhaps it would be better to target big time investors who aren't doing this solely for altruistic reasons (if at all) but rather to make a profit. Despite the Internet's market saturation it's still stunning to me how little some investors know about what's out there so a campaign that targets them might be the way to go. One downside to this would be the money would come with strings attached for Gerecht's lab whereas donated money wouldn't require any negotiating with the other parties involved.
Of course, we could do both. Marketing to the masses could generate more media attention if it took off but targeting investors would have the potential of raising the money a lot faster.
Lapis, totally agree that we should find out their opinions on what the hydrogel could treat. But I kind of feel like that if it can regenerate healthy new skin that's indistinguishable from the skin around it after a 3rd degree burn and excision of all layers than it should be able to treat any type of injury. After all, if all the skin is cut out and removed you're basically starting from ground zero with a new wound bed (barring necrosis or some underlying skin condition).
My bigger worry with the hydrogel is mechanical stress as I've said before. Mice have skin that has extremely low levels of stress and don't heal with hypertrophic scars like we do. Pigs do which is what I'm sure they'd test it on next. If that works, then it would seem elementary it would work on humans (though you can never be 100% sure until it's tested on humans).
Anyway, glad to see so many passionate people about this. Hopefully Dr. Harmon lets us know what he wants and what he sees our involvement being soon.
I think everyone is completely underestimating what could be raised online. Case and point, look at this link:
http://www.kickstart...ref=most-funded
Ten MILLION dollars raised for developing a watch for iPhone. Granted, the appeal of something like this might be more widespread because it's exploiting a pervasive technology that a large percentage of the population uses and finds hip, cool etc. However, it does provide ample support (along with several other projects that have received funding in the millions) that with the right promotion and targeting amazing amounts of money can be raised. Plus, with something like the hydrogel, a person can feel good about themselves for supporting something that could help others.
The other side of me says that perhaps targeting the masses isn't the way to go. Perhaps it would be better to target big time investors who aren't doing this solely for altruistic reasons (if at all) but rather to make a profit. Despite the Internet's market saturation it's still stunning to me how little some investors know about what's out there so a campaign that targets them might be the way to go. One downside to this would be the money would come with strings attached for Gerecht's lab whereas donated money wouldn't require any negotiating with the other parties involved.
Of course, we could do both. Marketing to the masses could generate more media attention if it took off but targeting investors would have the potential of raising the money a lot faster.
Lapis, totally agree that we should find out their opinions on what the hydrogel could treat. But I kind of feel like that if it can regenerate healthy new skin that's indistinguishable from the skin around it after a 3rd degree burn and excision of all layers than it should be able to treat any type of injury. After all, if all the skin is cut out and removed you're basically starting from ground zero with a new wound bed (barring necrosis or some underlying skin condition).
My bigger worry with the hydrogel is mechanical stress as I've said before. Mice have skin that has extremely low levels of stress and don't heal with hypertrophic scars like we do. Pigs do which is what I'm sure they'd test it on next. If that works, then it would seem elementary it would work on humans (though you can never be 100% sure until it's tested on humans).
Anyway, glad to see so many passionate people about this. Hopefully Dr. Harmon lets us know what he wants and what he sees our involvement being soon.
I get where you are coming from. But I personally dont see any problem with mechanical stress. In fact I would state the tissue after digestion, needs to experience a similar stress as the tissue around it, to match that tissues performance (e.g. heart muscle).
Further reasoning: you'd only have a problem with mechanical stress if your wound is in scarring mode (>>scars stretch under less pressure than normal tissue), but this digests and reepithilizes before the scarring response and does not touch the scarring mode. This to me says mammal tissue would behave like any other tissue reacts under stresses. So to me using this logic framework I do not think mechanical stress is a problem.
'Have you asked him whether the hydrogel will be able to effectively treat all kinds of scars like surgical scars, acne scars, injury scars etc - not only burns and foot uclers? And whether the surface of the skin will look as natural as normal, uninjured skin?
That is the key question! And if the answer is 'yes' then don't worry, it will be available on the market sooner or later.'
Yes - this is definately a key question! The mouse photos in the original study looks like a proper skin surface - but the key question in a human is will it generate the skin as it was before - with no diference to the surrounding skin - or obvious lines where the regenerated - and regular skin meet
As for how to help - the bottom line is ... of course ...money!
I think we need to know how much they themsleves need to progress and to do their next round of experiments - then - if they are happy to - I would suggest that a registered charity set up called something 'Supporters of Geraht Lab' ...or something like that....the account of which is held by the university
and then what might be great is we could set up a permanant link on the corner of websites such as this - and ones with other people people affected by skin issues - such as burns, scars etc - which would link to information on what the lab wants to do with a link to paypal or somewhere where you could donate - and after that we could try to find some way of generating publicity among people who are likely to be interested in the hydrogel being developed -
what we really need to know though is how much they need to raise to do the next stage of experiments - if it was something like $100 000 I think it could be raised online - but if it's nearer a million that's a diferent story...
I think it's great that the army may get involved - for as well as needing this technology they have a reputation trying to complete regeneration projects in a speedy way - they don't hang about - and have been trying to do things like grow muscle with the view of trying to get to treatments in 1-2years rather than the standard 'it should be along in 5-10 years' that most institutions talk about
and of course - the big thing going for this regneration treatment is - and I've already said this a lot of times - but I just like typing it !!- is that this is a device! If a lab tomorrow anounced that they had discovered a drug [or stem cells] that promoted complete skin regeneration - if all went at it's fastest then it might be approved for use in something like 10 years! That's why I love the promise that this hydrogel holds - am just a bit sad that it's progress seems to be held up for now by funding!
Hydrogel is classified as medical device. Without drugs and stems, it could be approved quickly, but will take much longer time as more compoents are added.
The next step will be preclinical study, i.e., test on pigs(as pigs have similar skin structure to humans). If this is successful, it will move to clinical tests.
From preclinical to clinical tests, it may take up to 2million or above...
Yes - this is definately a key question! The mouse photos in the original study looks like a proper skin surface - but the key question in a human is will it generate the skin as it was before - with no diference to the surrounding skin - or obvious lines where the regenerated - and regular skin meet.
You're right, dextran hydrogel is able to regenerate open skin wounds that are not stitched so that means it is actually able to PRODUCE NEW ARTIFICIAL SKIN on the site of the injury! So Seabs will probably repeat again that this hydrogel can accelerate re-epithelialization to 2 weeks and regenerate hair follicles and sebaceous glands and make new vascular networks and the same skin thickness as normal skin and that the hydrogel will be degraded by white blood cells after some time and there were no scars on the site of the injury on mouse skin so that means it is scar free healing, it's all ok and very nice but although there were no scars I have serous doubts that the surface of the new skin will look as perfectly normal as the rest of the uninjured skin. So in that research paper there were no direct comparisons between the appearance of the surface of the newly created skin and the rest of the uninjured skin and on page 5 it is clearly visible that the density of hair on the site of the injured skin is lower than on the uninjured skin (although I cannot deny that results are much, much better compared to existing 'state-of-the art' treatment for burns with a totally shitty results that they normally use in their hospital/burn center), so I would definitively like to see more pictures besides that picture on page 5. And another important thing is they don't mention the regeneration of sweat glands in their research paper, why?
So I cannot deny that this is a very important discovery but on the other hand, although it is scar free healing, I hate to be negative but unfortunately I don't think it is the ultimate cure for scars - if the appearance of the surface of the regenerated skin is not quite optimal perhaps in combination with the application of a thin layer of sprayed skin over the regenerated skin by re-cell technology we can get optimal results that would be close to perfect. And I'm not worried about funding for this project (will it come from NIH or SBIR or venture capital firms) or about duration of preclinical and clinical trials and about FDA approval, I'm just worried about 2 things:
1) will it make surface of the skin looking perfectly normal as the rest of the uninjured skin?
2) will it work on human skin as it works on mouse skin? Look at this Chinese research paper:
http://cen.acs.org/a...eat-Tumors.html
So they are able to almost completely destroy cancerous tissue in mouse without any side effect on healthy tissues with photothermal therapy, it works perfectly on mice but will it work on humans and significantly reduce death from cancer in the future? I'm not sure.
Yes - this is definately a key question! The mouse photos in the original study looks like a proper skin surface - but the key question in a human is will it generate the skin as it was before - with no diference to the surrounding skin - or obvious lines where the regenerated - and regular skin meet.
You're right, dextran hydrogel is able to regenerate open skin wounds that are not stitched so that means it is actually able to PRODUCE NEW ARTIFICIAL SKIN on the site of the injury! So Seabs will probably repeat again that this hydrogel can accelerate re-epithelialization to 2 weeks and regenerate hair follicles and sebaceous glands and make new vascular networks and the same skin thickness as normal skin and that the hydrogel will be degraded by white blood cells after some time and there were no scars on the site of the injury on mouse skin so that means it is scar free healing, it's all ok and very nice but although there were no scars I have serous doubts that the surface of the new skin will look as perfectly normal as the rest of the uninjured skin. So in that research paper there were no direct comparisons between the appearance of the surface of the newly created skin and the rest of the uninjured skin and on page 5 it is clearly visible that the density of hair on the site of the injured skin is lower than on the uninjured skin (although I cannot deny that results are much, much better compared to existing 'state-of-the art' treatment for burns with a totally shitty results that they normally use in their hospital/burn center), so I would definitively like to see more pictures besides that picture on page 5. And another important thing is they don't mention the regeneration of sweat glands in their research paper, why?
So I cannot deny that this is a very important discovery but on the other hand, although it is scar free healing, I hate to be negative but unfortunately I don't think it is the ultimate cure for scars - if the appearance of the surface of the regenerated skin is not quite optimal perhaps in combination with the application of a thin layer of sprayed skin over the regenerated skin by re-cell technology we can get optimal results that would be close to perfect. And I'm not worried about funding for this project (will it come from NIH or SBIR or venture capital firms) or about duration of preclinical and clinical trials and about FDA approval, I'm just worried about 2 things:
1) will it make surface of the skin looking perfectly normal as the rest of the uninjured skin?
2) will it work on human skin as it works on mouse skin? Look at this Chinese research paper:
http://cen.acs.org/a...eat-Tumors.html
So they are able to almost completely destroy cancerous tissue in mouse without any side effect on healthy tissues with photothermal therapy, it works perfectly on mice but will it work on humans and significantly reduce death from cancer in the future? I'm not sure.
Vlad. I'm like a a broken record.
The only things that block off regeneration is 1. scar and 2. necrosis. Logically healing is a triangular relationship between scarring, necrosis and regeneration. And you want perfect regeneration (blood vessels, appendages)
Fibrosis happens with age, and fibrosis usually happens with injury.
Necrosis happens with infection in an injury or you get an injury and your body is compromised with a disease like diabetes.
Also there is no such concept as artificial tissue. Or any foreign tissue that lives within your regenerated tissue. If you put an artificial tissue in your soft tissues, your body would slowly fight to reject the artificial tissue, it wouldnt absorb, and youd either scar (filling the place of the artificial tissue with scar), or if you got an infection your tissue on your organ would die.
Also, at the same time, if your body has nothing inhibiting it you will get perfect regeneration (like what has happened in say your arm skin, which is the same skin as all other skin in your arm; in skin where you have no fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration), if not youd get fibrosis (a filler taking place of appendages to add a substitute structure and function etc.) or necrosis blocking off regeneration, were youd eventually die.
Now you say artificial tissue which to me is not a concept (as the artificial tissue would be rejected and youd scar, or die if it was necrotic, as Ive just highlighted). But Ill use how I think you defined artificial tissue, you suggested the skin is not perfectly normal.
'Not perfectly normal means either necrosis or scar is blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages from regenerating. You also described the tissue as living, that rules out necrosis. Your artificial tissue you have described is clearly fibrotic encapsulation blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages (your not perfect tissue is scar in other words).
So if you had artificial tissue as you are defining it above (not perfectly normal). Then imo you should change the term 'artificial tissue' or 'not perfectly normal' to scar or fibrotic tissue, or necrotic tissue as the tissue you have described clearly would have fibrotic encapsulation or necrosis blocking off regeneration of appendages.
However there is nothing highlighting scar or necrosis (artificial tissue) in the paper. There is nothing that highlights blocking off the regeneration of tissue and micro appendages.
Back on to the hydrogel, the hydrogel after digestion brought no scar, fact, and had no necrosis (100% survival) fact, the hydrogel it digested fast under 7days and reepithilized fast under 14days (under 21 days), before the scar response takes hold which is usually after 30days fact. After the hydrogel had digested, the tissue has not had scar blocking off appendages, The appendages regenerated fact. Therefor it has regenerated 100%. Appendages do not grow in scar. There was no artificial tissue (or fibrosis blocking off regeneration of tissue and appendages. If there was you'd get fibrosis blocking off the regfeneration of the micro appendages).
To answer your question will it regenerate tissue to normal? it regenerates appendages. There is no other conflicting reason it scars. Reason: regenerating appendages proves no necrosis and no scar, which means regeneration. Also btw with regards to your second question, about tumors which are fibrotic encapsulations. All scaffolds do is degrade (they get digested), the faster they degrade the faster the reepithilization.