The thing that concerns me the most is not really whether the hydrogel works or not; in either case, we'll probably see scar free healing in the not too distant future.

 

Check out these pictures though: http://www.nature.co...re11499_F1.html

 

They show scarless healing in african spiny mice (I think this was posted earlier.) So, yes, the hair follicles regenerate, and, histologically, everything seems great. But what about hair patterning? IMO, you can clearly see that the hair pattern is quite fucked up, with new hairs growing in a less than perfect direction.

 

What do you guys think? Something that can be prevented if only contraction is stopped as well (this will be needed anyway to avoid asymmetries)?

 

I think there's a risk that scarfree healing never will equal perfect regeneration, at least not withtout some artifical component that can direct regeneration. Don't forget that hair follicles are formed in the fetus, and the fetus doesn't really look like an adult, so I don't see how hair patterning can't be messed up when the adult regenerates. May not be such a big problem if your scars are on vellus or non-hair bearing skin, but there will probably still be some textural discrepancies that may or may not be visible even then.

 

Well I don't give a damn about hair patterning, the only thing that really concerns me about the hydrogel is whether regenerated skin textures will look the same as normal skin textures?

Well I don't give a damn about hair patterning, the only thing that really concerns me about the hydrogel is whether regenerated skin textures will look the same as normal skin textures?

 

If there was descrepencies then, there would be no appendages (appendages do not grow in scar tissue from second degree burns); and these descrepencies would either be because of fibrosis or necrosis. All tissues can only regenerate, scar or die. Scarring blocks of regeneration; and regeneration proves no scarring.

 

Well I don't give a damn about hair patterning, the only thing that really concerns me about the hydrogel is whether regenerated skin textures will look the same as normal skin textures?

 

 

If there was descrepencies then, there would be no appendages (appendages do not grow in scar tissue from second degree burns); and these descrepencies would either be because of fibrosis or necrosis. All tissues can only regenerate, scar or die. Scarring blocks of regeneration; and regeneration proves no scarring.

 

This ^^^

Scarminator, to my knowledge as well there's nothing in between regeneration and scarring. So the texture is going to be the texture of regular skin unless there is fibrosis and scar tissue. Which, as seabs said, since there were appendages that returned in a third degree burn, there could not have been scarring. I don't think there's anything else that could happen that would make the tissue that returns any different?

Regarding the hair, I'm thinking that picture was taking fairly soon after the injury so it's still returning to it's normal state and appearance. I'd say with a little more time that hair probably regained it's normalcy and blended in with the rest of the hair.

http://people.hofstr...ed Factor-1.pdf

 

Alginate impregnated with SDF1 "stromal cell derived factor 1" healed full thickness wounds in 9 days on mice and pigs- Scaring was vastly improved compared to control groups

 

This is why I am confused about the Hydrogel news. I know the Hydrogel works, but it's not just the Hydrogel that heals the wound it's the addtion of (VEGF165) VEGF human growth factor that was mixed into it. I am curious does the John Hopkins team intend to see if a non (VEGF165) version will work? I doubt it will

 

You need something to stimulate the microvascular endothelial cells. These cells initiate the angiogenic process and stimulate rapid blood vessel growth which in turn leads to remodeled tissue and newly formed vasculature.

 

I wish I still had the link to the Hydrogel PDF. It's kind of depressing that the hydrogel isn't moving faster into a final product.

 

I find it weird that the alginate SD1 wounds healed faster than the Hydrogel VEGF165 treated wounds, and yet the alginate heals with a slight scar and the hydrogel heals with no scar.

 

Please hurry up John Hopkins Research. A lot of us are dying for this to become a reality.

 

My X broke up with me over my scars ( I wound up adding some new ones- I slashed my wrist after she left me- She ment the world to me, but she couldn't look past my defects )

 

If I didn't have these stupid scars. I highly doubt she would have left me. Some people think this is about vanity. No! it's about being normal and comfortable in our own skin.

 

Hey I've just read that reseach paper and it is very interesting, now I have a few questions for all of you: correct me if I'm wrong, all wounds that were treated were full-thickness wounds (5 cm long or 2 inches) and they used alignate hydrogels as a delivery vehicle for SDF-1 protein and the result is on page 6, so the wound closure is significantly accelerated and the picture marked with 'H' seems to me like a complete skin regeneration (i.e. scar free healing) but I don't understand the picture marked with 'G' (control) - after 9 days I see no real scar, where is the scar? After how many days the formation of a scar begins?

The results are interesting, so are there any plans for further clinical trials and commercialization?

BTW wounds on african spiny mice heal in only 3 days:

http://www.empowernetwork.com/duncmd12/blog/scar-free-healing-mice-offer-clues-to-human-skin-repair/

The mice healed five out of six wounds in only three days, having œcompletely re-epithelialized. It took another 30 days for the hair to regrow, but it was the same original color.

This process of re-epithelialization, the replacement of lost skin cells with new ones, is the key. When a wound happens, skin cells called epidermal cells œcrawl over the wound, covering it and establishing interactions to promote healing.

 

 

Well I don't give a damn about hair patterning, the only thing that really concerns me about the hydrogel is whether regenerated skin textures will look the same as normal skin textures?

 

 

If there was descrepencies then, there would be no appendages (appendages do not grow in scar tissue from second degree burns); and these descrepencies would either be because of fibrosis or necrosis. All tissues can only regenerate, scar or die. Scarring blocks of regeneration; and regeneration proves no scarring.

 

 

 

This ^^^

Scarminator, to my knowledge as well there's nothing in between regeneration and scarring. So the texture is going to be the texture of regular skin unless there is fibrosis and scar tissue. Which, as seabs said, since there were appendages that returned in a third degree burn, there could not have been scarring. I don't think there's anything else that could happen that would make the tissue that returns any different?

 

Regarding the hair, I'm thinking that picture was taking fairly soon after the injury so it's still returning to it's normal state and appearance. I'd say with a little more time that hair probably regained it's normalcy and blended in with the rest of the hair.

 

Thanks for your replies guys.

About the texture: I believe facial skin texture is heavily dependent on the size and density of adnexal ostia. If you look closely at your skin, you'll see a vast number of keratinous plugs filling these openings, likely contributing to the skin's matte appearance. For example, there is a recent study on the effects of fractionated lasers on burn scars that concluded that while there was a more normal collagen type I/III-balance and the scar was less stiff post treatment, there wasn't any difference in scar appearance. The researchers hypothesized that this was because of the lack of adnexal structures.

Now, if follicles regenerate, the texture will probably appear more normal, but if the size and density of the new follicles aren't exactly the same as in the surrounding tissue, there might still be some textural differences. For instance, think about someone with an orange peel texture cutting out a chunk of skin and then applying the hydrogel - even if there wasn't any fibrosis (clinical scarring), I have a very hard time seeing that the exact same orange peel texture would reappear (with the same follicular density and size as before,) thus creating demarcation lines of where the skin was cut out.

Hair follicle orientation probably doesn't matter here but, since it was the only observable feature on the mouse pictures, that's but one indication that the regeneration of previous follicles isn't perfect; some signal substances controlling the morphogenesis of new hair follicles have likely changed (and why wouldn't they have - they are extremely site specific (cf the sharp lines of the eyebrows) and the adult shape isn't the same as the fetal, where the original follicles once were developed.) To me, it seems that complete regeneration of superficial tissues will always require complete regeneration of the whole body part, mimicking fetal development step-by-step.

Anyway, not trying to be a downer here. If your scars aren't on hair-bearing skin, the problem will probably be minimal (and so much better than having a scar). For those of us with scars on the scalp or eyebrows though, we'll probably have to wait for some kind of artifical solution. My two cents though, hopefully I'm dead wrong And perhaps you're right chuck, if the orientation issues aren't because of bad signaling (but contraction, for instance), maybe the hairs will realign over time.

Here are the textures of the regenerated skin in salamanders, I'm not sure if the textures are perfect or not because salamanders have those spots, freckles (or whatever they are called) that we humans do not have on our skin:

http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0032875.g002&representation=PNG_M

Some common sense background facts.

Your body actually scars as you age. As you age you get fibrosis blocking off regeneration. Guess what? This alters the texture of your skin as you age.

The 'only thing' that can affect the texture of your skin is something that blocks off regeneration (Note, the only thing that block off regeneration in living tissues is the 'scar,' nothing else can. If it tried it would be rejected by the body... ).

Ill go on about 'artificial' materials, just to put empasis on the fact that only scar can block regeneration, now if you were to try to block off regeneration with anything else, other than scar, guess what would happen? (Use your logic and common sense here.)

Your body would then slowly heal and either puss up and eject that foreign artificial material and guess what? Put scar in its place changing the texture. On the other hand, your body could also encapsulate the foreign artificial material and guess what again? Create a fibrotic encapsulation of the foreign material, changing the texture again.

So, to me, when anyone talks about 'discrepancies' or 'textures' all they are doing is using other words to describe scarring. To me if you are going to use the word texture, then be honest and use the word fibrosis alongside it.

Regarding a fetus. A fetus is a fetus, he is not a human yet, he is a fetus trying and aiming to get out of the birth canal, who may through a process of regeneration over many years, grow into a man called Nigel, Nigel may at a later stage try to get back into a birth canal when he has developed secondary sexual characteristics. Let remove the discussion distraction. BTW the fetus has absolutely nothing to do with observing a dog walking down the street, or observing water freezes at 0.

With regards to the 8020 hydrogel, if you look at the paper without looking through a distraction and a perceptual prism, and just look at the bare facts; there was complete regeneration (Perfect texture, no fibrosis blocking off regeneration, no cell death). yet in the control there was scar. The hydrogel was degraded in under 7days by the neutrophils that digested it instead of ejecting it. There were appendages grown (appendages, oil glands, sweat glands etc., do not grow beyond a 2^nd degree burn, they do not grow beyond anything that creates the fibrosis which in turn destroys the texture). This then allowed the body to regenerate a 3^rddegree burn with no scar.

hydrogel dreams...

the creator fuck on us...

we need made our own solution.

Not to argue, but I think you're missing my point..

The 'only thing' that can affect the texture of your skin is something that blocks off regeneration (Note, the only thing that block off regeneration in living tissues is the 'scar,' nothing else can. If it tried it would be rejected by the body... ).

This is simply not true. Take a look at your palm, then some other body part. The texture will be different. Why? Because of site specific characteristics, like adnexal density, epidermal/dermal thickness and makeup etc (and not only collagen density.)

Ill go on about 'artificial' materials, just to put empasis on the fact that only scar can block regeneration, now if you were to try to block off regeneration with anything else, other than scar, guess what would happen? (Use your logic and common sense here.)

Your body would then slowly heal and either puss up and eject that foreign artificial material and guess what? Put scar in its place changing the texture. On the other hand, your body could also encapsulate the foreign artificial material and guess what again? Create a fibrotic encapsulation of the foreign material, changing the texture again.

I think you misread what I meant about the need for an artifical component in regeneration. Obviously, stuffing non-degradable material in a wound won't make it heal better. What I meant was for some form of artifical intelligence to direct regeneration more precisely (nanobots were discussed previously, as an example.)

Regarding a fetus. A fetus is a fetus, he is not a human yet, he is a fetus trying and aiming to get out of the birth canal, who may through a process of regeneration over many years, grow into a man called Nigel, Nigel may at a later stage try to get back into a birth canal when he has developed secondary sexual characteristics. Let remove the discussion distraction. BTW the fetus has absolutely nothing to do with observing a dog walking down the street, or observing water freezes at 0.

Sorry, but the fetal form is absolutely NOT irrelevant. This is the stage where most site specific characteristics of the skin are determined. Change shape, and the positional identity of cells will change as well (and thus also the regenerated site specific characteristics.)

As a question, do you honestly believe that by cutting out your lips and applying the hydrogel (or something else that results in clincally scarless healing (i.e. no fibrosis)), you will regenerate lips with perfect texture and the very same, sharp lip line that was there before?

To go back to the spiny mouse, check out these pictures of a scarfree, regenerated ear punch hole and tell me that you can't see where the hole was made: http://www.nature.co...re11499_F4.html

There are OBVIOUS textural differences.

Here are the textures of the regenerated skin in salamanders, I'm not sure if the textures are perfect or not because salamanders have those spots, freckles (or whatever they are called) that we humans do not have on our skin:

 

http://www.plosone.o...sentation=PNG_M

 

Thanks for the pic. It is indeed very hard to tell. Salamanders don't have any skin appendages, so it's even harder to draw any conclusion as to how regeneration would work out in humans.

re: the African spiny mice

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v489/n7417/fig_tab/nature11499_F1.html

If you are looking at the photos you must read the description directly under too! as they are very telling -

picture A is the type of mouse being used

C - is immediately after skin removal

D is the mouse with scabs forming

and E is the same mouse some time after - as you can see - the skin in no longer visible because of of the new, thick and regrown hair - the hair regrowth may seem slightly different [although not that much] but from what I read skin regeneration actually continues as a process perfecting itself for months after an injuring - especially with the appendages such as nerves and sweat glands -- which continue to return towards what they originally [ for example I read that if you injury skin which turns out to have no visible scarring afterwards it can take 1-2 years for the nerves within to return to normal even if all the layers and epidermis have a standard appearance]

picture F is a different mouse! - and the photo is labeled as 'new hairs within the wound bed' - ie what you are looking at is what the scientists consider a wound site - and not what they consider as the regenerated skin like in photo E - note though that even though this is considered a wound bed that the skin there already looks pretty smooth and well remodeled - and and definitely has color - and it hasn't finished healing yet

What would have been interesting to us is if they had shaved the mouse in photo E and then we could have seen if the skin below the hair was of the same texture as non-injured skin [and if there was any join between the where the wound had been made and where it had not]

Having said all that - the ultimate test of what the hydrogel will do on human skin as regards looking like non-injured skin will be when someone gets round to experimenting with humans - all speculation involving what a certain mouse can do - or what hydrogel might/might not be able to do is just that - speculation! What the fetus does/a mouse does/or a salamander does to create new skin all have huge differences - and this is yet another approach that has not yet been extensively tested! We'll just have to wait for results!

Not to argue, but I think you're missing my point..

Ditto I'm just using a messageboard.

Anyway Im not getting into a debate with you for reasons like this 1. what you have said is "theory", the body using dextran hydrogel has "results". I would not debate anyone when I have facts, no one should. If anyone debated you here it would perceived that there is a debate when to me there is none. A debate misconception. E.g. If someone has proved water freezes ar 0 (<<<<a result), why debate about water freezing at zero, or go off subject? It is circular and only puts the reality, involving the facts, through a prism. This can only result in facts being shaded into the background imo. Which is bs. Theory will never trump facts.

The body using a dextran hydrogel proved complete regeneration and textures. The hydrogel degraded, the body did the rest. Here the body behaved like it always does when fibrosis is not hindering regeneration. However Ill will go through your reply, which for some reason you directly think I was writing specifically to you; when what I was doing was putting up facts

This is simply not true. Take a look at your palm, then some other body part. The texture will be different. Why? Because of site specific characteristics, like adnexal density, epidermal/dermal thickness and makeup etc (and not only collagen density.)

If it is not true insert an ingrown hair into your skin, stick a pencil into your skin. You will see the texture change going away from the default texture. You will see that the body will then fill in with some sort of scar encapsulation to fill the void. It really is simply that true that the 'only thing' that can affect the default texture of your skin is something that blocks off regeneration The only thing that blocks off regeneration is scar, your body has regenerated your none scarred biosystem since you come out of your mother. Your fibrosis through age has hindered that regeneration.

Regarding the palm of your hand (I dont know why you brought this up for? To me this doesn't say anything about the default texture of skin being only disrupted by scar). With regards to the palm of your hand though, the palm of your hand has a different default texture to other parts of your body because by default it is the palm of your hand. Your face has a different default texture to other parts of your body as that is your face. However the palm of your hand has a normal default texture template without scar (baby skin for the palm of the hand), and this default texture is ruined over time via fibrosis (aging or trauma)

I think you misread what I meant about the need for an artifical component in regeneration. Obviously, stuffing non-degradable material in a wound won't make it heal better. What I meant was for some form of artifical intelligence to direct regeneration more precisely (nanobots were discussed previously, as an example.)

But the body has proved, helped by the the hydrogel promoting regeneration, regeneration, it t regenerated the smallest appendages you can get, the sebaceous glands (BTW again logically the smallest things will be the first things to go when fibrosis hits the normal default texture of your skin. Yet here we have something that pushed the body to regenerate the smallest things and this was from a from a third degree burn) and completely regenerated. It proved it can regenerate, just like it regenerates when not hindered by fibrosis. The body has regenerated itself for thousands of years without artificial intervention. BTW the hydrogel did not regenerate the body. It just got digested easily. And the body regenerated itself back to its texture. If you look at the paper you will see it promoted the complete regeneration. There is no intelligence outside the body that can match what the body does when it regenerates. In the hydrogel paper, it is clearly understood that after the digestion of the material, the body regenerated back to its default texture. I dont want to sound insulting, but who created the detailed micro appendages here? Do you realise the amount of visual detail there is in the tissue with the regenerated appendages? And do you realise to remove an appendage that logically it would be a tiny bit of scar? And that the appendage would be the first thing to go if fibrosis disrupts default texture?

Sorry, but the fetal form is absolutely NOT irrelevant. This is the stage where most site specific characteristics of the skin are determined. Change shape, and the positional identity of cells will change as well (and thus also the regenerated site specific characteristics.)

 

As a question, do you honestly believe that by cutting out your lips and applying the hydrogel (or something else that results in clincally scarfree healing (i.e. no fibrosis)), you will regenerate lips with perfect texture and the very same, sharp lip line that was there before?

The facts are there, after the gel was degraded rapidly and the body 'competely regenerated' itself without scar, there was absolutely no scar, and to boot all the microscopic appendages were grown (proving no scar). Again the detail in the regenerated appendages is microscopic (think zooming into pixels), also the amount of scar needed to remove an appendage is very small. Logically deducing from this, unless you have eyes that are evolved into a microscope I do not think you will see thing that looks different to the default texture on tissue. If there was any textural fault the appendages would be gone first, like what happens in second degree burns.

 

Here are the textures of the regenerated skin in salamanders, I'm not sure if the textures are perfect or not because salamanders have those spots, freckles (or whatever they are called) that we humans do not have on our skin:

 

http://www.plosone.o...sentation=PNG_M

 

Thanks for the pic. It is indeed very hard to tell. Salamanders don't have any skin appendages, so it's even harder to draw any conclusion as to how regeneration would work out in humans.

 

Salamanders have skin appendages, here are quotes:

http://www.plosone.o...al.pone.0032875

Although the timing to regeneration varied among individuals, full thickness skin, including epidermal organs and underlying muscle, was completely regenerated by 80 days (Figure 1H and Figure 2). Maturation and development of glands and the stratum compactum continued over the next 100 days (Figure S2C).

The evolutionary process that has led to wound repair while efficient, is not functionally perfect. Epidermal appendages do not regenerate and the uninjured dermal architecture is replaced by dense parallel bundles of collagen that reduce the mechanical properties of normal skin. While the wound bed ECM during mammalian wound repair will eventually result in a fibrotic scar, we observed complete regeneration of not only dermal layers but of epithelial derived glands.

Remodeling and Regeneration

The evolutionary process that has led to wound repair while efficient, is not functionally perfect. Epidermal appendages do not regenerate and the uninjured dermal architecture is replaced by dense parallel bundles of collagen that reduce the mechanical properties of normal skin. While the wound bed ECM during mammalian wound repair will eventually result in a fibrotic scar, we observed complete regeneration of not only dermal layers but of epithelial derived glands. The regeneration of hair follicles has been observed in rabbit wounds and ear punches and in very large wounds made on young mice [73], [74], [75]. Other than these reports, the regeneration of epithelial-derived structures in adult vertebrates has not been observed. Although hair follicle and gland development is well understood in mammals, it is poorly understood at the molecular level in amphibians. Ongoing experiments in our laboratory examining the molecular control of gland development are underway and it will be interesting to determine how regeneration of these structures is controlled following scar-free healing [76]. Specifically, it will be of interest to determine the location of inductive signals that lead to the specification of new glands and whether these signals are localized or ubiquitous during the regenerative process.

@Vladislav, thanks for the correction. They still don't have hair follicles though, only secretory glands. Not sure how much those contribute to texture.

@Seabs, my point is that I have a hard time seeing how the body can retain exact information about the "default texture template" of a certain area of the skin after it has changed shape by growing up from fetus to adult. Complete regeneration only means that there was no fibrosis. Btw, you never explained the obviousness of the ear punch hole in the spiny mouse, despite having regenerated without scarring

@mars, I agree, the only way we'll know for sure is by testing it. Will no doubt be interesting, and I do hope more than anyone that I'm wrong (even though I have a hard time seeing that I am)

Complete regeneration only means that there was no fibrosis.

Complete regeneration means complete regeneration. Regenerated means that what once was lost has now returned.

@Seabs, my point is that I have a hard time seeing how the body can retain exact information about the "default texture template" of a certain area of the skin after it has changed shape by growing up from fetus to adult. Complete regeneration only means that there was no fibrosis. Btw, you never explained the obviousness of the ear punch hole in the spiny mouse, despite having regenerated without scarring

 

If you look at the paper the body regenerated to its full default texture template. Basically because of the facts, that is all I have to say to your answer here, that is another thing the hydrogel proved 100%, I dont have to say anything more; it proved the body did the 'complete regenerating', after digesting the hydrogel easily. It proved the body regenerated by itself like it always does, fact. Who made the appendages? The body and genes (instructions), not hindered by fibrosis, made the appendages.

However your instruction loss theory has a major flaw. I'll go to the 'palms of your hands now', again. Anyway via a process involving the turnover of cells (cell death and regeneration: in turnover these cells die, over time when they die they either regenerate from the genome, or fill up with fibrosis, the fibrosis destroying the texture by filling spaces were regeneration could happen etc.), weve yet to see the palm of your hand grow a horn appendage after the cells read the information. Why is ths? Surely what would happen when cells die after trauma would happen when cells die after cell death from cell turnover??? I mean the hand palm tissue with the instructions on them actually die too, just like happens in trauma, so why do the instructions not die with them here when they die, like you assume happens in trauma? Surely going on your belief here, with regards to instructions being lost, the same thing would happen when cells turnover and die? This to me is debunks what you are thinking. And the reason this debunks what you are saying is because all regenerating tissue regenerates from an intrinsic genome (instructions) passed on, the instructions are never lost.

i just read a bit about hydrogel, and i'm kind of confused as to how this would help with existing scars. it seems to work for wound healing, but what do we do about our 5 year old pits and craters?

forgive me if this is answered somewhere earlier. i just haven't gotten through all 180 pages in the thread yet

lol, seem to have gathered an angry mob following..

 

Complete regeneration only means that there was no fibrosis.

 

Complete regeneration means complete regeneration. Regenerated means that what once was lost has now returned.

 

Talking about skin, scarless healing (the absence of fibrosis) is regarded as regeneration. It does not mean that the regenerated tissue will look exactly like that which was there before.

 

@Seabs, my point is that I have a hard time seeing how the body can retain exact information about the "default texture template" of a certain area of the skin after it has changed shape by growing up from fetus to adult. Complete regeneration only means that there was no fibrosis. Btw, you never explained the obviousness of the ear punch hole in the spiny mouse, despite having regenerated without scarring

 

 

If you look at the paper the body regenerated to its full default texture template. Basically because of the facts, that is all I have to say to your answer here, that is another thing the hydrogel proved 100%, I dont have to say anything more; it proved the body did the 'complete regenerating', after digesting the hydrogel easily. It proved the body regenerated by itself like it always does, fact. Who made the appendages? The body and genes (instructions), not hindered by fibrosis, made the appendages.

However your instruction loss theory has a major flaw. I'll go to the 'palms of your hands now', again. Anyway via a process involving the turnover of cells (cell death and regeneration: in turnover these cells die, over time when they die they either regenerate from the genome, or fill up with fibrosis, the fibrosis destroying the texture by filling spaces were regeneration could happen etc.), weve yet to see the palm of your hand grow a horn appendage after the cells read the information. Why is ths? Surely what would happen when cells die after trauma would happen when cells die after cell death from cell turnover??? I mean the hand palm tissue with the instructions on them actually die too, just like happens in trauma, so why do the instructions not die with them here when they die, like you assume happens in trauma? Surely going on your belief here, with regards to instructions being lost, the same thing would happen when cells turnover and die? This to me is debunks what you are thinking. And the reason this debunks what you are saying is because all regenerating tissue regenerates from an intrinsic genome (instructions) passed on, the instructions are never lost.

 

The instructions won't die because of senescence, because the tissue will still be composed of cells from the same cell line. In either case, your reasoning does not disprove my point that appendages are formed in the fetus and that the positional identity of cells may change in adulthood. The expression profile of adult skin cells is irrelevant, it is not the one that forms new appendages. It may influence the differentiation of blastema cells though upon wounding, but that's just my point: the expression profile changes with age, so how does the blastema know how to recreate tissue in the adult that was once formed in the fetus.

edit: to clarify, cell division is not the same as regeneration. Regeneration involves the dedifferentiation of cells that are then used to recreate the lost tissue through a morphogenetic pattern similar to fetal development.

i just read a bit about hydrogel, and i'm kind of confused as to how this would help with existing scars. it seems to work for wound healing, but what do we do about our 5 year old pits and craters?

 

forgive me if this is answered somewhere earlier. i just haven't gotten through all 180 pages in the thread yet

 

The idea would be that you can cut out or dermabrade away your existing scars and let the hydrogel heal up new skin.

Talking about skin, scarless healing (the absence of fibrosis) is regarded as regeneration. It does not mean that the regenerated tissue will look exactly like that which was there before.

But it does. If skin is not regenerated, fibrosis will replace the void. Skin dies, skin regenerates all the time, and looks exactly like it did 3weeks ago. Infact if you were to live 75 years, and say your tissues shed ever three weeks in your life time, you'd have regenerated yourself 1300 times in your life, obviously as you got older this turnover would be hampered by fibrosis filling in.. Now, with your belief were regeneration misses instructions after cell death (which is what you have stated, more or less) there would be no life, there would be no replication, no evolution, nothing.

The instructions won't die because of senescence, because the tissue will still be composed of cells from the same cell line. In either case, your reasoning does not disprove my point that appendages are formed in the fetus ...

I haven't even mentioned the fetus. And I have no obligation or time to disprove a 'belief.'

lol, seem to have gathered an angry mob following..

No, you didn't gather one of those. I'm a very reasonable person. Can you say the same?

Talking about skin, scarless healing (the absence of fibrosis) is regarded as regeneration. It does not mean that the regenerated tissue will look exactly like that which was there before.

What I meant was that when scientists say that they achieved complete regeneration, I am assuming that they mean this: wounds have healed without scarring which has enabled the body to regenerate itself which means that there is no sign of a previous injury after it has regenerated. So I am assuming that the regenerated skin also doesn't show any signs of there having been a previous injury because the regenerated skin all of a sudden looks dramatically different. The body knows what needs to be regenerated so it regenerates that and when it does so, it doesn't all of a sudden start regenerating tissue which looks dramatically diffferent. Or different in the first place.

That's what I think. You think something else but if you didn't think this hydrogel had any promise you wouldn't be posting here. I find it hard to believe that you are posting here because you want to change people's minds in order to prevent them from being disillusioned as you are concerned for their well-being.

You are interested in seeing how this hydrogel is going to end up working (or not) and so are a lot of other people. So let's just wait and see.

i just read a bit about hydrogel, and i'm kind of confused as to how this would help with existing scars. it seems to work for wound healing, but what do we do about our 5 year old pits and craters?

 

forgive me if this is answered somewhere earlier. i just haven't gotten through all 180 pages in the thread yet

 

Creating a new wound.

Since the hydrogel promoted complete regeneration after a full thickness excision, it can be concluded that it can promote regeneration after any type of wound (since there's nothing worse than a full thickness loss of tissue). So any type of scar or skin defect would hypothetically be able to be excised, which would create a new wound (which would be no different than any other wound once the damaged/scarred tissue was removed), and then the hydrogel would enable the body to regenerate the skin in that area.

 

Talking about skin, scarless healing (the absence of fibrosis) is regarded as regeneration. It does not mean that the regenerated tissue will look exactly like that which was there before.

 

But it does. If skin is not regenerated, fibrosis will replace the void. Skin dies, skin regenerates all the time, and looks exactly like it did 3weeks ago. Infact if you were to live 75 years, and say your tissues shed ever three weeks in your life time, you'd have regenerated yourself 1300 times in your life, obviously as you got older this turnover would be hampered by fibrosis filling in.. Now, with your belief were regeneration misses instructions after cell death (which is what you have stated, more or less) there would be no life, there would be no replication, no evolution, nothing.

Wow, so much misinformation. Regeneration is absolutely not the same as cell division, and turnover is not hampered by fibrosis (where do you get all this nonsense?)..

The instructions won't die because of senescence, because the tissue will still be composed of cells from the same cell line. In either case, your reasoning does not disprove my point that appendages are formed in the fetus ...

 

I haven't even mentioned the fetus. And I have no obligation or time to disprove a 'belief.'

 

Where did I say that you said something about fetuses?? I seriously don't care if you can or can't disprove anything, since you lack a basic understanding of biology.

 

lol, seem to have gathered an angry mob following..

 

No, you didn't gather one of those. I'm a very reasonable person. Can you say the same?

Whoa, well what can I say. When someone starts disputing definitions they aren't exactly being helpful, only acting antagonistically.

Talking about skin, scarless healing (the absence of fibrosis) is regarded as regeneration. It does not mean that the regenerated tissue will look exactly like that which was there before.

 

What I meant was that when scientists say that they achieved complete regeneration, I am assuming that they mean this: wounds have healed without scarring which has enabled the body to regenerate itself which means that there is no sign of a previous injury after it has regenerated. So I am assuming that the regenerated skin also doesn't show any signs of there having been a previous injury because the regenerated skin all of a sudden looks dramatically different. The body knows what needs to be regenerated so it regenerates that and when it does so, it doesn't all of a sudden start regenerating tissue which looks dramatically diffferent. Or different in the first place.

 

That's what I think. You think something else but if you didn't think this hydrogel had any promise you wouldn't be posting here. I find it hard to believe that you are posting here because you want to change people's minds in order to prevent them from being disillusioned as you are concerned for their well-being.

 

You are interested in seeing how this hydrogel is going to end up working (or not) and so are a lot of other people. So let's just wait and see.

 

I don't think anything, that is how the term 'regeneration' is used in practice, and that's how it was used in sun's paper on the hydrogel.

And you're right, I'm here because I'm interested in what the hydrogel can do. I was here because I thought I could discuss the outlooks of whether it would work or not with you guys and what the future may hold, but I see now that doing that is like stabbing someone's puppy. Some of you have simply put too much faith in this and lost all reason. Whatever I say, someone will only try to blatantly disprove my argument using whatever invalid logic it takes. Constructive discussions cannot be found here anymore.

[5] regenerative medicine as a field is exploding is getting massive results already - just a quick google search of 'scientists regrow' will yield a list of things grown in the lab - and implanted in humans - I'm sure we've all read about the regrown windpipe - and spray-on skin to name just two - and with every major university in the world opening a regenerative medicine department there is only more to come!

 

Our problem - ie scarring - may be wrong - but this is the right time to have it!!

 

The days of the scar are numbered!

 

You're totally right about it, just imagine that now is the year 1982 and we're talking about regenerative medicine and scarless healing

Wow, so much misinformation. Regeneration is absolutely not the same as cell division, and turnover is not hampered by fibrosis (where do you get all this nonsense?)..

It is blatent common sense. The only thing that can stop regeneration is fibrosis, as you age your skin accumulates fibrosis. Again try to block regeneration with anything else and guess what? Your body will try to either eject the material then scar, or it will encapsulate the material with scar. And logically if your body did not regenerate, there will be a redundant void and the body will fill up with fibrosis.

What is regeneration, it is replication and infiltration of cells to begin a new life cycle (it is not convoluted). Again if you live to 75 you will have shed 1300 times. Your cells would regenerate, they would not miss instructions, that would be a major evolutionary handicap. So much misinformation? I have never once put anything through a prism. Also my discussions on this board are narrow, and in the main they are cited. 'They are not an opinion.' I cut and paste. I'm a messenger on a messageboard, like anyone else. You are the one who has brought up beliefs here and tried to get a pointless debate to challenge 'beliefs', or authority. I have never once twisted something. Your the one giving out beliefs that have no established facts or that go away from facts, with an air of authority. Why do you need authority?

Whoa, well what can I say. When someone starts disputing definitions they aren't exactly being helpful, only acting antagonistically.

I wasn't acting antagonistically. You shouldn't make your mind up about people as fast as you are (seemingly) doing.

I don't think anything, that is how the term 'regeneration' is used in practice, and that's how it was used in sun's paper on the hydrogel.

 

And you're right, I'm here because I'm interested in what the hydrogel can do. I was here because I thought I could discuss the outlooks of whether it would work or not with you guys and what the future may hold, but I see now that doing that is like stabbing someone's puppy. Some of you have simply put too much faith in this and lost all reason. Whatever I say, someone will only try to blatantly disprove my argument using whatever invalid logic it takes. Constructive discussions cannot be found here anymore.

 

How many times have you discussed this with me? I only said one thing in response to one of your posts... It isn't like everyone who follows this thread is part of some clique and you therefore can say that the same is to be expected from everyone you speak to here. So I'd appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of all sorts of things.

I'm no expert on the matter. I just try not to overanalyze anything and go with reason; if they said something was regenerated, well...then I'm assuming they meant that it was regenerated .Which is what I've always thought all these people were working on; to regenerate skin which in my mind still means that instead of a scar you get your skin back.

But maybe I'm wrong. I guess time will tell.

Lapis, since you're a reasonable guy, how do you think you're coming across when you cut out one sentence that really didn't have much to do with the main point of my argument (and even less so taken out of context), and starts arguing about the definition of a word that I used? I tried to make a rational argument to start a constructive discussion and hopefully bring all the speculation closer to reality. Instead, seabs slams his twisted, ungrounded "facts" about biology in my face that no one should dare question. It's actually quite annoying, and bickering about definitions doesn't really help in making the discussion more constructive

By the way, I have followed this thread for a quite long time, much longer than I've had this account. By no means do I regard anyone here as part of a 'clique', and I do appreciate what you have contributed with in the past.