Acne.org Products
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.
The reality with anything is always the facts; the hydrogel promoted the complete regeneration of tissue from a 3rd degree burn.
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.
Well that's the internet for you; you misinterpreted me. But that's fine. I misinterpret people on the internet sometimes too. But what I meant was that the statement you made was in my opinion not correct. I just disagreed. I didn't start nitpicking about a word. I basically stated what I said earlier namely that when something is regenerated...then it's regenerated. Like if a salamander regenerates a limb then that limb is the same as the previous one. That kind of regeneration is what people have been working towards and that's what they say this hydrogel has achieved, if I have understood correctly. Not entire limbs but solely skin at this point however.
But the statement you made was the statement you made. And it seemed to me to be part of your whole argument. And I just figured if that's what you thought then you were wrong...in my opinion. But I haven't been following all the recent conversations in this thread. I basically just keep an eye on it to see if there's any new news being posted. But I came across your post and just thought I'd post my opinion as I thought you had seen it wrong. That's all.
I also think a lot of the people who follow this thread are suffering greatly due to them having scarring which I can understand. So they may be a bit passionate about this thing. But I've always felt that most people here post very respectfully. It's not like some places where there's bashing and trolling and fighting and whatnot.
i see. so what's the verdict on this gel? is this something i can pin my hopes and dreams on to come out within a few years?
i think heartbreak from a failed scar treatment would affect me worse than a normal breakup would at this point
It has promise but it might end up failing and/or never come to fruition. If it does come to fruition there's a chance it will come around relatively fast. But like I said, it might not ever come around so the best thing to do is to not pin your hopes and dreams on this thing.
I guess it depends on the severity of your scarring to a degree but "having a life" is far from impossible when you have scarring.
wowowowowow the time its go
the years go by, we age, our lives are going to hell, we find no solution to the problem of skin fucking ... best to avoid further suffering is fuck up dying of an illness or accident ... leaving behind people who want ...
Hey Maldition this is something that could raise your spirit:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120514204050.htm
So that research paper shows that life extension with biotechnology (gene therapy) is something that is FEASIBLE!!! It is no longer a dream, a myth or a fantasy or a religion, a single treatment has extended the life of mice by 24% and the best part of the story is that there were no side effects.
Here is another interesting article:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2010/11/partial-reversal-of-aging-achieved-in-mice/
And it is important to remember that biotechnology is an information technology, so the progress in the future will be exponential rather than linear.
So there are estimates that in about 20 years from now we will have a cure for aging or at least life extension treatments, by that time we will have advanced gene therapies, nanobots and other things, I'm sure you don't want to miss it and there are many web sites dedicated to that idea:
i see. so what's the verdict on this gel? is this something i can pin my hopes and dreams on to come out within a few years?
i think heartbreak from a failed scar treatment would affect me worse than a normal breakup would at this point
It is extremely promising. Consider this,
The control scarred like it always scarred in mammals, the hydrogel completely regenerated the tissues to 100%, appendages and 'everything' was grown.
Consider the facts that all scaffolds do is degrade; all they do is degrade and the body does the rest. The was almost digested after 7 days unlike the control.
Considering all the above it would be very, very suprising if this did not work alike. The problem is, 'funding.'
wowowowowow the time its go
the years go by, we age, our lives are going to hell, we find no solution to the problem of skin fucking ... best to avoid further suffering is fuck up dying of an illness or accident ... leaving behind people who want ...
Hey Maldition this is something that could raise your spirit:
http://www.scienceda...20514204050.htm
So that research paper shows that life extension with biotechnology (gene therapy) is something that is FEASIBLE!!! It is no longer a dream, a myth or a fantasy or a religion, a single treatment has extended the life of mice by 24% and the best part of the story is that there were no side effects.
Here is another interesting article:
http://news.harvard....hieved-in-mice/
And it is important to remember that biotechnology is an information technology, so the progress in the future will be exponential rather than linear.
So there are estimates that in about 20 years from now we will have a cure for aging or at least life extension treatments, by that time we will have advanced gene therapies, nanobots and other things, I'm sure you don't want to miss it and there are many web sites dedicated to that idea:
http://www.manhattanbeachproject.com/
To me the problem with a lot of these future links, is 'future sounding' theories. Though there is a lot of documented based evidence you have pointed to, a lot of it is still future based theories. Future sounding theories, are unreliable. Can you really predict anything in the future? (there is a link below you can see just how many in history have theorised and made a statement about the future and nothing come of it, though I note these people did not have social media). And in anyway in order to push all of this, all this can only come about with documented based foundations first, then come the inroads from the facts steering the path you need. Then on top of this you would have ignorance to this. So when you say all this regenerating of spleens could be 5 or 10 years away you haven't even added in ignorance.
It has promise but it might end up failing and/or never come to fruition. If it does come to fruition there's a chance it will come around relatively fast. But like I said, it might not ever come around so the best thing to do is to not pin your hopes and dreams on this thing.
I guess it depends on the severity of your scarring to a degree but "having a life" is far from impossible when you have scarring.
of course. this is the default answer for any treatment. it just seemed like this hydrogel was an extraordinary discovery compared to the current scar treatments we have now... well, here's to hoping anyway :/
It is extremely promising. Consider this,
The control scarred like it always scarred in mammals, the hydrogel completely regenerated the tissues to 100%, appendages and 'everything' was grown.
Consider the facts that all scaffolds do is degrade; all they do is degrade and the body does the rest. The was almost digested after 7 days unlike the control.
Considering all the above it would be very, very suprising if this did not work alike. The problem is, 'funding.'
so how likely is it that we'll get funding for this? you would think that companies would jump on something like this if it provides a real solution to millions of people.
so how likely is it that we'll get funding for this? you would think that companies would jump on something like this if it provides a real solution to millions of people.
That's exactly what we've all been saying for the past year. It's disheartening and truly absurd that such little progress has been made and no one has 'jumped on this' like you've said. Makes no sense at all. But all we can figure is that (unfortunately) in our country it's 'politics as usual' and there's a lot more that goes behind funding, development and approval then meets the eye. It's a much slower, complex process than necessary (especially since the hydrogel is so simple and so promising) but it seems that's just the way the process works.
Still, although it's taken time, I'm confident funding will come sooner or later. I don't know how far you've read back on this forum but I've been in contact with one of the researchers from JHU involved in the project and am in discussion with him regarding matters of fundings. Right now, they are waiting for a response from the US Army about potential funds. They expected to hear back from them by November but as of about November 10th or so, they still had not.
If the army doesn't give them funding, they've expressed interest in attempting to gain funds in other ways and are also potentially interested in our groups help in doing so. We've discussed methods such as crowd funding and social networking as a means of gaining said funds. I think we could be very successful.
If I don't hear back from them in the next week or two, I'm going to contact them. So expect an update soon.
All of this said, by the end of the year we should know something.
of course. this is the default answer for any treatment. it just seemed like this hydrogel was an extraordinary discovery compared to the current scar treatments we have now... well, here's to hoping anyway :/
It is an extraordinary discovery compared to the current scar treatments we have now. But as far as it finding its way to the clinic (i.e. it coming to fruition) is concerned it's seemingly like any other treatment, strangely.
thanks @vladislav - it' true! if it was 1982 we'd definitely be stuck with scars for life - at least this generation has a good chance for change!
RE: the texture/color debate - I can't remember who on here is in touch with someone from the team from John Hopkins - but couldn't they ask them about the color and texture in the regenerated mouse skin -after all, they would have seen it first hand!
Other thoughts are: maybe the person has discussed it with them already? And - wouldn't the scientists at JH have said that this wont help us if the color/texture was different - this is their area of expertise, so wouldn't they have thought of that when someone from on here first approached them?
Anyway, am still waiting on hearing about JH's next funding move - and if army would help - just hope it will be soon - I have faith from what they've said that they want to and will take it to the next level - it's just a matter of when!
RE: the texture/color debate - I can't remember who on here is in touch with someone from the team from John Hopkins - but couldn't they ask them about the color and texture in the regenerated mouse skin -after all, they would have seen it first hand!
Other thoughts are: maybe the person has discussed it with them already? And - wouldn't the scientists at JH have said that this wont help us if the color/texture was different - this is their area of expertise, so wouldn't they have thought of that when someone from on here first approached them?
That would be me. I was in discussion with Dr. Sun at the beginning of this year. I actually did ask him about this. His response was (arguably) ambiguous. I posted it earlier on this forum. He said something along the lines of 'all we can say definitively is that the appendages regenerated'. He didn't say anything else about texture, color or anything, just that the area completely regenerated with appendages. Again though, to me 'completely regenerated with appendages' means complete regeneration of skin (including the previous color and texture) - That's 'regeneration' to me. I know for some of you 'complete regeneration' isn't enough.
Since Dr. Sun left JHU a few months ago, I've been in contact with Dr. Harmon. I haven't asked him anything like this because I've been focusing more on the funding issue. When this issue has been resolved (via army funding or anything else) or if/when he determines he needs our help with funding, then I'll discuss the hydrogel and its potential use more in depth with him.
Seabs and Scarminator please write us what do you think about this research paper:
http://people.hofstr...ed Factor-1.pdf
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:
And this is an interesting quote:
We hypothesized that chronic SDF-1 delivery would be more effective in accelerating the rate of dermal wound closure in Yorkshire pigs with acute surgical wounds, a model that closely mimics human wound healing. Wounds treated with SDF-1 protein (n = 10) and plasmid (n = 6) loaded patches healed faster than sham (n = 4) or control (n = 4). At day 9, SDF-1-treated wounds significantly accelerated wound closure (55.0 ± 14.3% healed) compared to nontreated controls (8.2 ± 6.0%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, 38% of SDF-1-treated wounds were fully healed at day 9 (vs. none in controls) with very little evidence of scarring. These data suggest that patch-mediated SDF-1 delivery may ultimately provide a novel therapy for accelerating healing and reducing scarring in clinical wounds.
So the wound closure is significantly accelerated, 38% of wounds treated with alignate hydrogels and SDF-1 were healed after only 9 days and the picture marked with 'H' seems to me like a complete skin regeneration (i.e. scar free healing) with perfect textures!?? Is it reasonable to expect that the dextran hydrogel will be even more effective than this alignate hydrogel/SDF-1? But another thing I don't understand is 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 actually begins?
And another thing I want to ask you: does the size of a wound affects the time length of a reepithelization of the wound? I guess that on the larger (et wider) wounds reepithelization lasts longer than on the smaller (et narrower) wounds, so am I right or not? Reepithelization of the wounds in salamanders (4mm in diameter) lasts only 1 to 3 days.
All in all this looks to me like something that is much more effective than Juvista or CTGF inhibitor (аlthough it cannot be considered as a cure for scars because it is effective in only 38% of cases), and things I like about this research paper is that I don't see any textural discrepancies (although those wounds are very narrow surgical wounds) and that it works both on mice and pigs! 
So on the basis of all this is it reasonable to assume that the dextran hydrogel will have the same results in terms of textures and even better results in terms of a percentage of effectiveness?
thanks @vladislav - it' true! if it was 1982 we'd definitely be stuck with scars for life - at least this generation has a good chance for change!
Yes, those were the Dark Ages for people with scars and the Renaissance have just begun, at least I hope so.
Vlad, I honestly have not looked at this. IMO, before I answer, this is nothing against you. or anyone else you but should always deduce from your own reality or ask the board as a whole. Though I will have my say like anyone else. The board should have no gurus. No hierarchies, it is much better that way. And I know for certainty you like anyone else can make judgements on facts... Just cement facts, cut and paste.
After how many days the formation of a scar actually begins?
Just think about this. Scarring or fibrosis can only happen, when there is a void that happens through either injury or cell death/regeneration cycle in aging. And if a wound has reepithilized, and all the cells are created and connected after reepithilization, this blocks off fibrosis, and there can be no fibrosis (there is no need), until the next cell death cycle or trauma. It has been highlighted over many years that once there is a break in regeneration that scarring takes months to form, and that the laying down of collagen is circular (as seen in keloids and lesser hypertrophy after trauma). So you can only deduce if there is any delay in cell creation and reepithilization then scarring will always instinctively happen. When does that begin? I'd say it is obvious, as soon as there is hesitation in creating new cells.
Is it reasonable to expect the hydrgel to match that sdf link you put up? you asked. I dont know too much about this link. I havent thoroughly read it. Are they even the same model? They dont look like it. The hydrogel works on the premise of rapid digestion, no discrimination, were when digestion happens cells are immediately created. But this one looks like it protects a protein from digestion and is certainly designed to preference a protein.
The only thing I can say is the 8020 is compared to the 8020, the neutrophils digest the 8020 hydrogel rapidly, cells are created as the body regenerates after digestion. I think it extremely reasonable to expect the hydrogel to behave like that in all tissues after digestion.
Does the size of a wound affects the time length of a reepithelization of the wound? you asked. Again using the hydrogel, which works on the premise of rapid digestion/cell creation which then brings re-epithilization (btw if you look at the paper the wound reepithilized from the middle and sides, not just from the sides of the wounds, this to me shows no style of wound matters, narrow or not), because of this I wouldnt frame that question this way. This is how Id frame your question. Does the size of a wound affect the digestion of the material? And my answer to this is from the paper where the wound regenerated after digestion, from the middle and sides, Id say no, unless your immune system is compromised. Your body on any wound releases whiteblood cells, the blood cells would eat the material from anywhere, and after digestion cells would be created (reepithilization). what do you think?
so how likely is it that we'll get funding for this? you would think that companies would jump on something like this if it provides a real solution to millions of people.
That's exactly what we've all been saying for the past year. It's disheartening and truly absurd that such little progress has been made and no one has 'jumped on this' like you've said. Makes no sense at all. But all we can figure is that (unfortunately) in our country it's 'politics as usual' and there's a lot more that goes behind funding, development and approval then meets the eye. It's a much slower, complex process than necessary (especially since the hydrogel is so simple and so promising) but it seems that's just the way the process works.
Still, although it's taken time, I'm confident funding will come sooner or later. I don't know how far you've read back on this forum but I've been in contact with one of the researchers from JHU involved in the project and am in discussion with him regarding matters of fundings. Right now, they are waiting for a response from the US Army about potential funds. They expected to hear back from them by November but as of about November 10th or so, they still had not.
If the army doesn't give them funding, they've expressed interest in attempting to gain funds in other ways and are also potentially interested in our groups help in doing so. We've discussed methods such as crowd funding and social networking as a means of gaining said funds. I think we could be very successful.
If I don't hear back from them in the next week or two, I'm going to contact them. So expect an update soon.
All of this said, by the end of the year we should know something.
^^^
To me the problem with a lot of these future links, is 'future sounding' theories. Though there is a lot of documented based evidence you have pointed to, a lot of it is still future based theories. Future sounding theories, are unreliable. Can you really predict anything in the future? (there is a link below you can see just how many in history have theorised and made a statement about the future and nothing come of it, though I note these people did not have social media). And in anyway in order to push all of this, all this can only come about with documented based foundations first, then come the inroads from the facts steering the path you need. Then on top of this you would have ignorance to this. So when you say all this regenerating of spleens could be 5 or 10 years away you haven't even added in ignorance.
http://gizmodo.com/5...d-but-never-got
Well if something is an information technology then it is predictable because it follows a smooth path of Moore's law or Cooper's law or some other exponential trend (otherwise it is not predictable if it is not an information technology), linear growth is: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, but exponential growth is 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, so you should remember that biotechnology and nanobots are actually IT and drug design and drug discovery are two totally different approaches in drug development. And the best part of the story is that most of us here are in our 20s and 30s, this will happen in front of our eyes.
BTW there were some predictions 30 years ago where we will be now in terms of a power of computation and now 30 years later we're exactly where we were supposed to be.
And you said earlier that the information mechanism of scar free healing in salamanders won't be understood in details during our lifetime because it is to complex, well I agree it is extremely complex (bullshits like 'upregulate TGFb3' or 'downregulate CTGF, TGFb1,2' are not enough for scar free healing, it would be necessary to reprogram dozens of human genes if you want to achieve complete skin regeneration et scar free healing in humans), but it is an IT and it will be understood in all details during our lifetime, look at it this way: the first indication of a medicine as an information technology was the Human Genome Project (1990-2003) and in the period from 1990 to 1997 only 1% of the job was done while in the period from 1997 to 2003 the remaining 99% of job was done! And with the constant technology from 1990 the project would last 10,000 years but the whole project lasted 13 years instead of 10,000 years and 22 years later with the technology from 2012 it costs only $1,000 and it lasts only 2 hours instead of 10,000 years or 13 years!
http://www.invitroge...ing/proton.html
But I agree this is just a dream now, that kind of technology is probably a decade or two from full maturity and even when it reaches full maturity another serious obstacle is the FDA and Big Pharma and their interests because cures for diabetes, heart, cancer and other diseases will be cheaper than ineffective life-lasting treatments, that could get them into bankruptcy. So using scaffolds is the only approach that can regenerate skin and achieve scar free healing in the not too distant future
And here is one of Kurzweil's key predictions from the book 'The Age of Spiritual Machines' (BTW he is on the board of directors of a company that is called 'United Therapeutics', they're developing treatments for pulmonary hypertension based on gene therapies so he is not someone who is an IT expert and outside of medical science):
PREDICTION: Significant progress is being made in understanding the information processing basis of disease.ACCURACY: Correct
DISCUSSION: This is true and represents a fundamental revolution in health and medicine and its related field of biology. Until recently, development of new treatments, especially drugs, was hit or miss. As a famous example, Pfizer canceled an ongoing trial for a new blood pressure medication due to disappointing results and asked the test subjects to send back the medication. All of the women complied but many of the men did not. Pfizer found this curious and looked into the reasons which led to the discovery of Viagra.
Now, drug development is properly considered drug design, in which new interventions are designed on computers and tested out on increasingly accurate biological simulators. We now have the software of life (the human genome) and that project was itself a good example of the law of accelerating returns, as discussed in the Introduction above. We currently have the means of changing this outdated software with RNA interference, enabling us to turn off selected genes and develop new forms of gene therapy.
I am a board member and advisor to the CEO of United Therapeutics, a leading bioengineering company, where we remove lung cells from patients, add a new gene in vitro (in a Petri dish) so as not to trigger the immune system (which was a downside of earlier attempts at gene therapy), replicate the cell with the additional gene a million fold, and inject it back into the body, where it ends up lodged in the lungs. This has cured pulmonary hypertension, a fatal disease, and is currently undergoing human trials. There are more than a thousand new drugs and other processes in the development and testing pipeline already that involve direct intervention in changing the information processes that underlie biology, including changing our genes, not just in a newborn, but in a mature individual. Now that health and medicine has been transformed into an information technology, the power of these methods will grow exponentially, in accord with the law of accelerating returns. These methods will be a million times more powerful for the same cost in 20 years, and it will be a new era in our ability to program our biology away from disease and aging.
According to American biologist Leroy Hood, one of the pioneers of human genome sequencing, Medicine is going to become an information science. The whole health-care system requires a level of IT that goes beyond mere digitization of medical records, which is what most people are talking about now.
In ten years or so, we may have billions of data points on each individual, and the real challenge will be to develop information technology that can reduce that to real hypotheses about that individual. I also think it will lead to digitization of medicine, the ability to get relevant data on a patient from a single molecule, a single cell. I think this digitization in the long run will have exactly the same consequences as it has had for the digitization of information technology. In time, the costs of health care will drop to the point where we can export it to the developing world. That concept, which was utterly inconceivable a few years ago, is an exciting one.
MIT, where Im on the board, recently created a new department of Biological Engineering devoted to this idea, the first new department at MIT in 39 years.
And out of those 10 predictions only videophones and driverless cars are an information technology and now we have Skype (600 milion users!) and Google driverless cars:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_driverless_car
Here is another prediction about the future of energy that made me shocked and delighted:
http://www.the9billi...t-ray-kurzweil/
Kurzweil believes this is also the case with solar technology. Solar power is doubling about every 2 years globally, and it has been doing this for the past 20 years.Today, solar energy is more expensive than using fossil fuels, but costs are declining fast. We are only a few years away from solar being around the same cost as fossil fuels. Kurzweil maintains that after that point, solar will continue to go down in price and will become more popular.
He adds that currently solar power meets a very small percentage of the worlds energy needs, and people tend to dismiss technologies when they are only a very small fraction of the total solution.
Crucially, he points out that if solar power doubles every 2 years, 8 more times, it will meet 100 percent of the worlds energy needs. Following that math, it will take 16 years, thats 2027.
He adds that the world will increase its energy needs during that time too, so we should add another couple of times to double on top of that. So in about 20 years, around 2031, we will be meeting at least 100 percent of the worlds energy needs just with solar energy.
he has a few DNA hydrogel,but found no real applications?
Thanks @chuckstonchew!
Both for the quick response - and for getting in contact with these people in the first place! Much appreciated 
That the JH scientists stated 'completely regenerated with appendages' sounds pretty promising to me - and I'm keeping in mind too that these scientists have this topic as their area of expertise - and will have looked at the new/regenerated skin at the cell level too - so the fact they have used the phrase 'completely regenerated' in a scientific paper that they know their scientific peers will be reading is very promising.
Also, here is a basic quote from an article on scarring Scars stand out against the rest of the skin because scar tissue is made of collagen cells rather than ordinary skin cells. As a result, scars are usually a different color, and do not have sweat glands or hair follicles
The fact these mice have 'fullappendages' [ie. hair and sweat glands] after the skin is regenerated suggests to me that there's at least a good chance that proper coloring will return too - although obviously tests are needed.
As an aside I was speaking to a surgeon at a party this week - and not mentioning about John Hopkins or my skin - I asked him about regeneration and it's development in general [he worked on bones] and his view was that it's inevitable that medics will be able to regrow and regenerate most body parts in the near future - it's just a matter of when - and of taking things through the long medical trials that new techniques required
He also said that scientists already have the potential to do great new things - but quite often what holds them back is... MONEY!
I guess that's what it all comes down to!
So I guess it's just back to waiting on JH and their funding news - I have faith they will find funding in the future - I just hope it's soon
Seabs and Scarminator please write us what do you think about this research paper:
http://people.hofstr...ed Factor-1.pdf
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:
And this is an interesting quote:
We hypothesized that chronic SDF-1 delivery would be more effective in accelerating the rate of dermal wound closure in Yorkshire pigs with acute surgical wounds, a model that closely mimics human wound healing. Wounds treated with SDF-1 protein (n = 10) and plasmid (n = 6) loaded patches healed faster than sham (n = 4) or control (n = 4). At day 9, SDF-1-treated wounds significantly accelerated wound closure (55.0 ± 14.3% healed) compared to nontreated controls (8.2 ± 6.0%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, 38% of SDF-1-treated wounds were fully healed at day 9 (vs. none in controls) with very little evidence of scarring. These data suggest that patch-mediated SDF-1 delivery may ultimately provide a novel therapy for accelerating healing and reducing scarring in clinical wounds.
So the wound closure is significantly accelerated, 38% of wounds treated with alignate hydrogels and SDF-1 were healed after only 9 days and the picture marked with 'H' seems to me like a complete skin regeneration (i.e. scar free healing) with perfect textures!?? Is it reasonable to expect that the dextran hydrogel will be even more effective than this alignate hydrogel/SDF-1? But another thing I don't understand is 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 actually begins?
And another thing I want to ask you: does the size of a wound affects the time length of a reepithelization of the wound? I guess that on the larger (et wider) wounds reepithelization lasts longer than on the smaller (et narrower) wounds, so am I right or not? Reepithelization of the wounds in salamanders (4mm in diameter) lasts only 1 to 3 days.
All in all this looks to me like something that is much more effective than Juvista or CTGF inhibitor (аlthough it cannot be considered as a cure for scars because it is effective in only 38% of cases), and things I like about this research paper is that I don't see any textural discrepancies (although those wounds are very narrow surgical wounds) and that it works both on mice and pigs!
Hey Vladislav, thumbs up for finding all these studies. Always encouraging to read about the advancements that are being made.
While it's promising that they are affecting the healing outcome in a positive direction, I think it's hard to draw any conclusions from the pictures. It's a shame that they used an incisional model and not FTE (I believe even juvista's pre-clinicals on mice showed similar results on incisional wounds.) That being said, and despite what I said before, I think that excising and stitching up linear scars will probably result in something practically imperceptible, be it with the hydrogel or any other modality that reduces fibrosis or that fixes the wound edges closer to each other. It's only when wounds are let heal by secondary intention that my concern about differences in adnexal properties becomes relevant, really.
Thanks @chuckstonchew!
Both for the quick response - and for getting in contact with these people in the first place! Much appreciated
That the JH scientists stated 'completely regenerated with appendages' sounds pretty promising to me - and I'm keeping in mind too that these scientists have this topic as their area of expertise - and will have looked at the new/regenerated skin at the cell level too - so the fact they have used the phrase 'completely regenerated' in a scientific paper that they know their scientific peers will be reading is very promising.
Also, here is a basic quote from an article on scarring Scars stand out against the rest of the skin because scar tissue is made of collagen cells rather than ordinary skin cells. As a result, scars are usually a different color, and do not have sweat glands or hair follicles
The fact these mice have 'fullappendages' [ie. hair and sweat glands] after the skin is regenerated suggests to me that there's at least a good chance that proper coloring will return too - although obviously tests are needed.
I feel like this is partly aimed at what I tried to say earlier, so I guess I'll throw away a comment. Not sure which article you found that statement from, but it sounds a bit clueless to be frank. There is no such think as "collagen cells," unless they are referring to fibroblasts, but these exist in normal skin as well. Scars stand out because of differing texture and (sometimes) color. The hydrogel definitely "regenerates" the latter, since the new hair was pigmented. It is the texture that I'm worried about, which isn't only affected by collagen makeup, but other characteristics of the skin as well, like how many and how big the hair follicles are and their respective openings in the skin.
I too have complete faith in the JH guys expertise. Note though that they've never said that the skin looked exactly the same as before on the surface, only that hair follicle neogenesis was increased compared to the control in the center of the wound (whether this was due to them leaving a margin or not cannot be said with certainty without further experiments, new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds (this has been known since the fifties).)
I too have complete faith in the JH guys expertise. Note though that they've never said that the skin looked exactly the same as before on the surface, only that hair follicle neogenesis was increased compared to the control in the center of the wound (whether this was due to them leaving a margin or not cannot be said with certainty without further experiments, new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds (this has been known since the fifties).)
Regarding the 'center of the wound' thing, we've discussed this earlier on this forum. And I discussed this specifically with Dr. Sun to clear it up because people have brought it up numerous times. There was a small margin left around the wound that they did not excise - ALL of the skin that was excised and treated with the hydrogel regenerated. The skin that wasn't did not. On the margin or the control. The control that was not treated with the hydrogel did not have any hair in the center of the wound. So the whole 'new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds' clearly is not even a valid comment in attempting to justify regenerated hair in the hydrogel treated mice. The area regenerated. The peer reviewed, scholarly publication stated 'complete regeneration' not 'some hair kind of grew back in the center of the wound'. It was certainly, 100%, not a case of hair always regenerating in the center of a large enough wound.
I too have complete faith in the JH guys expertise. Note though that they've never said that the skin looked exactly the same as before on the surface, only that hair follicle neogenesis was increased compared to the control in the center of the wound (whether this was due to them leaving a margin or not cannot be said with certainty without further experiments, new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds (this has been known since the fifties).)
Regarding the 'center of the wound' thing, we've discussed this earlier on this forum. And I discussed this specifically with Dr. Sun to clear it up because people have brought it up numerous times. There was a small margin left around the wound that they did not excise - ALL of the skin that was excised and treated with the hydrogel regenerated. The skin that wasn't did not. On the margin or the control. The control that was not treated with the hydrogel did not have any hair in the center of the wound. So the whole 'new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds' clearly is not even a valid comment in attempting to justify regenerated hair in the hydrogel treated mice. The area regenerated. The peer reviewed, scholarly publication stated 'complete regeneration' not 'some hair kind of grew back in the center of the wound'. It was certainly, 100%, not a case of hair always regenerating in the center of a large enough wound.
Thanks for your comment chuck. I do remember you asking Sun about this (thanks about that, by the way.) But I don't think he specifically stated that exactly all of the excised skin regenerated, more something more inconclusive along the lines that as far as he could tell, the center had regenerated? You know this better than me obviously, but I have a hard time seeing him making any conclusive statements about something that wasn't clearly observable.
Regarding the control not displaying any follicular neogenesis, that is wrong. Check the study again, the control has about 3 new hair follicles per mm, whereas the hydrogel treated wounds have about 12 (albeit with a much higher variance, which is somewhat disturbing.) A lot of things influence the number of hair follicles that regenerate in wounds. Wnt signaling is one such thing and much more recently PGD2 has been implicated as well. An increased number of follicles doesn't necessarily mean that everything is perfectly regenerated.
What would be interesting though, is if Sun's lab has done any measurements on hair follicle density in normal skin. That way, we could at least compare the numbers from the hydrogel treated wounds with what perfectly normal skin should have. There would still be the problem with hair patterning though, but it would be a good start nonetheless.
I too have complete faith in the JH guys expertise. Note though that they've never said that the skin looked exactly the same as before on the surface, only that hair follicle neogenesis was increased compared to the control in the center of the wound (whether this was due to them leaving a margin or not cannot be said with certainty without further experiments, new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds (this has been known since the fifties).)
Regarding the 'center of the wound' thing, we've discussed this earlier on this forum. And I discussed this specifically with Dr. Sun to clear it up because people have brought it up numerous times. There was a small margin left around the wound that they did not excise - ALL of the skin that was excised and treated with the hydrogel regenerated. The skin that wasn't did not. On the margin or the control. The control that was not treated with the hydrogel did not have any hair in the center of the wound. So the whole 'new hair follicles always develop in the center of large enough wounds' clearly is not even a valid comment in attempting to justify regenerated hair in the hydrogel treated mice. The area regenerated. The peer reviewed, scholarly publication stated 'complete regeneration' not 'some hair kind of grew back in the center of the wound'. It was certainly, 100%, not a case of hair always regenerating in the center of a large enough wound.
it got complete regeneration. Where the burn was cut out, the hydrogel was placed inside, neutrophils infiltrated the wound bed easily, the hydrogel degraded rapidly, as it degraded cells were created, appendages grew. Where the 8020 was not placed, like on the margin of the treated wound and like on the control, there was fibrosis, as expected typically. To knock out microscopic appendages it only takes a microscopic bit of scar. If there was anything at all wrong with any texture you'd not have any appendages. The appendages would be the first thing to go, like what happens in deeper second degree burns.