| Author |
Message |
havana8
Moderator
 
Joined: 09 Sep 2005
Posts: 3451
|
|
 |
Sat Mar 17, 2012 11:12 am  |
I'm not sure where this discussion should begin but I'll move a few pertinent posts over to get things started: 
From the ISCO Stem Cell: Lifeline Skin Care thread:
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Well I am glad dr J has joined the forum. Even though I still can not imagine anything relating to stem cells can be for the time being really truly effective in over the counter skin care.
There are so many drs selling skin care, with varying results. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and even then individual results in skin care do not necessarily mean everyone can have the same benefits. Basically we are all guinea pigs, aren't we? |
| Keliu wrote: |
| What I'm not understanding is this: If there really is a serum that will alter the way our cells respond - wouldn't it be classified as a pharmaceutical and controlled by the FDA (or similar)? |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
Keliu I think the problem would be if there was such a serum, how to control the effects? Unlimited proliferation isn't what we are looking for, is it?
That is what is bothering me. For very old people this may not be a real problem but sometimes I read here what young women with more than 60 years ahead of them are putting on their skin and that makes me shudder. Anything that tries to sell itself screaming 'dna' is a no-no for me, since alterations in dna can spell real Trouble with a capital T. And I am past the age of having children. |
| DrJ wrote: |
| There seems to be some confusion about stem cell products - what they are. The current products are not cells in a cream. Rather it has been discovered that oif you grow stem cells in culture they make lots of chemicals called cytokines (some of which are growth factors). And if you use this as an active you get some stellar results. There is actually lots of evidence for this, from many sources. In fact it is the same SkinMedica uses for its TNS serum which has been around for a decade, although just use fibroblasts, not stem cells. |
| Keliu wrote: |
DrJ - I'm fully aware that current stemcell serums don't contain stem cells. It's my understanding that they contain the media which is used to grow the stemcells - is that correct.
However, isn't this media supposed to re-generate our own stemcells? Or have I got that wrong. If it's not regenerating our own stemcells, what is it doing? |
| Lotusesther wrote: |
My uneducated guess would be that if it really could stimulate your own stem cells to proliferate and specialise it would have to be delivered into the right layer of skin in the first place. That is pretty deep, and I wonder if any, any topical whatsoever can and will reach that layer. Let alone enter the appropriate cells. It's one thing to have loose cells in vitro respond to whatever you add to the medium they are floating in, skin itself has its mechanisms to prevent stuff from outside getting in, or getting in too deeply.
That also seems to be the disappointing point on the effectiveness of 'proven' topicals - in vitro they deliver all right, but to get them into the skin into the right place is another story. |
| DrJ wrote: |
Lotusesther: yes, of course absorption is an issue, but it does happen. Cytokines are basically peptides of varying sizes. They can be enveloped in a liposome or solid lipid nanoparticle, which greatly enhances penetration.
The thing about these cytokines is that they are the communication system for cells, including skin cells. They are not drugs at all, but entirely natural, although they have to be in a "physiologic balance" or else you can get untoward effects. So, in a way (think about it) the stem cells in culture secrete chemicals which you put on your skin which then go and talk to the cells there (not just stem cells, but keratinocytes, fibroblasts, etc). Sort of a long distance conversation. They make be from another (healthy, young) human, but they are identical to your own. No DNA or other worrisome things like that. Now if you can get they to say the right thing (e.g. "heal") you get some very nice effects. |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Interesting article for anyone interested in stem cells. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17012688
My one concern on topical stem cell products is safety, and this remark from the article scares me. Stem cells, which can transform into any other type of specialised cell. This brings me back to my question at the beginning of this thread, if a person has the genetic predisposition for cancer, what happens when they apply a stem cell product. |
| DrJ wrote: |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Interesting article for anyone interested in stem cells. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17012688
My one concern on topical stem cell products is safety, and this remark from the article scares me. Stem cells, which can transform into any other type of specialised cell. This brings me back to my question at the beginning of this thread, if a person has the genetic predisposition for cancer, what happens when they apply a stem cell product. |
If you have a predilection for cancer, or even have one you don't know about, therre is a theoretical risk of adding pure growth factors, like EGF. But a balanced arrays of cytokines should actually be somewhat protective, as c=some of them are actually immune vigilent. |
From the Ingredient Spotlight: Renovage/Teprenone & EGF thread:
| DrJ wrote: |
Conditioned medium (of stem cells, and before that fibroblasts) has been around for a decade. That it has a profound effect on wound healing, collagen production, and many other parameters. Which is the model scientists most often use to create anti-aging, anti-wrinkle stuff in the lab.
That it works is really non-controversial. Lots of supporting literature. There is an entire chapter devoted to it in the most prominent textbook in the field, Textbook of Aging Skin (Farage, Miller, Maibach, eds.). I'm writing a review paper and will share that at the appropriate time.
There is no ewww factor. Somebody is trying to bias you. Specialized (very clean virus free, etc) cells under given conditions produce lots of proteins. This isn’t “waste” or some “discard” -- it’s more like panning for gold. We have learned how to farm these specialized healing cells and to maximize their production of the good stuff (cytokines & growth factors). How do you suppose any protein drug is made. Or EGF for that matter (we will ignore the transgenic barley people for a moment). You take e.coli or some other bacteria and transfect it to transfer a gene into it so that it produced lots of whatever protein you want. Then you purify it. Do you think specialized human cells are more, or less, ewwwy that gut bacteria?
The thing about these cells, and the cytokines and growth factors that they produce, is that we are talking about something that is entirely natural. These mesenchymal stem cells are our body’s natural producers of healing biochemicals.
There is a wonderful peer-reviewed journal paper I am referencing a lot in something I am currently writing, it is … The MSC: An Injury Drugstore (Cell Stem Cell, Volume 9, Issue 1, 8 July 2011, 1115). MSC is mesenchymal stem cell, the basis for our work. The paper gathers all sorts of new evidence for the wonderful things these cells do, and how they do it.
I do not know who this Hannah is, but it is clear that she is not a cell biologist, doesn’t read the current literature, and has little or no understanding of cytokines and growth factors and their role in regenerative medicine and dermatology.
For instance, giving pure EGF (e.g. grown in transfected e.coli, or genetically modified barley) is fraught with problems, which I documented very clearly in a BFT post some time ago (someone else needs to insert a link). I won’t repeat myself on the dangers, but it includes the risk of accelerating early skin cancers (not necessarily causing them). Since 50% of people over 50 get skin cancer at some point, it is a calculated risk.,
But when a cocktail containing a blend of cytokines and growth factors, formulated not by humans but by these very clever cells, you can get the good effects without the bad. In fact, in 3 clinical trials, I have yet to see an adverse effect. It’s because we are mimicking nature. We aim to replicate what your own body would do when you were a newborn.
ISCO does use conditioned medium, but they further process it, as we do. Unless they have figured out a way to train their stem cells to transfer these cytokines directly into a bottle. I doubt it. You would need a lot of very small bottles.
Stemulation uses conditioned medium. I know because I was one who originally created that product (at least the stem cell part). I no longer have anything to do with that company. I consider that my first generation, but we are now working on a 4th generation.
We (myself and my colleagues at the stem cell institute) have spent 2 ½ years in R&D, going way beyond what I did back then. The science has advanced considerably.
I am not as familiar with Osmosis, but IO would guess that they are using the same protocols as Stemulation – get the cells to grow in culture, make them happy, and they go into a “growth cytokine pattern”
Cytokines are also known as “signaling peptides” They are small proteins that cells send out to talk to one another. It’s like the signal corps, rallying the troops. Some of the peptides present in current skin care products derive from scientists attempts to create artificial versions of these same natural peptides (cytokines). They strip off a few (noncritical) amino acids, then test them to find out the core bit that works. This allows them to patent the molecule (because you can’t patent the ones that nature makes).
I hope this helps. Open for questions and challenges. |
| DrJ wrote: |
This is not for everyone, so only read if you are not put off by deep science & complex terms. This comes for the COPE site (Cytokines & Cells Online Pathfinder Encyclopedia).
"EGF, like all growth factors, binds to specific high-affinity, low-capacity receptors on the surface of responsive cells. Intrinsic to the EGF receptor is tyrosine kinase activity, which is activated in response to EGF binding. The kinase domain of the EGF receptor phosphorylates the EGF receptor itself (autophosphorylation) as well as other proteins, in signal transduction cascades, that associate with the receptor following activation. Experimental evidence has shown that the Neu proto-oncogene is a homologue of the EGF receptor.
EGF has proliferative effects on cells of both mesodermal and ectodermal origin, particularly keratinocytes and fibroblasts. EGF exhibits negative growth effects ... on hair follicle cells. Growth-related responses to EGF include the induction of nuclear proto-oncogene expression, such as Fos, Jun and Myc. EGF also has the effect of decreasing gastric acid secretion."
Oncogenes are those genes that when stimulated can lead to cancer formation. We've discussed the problem with hair follicles before. (look at we-based advocates of EGF who sell it on their websites. Look at videos and pics. Notice their hairlines.) Good for heartburn though, if you don't mind going bald (they use it in the sheep industry to get the wool to fall off). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:22 pm |
| rileygirl wrote: |
Most of the wrinkle reduction shown in the photos is extremely subtle (especially at the 1 and 2 month mark photos). |
Maybe they don't Photoshop them. I know quite a few who do. |
|
|
|
|
|
Mon Mar 19, 2012 11:43 am |
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1524-475X.2008.00410.x/full
Overview...in general^^
| Quote: |
In our previous study,
implantation of BM-MSCs was found to enhance wound healing
in normal and diabetic mice associated with increased angiogenesis
[25]. However, BM-MSCs were found adjacent to the
vasculature was found but not in the vascular walls [25], suggesting
a paracrine effect of BM-MSCs in angiogenesis and wound
healing. In this study, we injected BM-MSC-conditioned medium
prepared under hypoxic conditions and achieved markedly
accelerated would closure, indicating that paracrine factors of
BM-MSCs alone could enhance wound healing
BM-MSCs were found to secret certain cytokines in previous
studies, such as VEGF [26,27], bFGF, IL-6 and MCP-1 [26]. As
many cells could release these cytokines, the relative expression
levels and the values of BM-MSC-derived cytokines in wound
healing were unclear. In this study, we compared cytokines
released by BM-MSCs with those secreted by dermal fibroblasts
and their influences on wound healing. Fibroblasts are the major
stromal cells in the dermis and many other tissues. They are
known to appear in the wound healing process and release
numerous cytokines leading to fibrotic wound healing [2]. Our
data showed that BM-MSCs secreted differential levels of
numerous cytokines than dermal fibroblasts, such as significantly
greater amounts of EGF, KGF, IGF-1, VEGF-a, PDGF-BB, EPO
and TPO, but significantly lower amounts of IL6 and osteoprotegerin.
Optimum healing of a wound requires a well-orchestrated
integration of many molecular events mediated by cytokines...etc etc...
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2270908/pdf/pone.0001886.pdf |
_________________
If you make, first do no harm, your Law, you will never strike the first blow and will be known as a man of peace who can fight like ten tigers, a Human in the act of Being. There is no greater rank than this. Ashida Kim on War.~Cellese~AnteAge Serum and Accelerator, DermaRoller ,MyFawnie AA2G serum, KNN G ForceUltrasound., SEA, ChrySun 25% ZnO |
|
|
|
|
Fri Mar 23, 2012 12:36 pm |
| Quote: |
| Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
DrJ, I don’t expect a definitive answer, but about how long would you expect to continue to see improvements from using a skin care product with cytokines – three months? Six months? One year? At some point the addition of the product growth factors must reach some sort of equilibrium with the decline of ones own growth factors so that the skin continues to look good, but once again goes into a slow decline. Or, do I just not understand how this works? |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Mar 23, 2012 5:15 pm |
| Panda1 wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Panda1 wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Maybe expectations are too high for these products. |
DrJ, I don’t expect a definitive answer, but about how long would you expect to continue to see improvements from using a skin care product with cytokines – three months? Six months? One year? At some point the addition of the product growth factors must reach some sort of equilibrium with the decline of ones own growth factors so that the skin continues to look good, but once again goes into a slow decline. Or, do I just not understand how this works? |
Great question. The short answer is that maximal effects take about 3 months. There are various stages along the way that we are trying to better define, but these are not exactly the same for everyone.
By slow decline, I guess you mean that your skin will begin to age again. That makes sense (unless like Dorian Grey you have an aging portrait in the attic). But the rate of that decline is the key issue.
A longer answer points to the realization that there are few theoretical limits to the benefits. For instance, if you think of extrinsic aging to be the accumulation of many thousands of tiny insults to the skin (sun & chemical exposure, etc) and stem cytokines are giving you the ability to respond to those like a much younger person, then that whole process of further aging should be slowed down.
In other words, the short term benefits are restoratively regenerative, moving your skin back in time to a healthier, younger appearing state by rebuilding matrix proteins (collagen & elastin), altering melanocyte function (smooth coloration), promoting a more robust flow of keratinocytes, reducing signs of inflammation, etc, etc, etc. But then add to that an ongoing preventive element whereby environmental stresses are dealt with more effectively (key role of these cytokines in health). Then there is intrinsic aging. There are features there that an anti-inflammatory cytokine profile may alter, including at the DNA-RNA level, and mitochondrial level.
We are just now beginning to address this in the laboratory (we are associated with an anti-aging institute with some really cool equipment & major experts in the field). So stay tuned. I hope with diligence we can find the answer to those harder questions. |
Good answer  I think I understand. Here is my next question…how do the product growth factors know when to shut off? I am assuming that my skin will show quicker improvement with twice a day product application. What if I decided to apply product three times a day? What about five times a day? Do you see where I am going here? Is there a point at which too much product becomes dangerous, or do the product growth factors somehow know when enough is enough and simply shut down (resulting in nothing more than a waste of product)? Soooo many questions  |
Another great question. If you are feeling up to it, you might read the long tract "about cytokines" I just pasted into the ISCO-Lifeline thread, from a well known science source. It talks about cytokine expression, packaging, secretion, receptors, and feedback loops. It also talks about the patterns of cytokines being important.
Basically, you avoid overstimulation by using groups of cytokines, rather than just one or two. That way you never get into trouble like you will if if you put on a single growth factor (e.g. EGF). Cytokines cancel one another out if things get out of balance (see reference). It's based on the innate logic and wisdom of human cellular physiology. We approach it through biomimicry.
Is it a waste to put on too much? Yes, because the receptors are saturated, and with no place for them to attach, they will quickly degrade. With physiological doses of mixed cytokines cocktails we have never seen any problems. And we have been at this a number of years now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Mar 25, 2012 7:04 am |
Yes, Dr. J, what, if anything, has been proven to improve elasticity and/or sagging?
I believe some of Dr. Fernandes's clinical studies showed improvement via the rolling and associated serums, but I am not aware of anything else, except for surgical intervention.
Peace, BFG |
|
|
|
|
|
Fri Mar 30, 2012 1:36 pm |
| Keliu wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| Keliu wrote: |
| DrJ wrote: |
| I really like Dr Fernandez work, and dermarolling (done right). |
At the risk of going off topic, I HAVE to ask. DrJ - what is your methodology for (doing it right)? |
That would be according to Dr. Fernandez' instructions, using a shallow needle depth in order to avoid scarring or other complications. |
I'm really interested in the "how often" question. For instance, if we were to use a 0.25/0.5mm roller with your stemcell serum, how often should we roll it in? (bearing in mind that rollers less than 0.5mm don't induce collagen production.) |
Good question, no easy answer. Frequency depends on other variables such as age, specific goals, needle type & size, past history if any, etc. I prefer to think of an overall course, say of six months.
Even with smaller needles, the goal may be not so much direct collagen stimulation, but increased delivery of other things (e.g. collagenic cytokines). That could be more frequency (e.g. weekly) compared to deeper needles, which are better biweekly or monthly. You need to leave time to get through defined stages of healing with deeper stimulation. |
|
|
|
|
| Sun Nov 09, 2025 11:34 am |
If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.
Click Here to join our community.
If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site. |
|
 |
|
|
