4.6 Review

The Emergent Power of Human Cellular vs Mouse Models in Translational Hair Research

Journal

STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE
Volume 11, Issue 10, Pages 1021-1028

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/stcltm/szac059

Keywords

hair loss; hair follicles; translational research; mouse models; human models

Funding

  1. FEDER (Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional) funds through COMPETE 2020 (POCI, Programa Operacional Competividade e Internacionalizacao)
  2. FEDER (Fundo Europeu de Desenvolvimento Regional) funds through Portugal 2020 [70201-SII&DT EMPRESAS EM COPROMOCAO]
  3. FCT-Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia, I.P. [CEECIND/00654/2020]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Researchers are aware of the differences between mouse models and human hair follicles, which limits the translation of research findings. Therefore, using human cell bioengineered models and artificial intelligence is proposed as a future course of action.
Different animal models have been used for hair research and regeneration studies based on the similarities between animal and human skins. Primary knowledge on hair follicle (HF) biology has arisen from research using mouse models baring spontaneous or genetically engineered mutations. These studies have been crucial for the discovery of genes underlying human hair cycle control and hair loss disorders. Yet, researchers have become increasingly aware that there are distinct architectural and cellular features between the mouse and human HFs, which might limit the translation of findings in the mouse models. Thus, it is enticing to reason that the spotlight on mouse models and the unwillingness to adapt to the human archetype have been hampering the emergence of the long-awaited human hair loss cure. Here, we provide an overview of the major limitations of the mainstream mouse models for human hair loss research, and we underpin a future course of action using human cell bioengineered models and the emergent artificial intelligence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available