4.6 Article

Limitations of human occipital scalp hair follicle organ culture for studying the effects of minoxidil as a hair growth enhancer

期刊

EXPERIMENTAL DERMATOLOGY
卷 13, 期 10, 页码 635-642

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.0906-6705.2004.00207.x

关键词

alopecia; anagen; catagen; hair growth cycle; insulin

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Minoxidil induces new hair growth in approximately one-third of patients with androgenetic alopecia after 1 year of treatment. With several conflicting reports in the literature based on small-scale studies, the current study aimed to clarify whether organ culture of human scalp anagen VI hair follicles is a suitable in vitro test system for reproducing, and experimentally dissecting, the recognized in vivo hair-growth-promoting capacity of minoxidil. Hair shaft elongation was studied in terminal anagen VI hair follicles microdissected from the occipital scalp of 36 healthy adults. A total of 2300 hair follicles, approximately 65 per individual, were tested using modifications of a basic organ culture protocol. It is shown here that minoxidil does not significantly increase hair shaft elongation or the duration of anagen VI in ex vivo culture despite several enhancements on the conventional methodology. This disparity to what is seen clinically in minoxidil responders may be explained by the following: (i) use of occipital (rather than frontotemporal or vertex) hair follicles; (ii) use of, already maximally growing, anagen VI hair follicles; (iii) a predominance of hair follicles from minoxidil unresponsive-donors; (iv) use of minoxidil rather than its sulfate metabolite; and/or (v) use of a suboptimal minoxidil dosage. This disparity questions the usefulness of standard human hair follicle organ culture in minoxidil research. Unexpectedly, minoxidil even inhibited hair shaft elongation in the absence of insulin, which may indicate that the actual hair-growth-modulatory effects of minoxidil depend on the concomitant local presence/absence of other growth modulators.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据