
		Support

HairSite Hair Care & Hair Loss Forums
Topic 609: GlaxoSmithKline Avodart/Dutasteride - forum 31

Re: SO IF DUT SUPRESSES ALMOST ALL DHT BUT HAIRGROWTH IS JUST...

From: S Foote to the `Ghost'.
Date: 10/23/2002
Time: 11:46:47 AM
Remote Name: 195.93.34.12

Comments

>>One way in which genetics affects MPB is by increased activity of certain steroid enyzmes in the hair follicle. This is not by chance<<

I agree. What i question is how do rising levels of DHT create opposite effects on hair follicles, enlarging most and shrinking those in the MPB area. The study you quote does not answer the question, "Is this an indirect or direct effect of DHT on follicle cells?".

In my opinion, the only way to confirm the currently accepted view of a direct effect of DHT on follicle cells is as follows.

You take DHT `naive' follicle samples from young boys pre puberty. At this time anagen follicles from the scalp sides and future MPB area are structurally the same. They both produce terminal hair. You then expose the samples to DHT in vitro. If a growth inhibiting chemistry is induced in the samples from the future MPB area, and not in the `side' samples from the same individual, DHT must act directly. If there is no difference in the response of these samples, DHT must be creating a different response in vivo, indirectly.

My argument here is that the testing of samples that have already been shrunken in vivo, does NOT tell us if DHT is acting directly or indirectly? Just because DHT is produced in hair follicle cells, does not mean that it MUST directly effect these cells? That is an assumption!

Another question is, if DHT is intended to be `used' by the cells that produce it, why do we have all this `spare' DHT in the serum? This isn't very efficient, so whats the purpose of serum DHT?

S Foote.