Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Hair Growth Signal Dictated By Fat Cells

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the let-it-shine-let-it-shine dept.

Science 146

RogerRoast writes "According to an article published in the journal Cell, molecular signals from fat cell (adipocyte) precursors under the skin are necessary to spur hair growth in mice. Yale researchers report in the paper that these cells produce molecules called PDGF (platelet derived growth factors), which are necessary to produce hair growth. The discovery of the source of signals that trigger hair growth may lead to new treatments for baldness. The trick is in getting adipocyte precursors under the skin to talk to stem cells at the base of the hair follicles."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So this means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313854)

...That the average American now has another excuse for his obesity?

Re:So this means... (5, Informative)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313864)

That's a negative, Red Leader. While you get more adipocytes when you gain weight, you keep them after you lose it [wikipedia.org] . Get back on the treadmill!

Re:So this means... (4, Informative)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313918)

That's a negative, Red Leader. While you get more adipocytes when you gain weight, you keep them after you lose it [wikipedia.org] . Get back on the treadmill!

Mod parent +Informative, because... ...shit, I start pulling my hair over this!!!

The horror: after you gained them, you need to stay on thread mill for years to get them back to the previous level (increase them exponentially, lose the linearly).

If excess weight is gained as an adult, fat cells increase in size about fourfold before dividing and increasing the absolute number of fat cells present.
...
Approximately 10% of fat cells are renewed annually at all adult ages and levels of body mass index.

Baldness vs hair removal (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314430)

There are two potential directions that might attract follow-up studies. Many here have already pointed to treatments for baldness. The other possibility is whether it would lead to the opposite - an improved process for removal of unwanted hair. The former is mostly of concern to males, and involves the scalp. The latter is more often a female issue, and involves face, legs, pubes, etc.

Re:So this means... (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314916)

That the average American now has another excuse for his obesity?

Yes, but without actually reading the article, I assume it means that we're all going to have very hairy bellies.

I'm actually a little ahead of the curve...

Idiocracy (0, Troll)

Stellian (673475) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313858)

Imagine if all this research went into AIDS or malaria.

Re:Idiocracy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313878)

While you're at it, imagine there's no more wars, no more poverty, and endless youth.

That's just as realistic as trying to tell scientists what kind of research they are interested in.

Re:Idiocracy (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313916)

While you're at it, imagine there's no more wars, no more poverty, and endless youth.

That's just as realistic as trying to tell scientists what kind of research they are interested in.

Somehow I think it is more a case of "which treatments will get funding" than "what scientists are interested in".

Re:Idiocracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313926)

Yup, the kind of research that employs million dollars worth of lab equipment it's clearly selected by the researcher's personal interests. Is not like Yale's corporate sponsors or the potential for marketability play any role in selecting research topics.
Come to think of it, who wouldn't chose cracking the secret of baldness over some infectious disease that kills millions of 3rd worlders ? I hear there are many bald men on the Nobel committee, and no AIDS sufferer.

Re:Idiocracy (3, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313880)

Damn. Beat me to it.

On the plus side, most of the research into prolonging erections has already been done. Apparently there's a sweet spot for ideal duration. So at least we don't have to worry about that.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313962)

Duration is not the only factor determining whether an ED medication will be economically profitable.. The current drugs have a rather long list of side effects, cardiotoxicity being the obvious one. Not that I'd know, of course.

Re:Idiocracy (4, Informative)

Niedi (1335165) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314432)

pubmed results for
"hair loss": 2.554 research papers
baldness: 14.919 research papers
"erectile dysfunction": 16.292 research papers
malaria: 59.503 research papers
HIV: 229.598 research papers

Just a rough approximation, but it seems there IS research on malaria and HIV going on after all...

Re:Idiocracy (1)

ceoyoyo (59147) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314834)

Damn it, ruining another good Slashdot conspiracy theory with actual numbers. What's wrong with you?

Re:Idiocracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313902)

Apparently you're not bald gay- just gay?!
Me? I'm a troll and a bald one indeed...

Re:Idiocracy (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314086)

you gots lotsa hair on ur palms, 'tho.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313910)

you want to look into how to use PDGF signals to trigger AIDS or Malaria!!?

do you really believe scientists look at something going "oh that will cure/solve {insert issue} and THEN go and research it"

that's the point of the research! to find out what things do, not know what things do and then get them working, that's engineering.

Re:Idiocracy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313936)

Imagine if all this research went into AIDS or malaria.

Are you currently researching AIDS or malaria right now? If not, why not?

Please don't offer silly excuses like "that isn't my field" or "I'm not a medical researcher." If so, you had the opportunity to take that direction in life and instead selfishly decided to do something that interested you more.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313944)

Because research goes into so many directions, sometimes research in a field discovers crucial knowledge that has tremendous effects in another, distant one.

After WWII, lot of people wanted research to be conducted like project Manhattan : highly focused effort on a single important goal. But the project Manhattan build on century of fundamental research into seemingly frivolous subjects. Research doesn't work like project Manhattan.

The OP is an example of Idiocracy (3, Insightful)

the_raptor (652941) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313978)

Imagine if all this research went into AIDS or malaria.

Nothing of significance cause I guarantee you that AIDS and malaria research receives more money then one team investigating aspects of how our largest organ works.

Also accusing scientists of not doing "noble enough" research while screwing around on Slashdot is like a fat guy complaining about the form of a sprinter.

Re:Idiocracy (1, Insightful)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314030)

I think you're a hypocrite.

Re:Idiocracy (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314116)

Imagine if the time you spend reading Slashdot instead went into learning biology and medicine, and then doing research on malaria yourself.
Imagine if instead of spending money for your past holiday you would instead have given that money to some researcher for his AIDS research.
Imagine if those CPU and GPU cycles you wasted playing computer games would instead have been used for folding@home.

OK (0)

Heed00 (1473203) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314162)

*imagines less AIDS and malaria victims that are bald*

Re:Idiocracy (2)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314354)

Have you heard of the term "diminishing returns", or "too many cooks in the kitchen"?

At some point, there will just be a bunch of redundant work, and people tripping over each other trying to get things done.

Re:Idiocracy (1)

gatkinso (15975) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314392)

Here are the results of the research you asked for:

AIDS: condoms (along with a healthy dose of education)

Malaria: antibiotics (throw in some pesticides and mosquito nets)

Happy now?

Re:Idiocracy (1)

StuckInSyrup (745480) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315148)

You are as stupid (or troll) as the parent is.
Condoms help people, that already have AIDS, exactly how? How do they help children born with AIDS? The African rape victims? The recent Korean transplant patients, where they got infected organs because of some diagnostic snafu?
FYI, malaria is not a bacterium. Antibiotics help you exactly as much as condoms. There are antimalarics, but they are expensive, and their side effects can be as debilitating as malaria itself. Also, malaria is becoming resistant.
Not happy yet.

Re:Idiocracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37315596)

Curing baldness would at least help remove a risk factor for skin cancer. Only 2% of skin cancer cases are because of baldness, but that still works out to some 20,000 cases a year in the US.

I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313874)

... and 16 years later, I'm comfortable with being bald. I was all the way through my 20s. I really don't understand the level of vanity that causes some men to be prepared to throw so much money at trying to fix a process that doesn't cause any harm other than in their own heads.

Just think what those researchers could have done if they'd spent their time researching cures for illnesses and real problems that society faces, rather than developing a highly profitable but purely cosmetic technique like this. I can only hope there are side-benefits to this research that will help with a genuine problem.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (2, Funny)

dwarfsoft (461760) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313888)

You really haven't seen the shape of my head. The hair is doing everybody a favour... trust me

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315338)

Yeah men with well-shaped heads shouldn't worry about baldness. Guys like you and me...should have a mortal fear of it.

But baldness is said to be caused by excess testosterone, and I have a physique so un-manly that if I said it was Zach Braff-like I'd be lying to make myself look better, so I don't think I have anything to worry about.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37313904)

You think in a world of 7 billion people we can't research two problems at once? Also, you think baldness isn't a "genuine problem"? It can ruin people's quality of life and some people kill themselves over it. Saying they should get over it and that it doesn't really matter doesn't help them - this research does.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1, Interesting)

NickDB (1289180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313924)

If you're going to kill yourself over some genetic trait that you have no control over then you're a moron and should get over it.

If your biggest problem, is that you're going bald \ are bald, then you have a pretty damn good life, and I shave my head because I'm going bald, so think I can offer an opinion on the matter.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314140)

Firstly, way to go with your amazing powers of sympathy and understanding. Just because you don't care doesn't mean everybody else doesn't care.

some genetic trait that you have no control over

This article is about how we may have control over it. You think in the entire history of mankind we should never attempt to discover what causes baldness and find a way to control it? What harm does it do you if a way to stop baldness is found? You don't have to use it. You think that the time spent finding that out would mean less time spent finding a cure for cancer? That's insane.

And lastly, it doesn't have to be your "biggest problem" for you to do something about it.

"Oh, you have type 2 diabetes and it's ruining your life? If you're going to kill yourself over some genetic trait that you have no control over then you're a moron and should get over it."

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

NickDB (1289180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314380)

I know plenty of people with baldness AND type 2 diabetes, my own dad for one, guess what - He hasn't killed himself.

If he did, he'd be a moron.

I have no sympathy for stupid people who are so caught up in themselves, that having something like hair is enough to end your life over. Maybe not having hair because you are undergoing radiation treatment, and have terminal cancer, then yes, you have the right to do what you want with your life.

But your original statement implies that people feel strongly enough about just been bald, that they will kill themselves. If that's the case, they're shallow narcissistic, vain morons.

And no this article is about us potentially finding away to control it, currently we don't have any other than one's that make you look like donald trump. I never said there is anything wrong with trying to find a cure for, so reading comprehension fail on your part, all I said is that if you kill yourself because you're bald, you're a moron. Still stand by that.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1, Flamebait)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314490)

maybe you should visit kids with anorexia and give them your spectacular insight into self image, i'm sure it would be way more helpful than you shutting the fuck up.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

NickDB (1289180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314574)

Oh way to go, comparing baldness in men to a psycological disorder in kids. Yeah apples with apples that is.

Is anorexia, a genetic trait? Or is it a manifestation of deeper more serious problems.

Is Alzheimer’s the same as a unibrow in your world?

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314620)

i'm saying self image is serious enough to starve you to death, you say just get over it. it's the same thing.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

NickDB (1289180) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314644)

No, no it's not.

Self image in kids is far different to self image in men who should of learnt enough by the time they're going bald to be comfortable with who they are. If they still put that much stock in having hair by the time they reach the age of going bald, then they have issues.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314728)

so shooting yourself over going bald is different to starving yourself because you think you're fat because they should know better by that age? i'm not saying they don't have issues (who doesn't) but issues are not age restricted, you don't suddenly become a functional human being at 30.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314940)

Hmmm...back to the ggggp, maybe it would be a good idea for these psychologically (and apparently physically) unstable to remove themselves from the gene pool then. If it matters so much to the individual, let them remove themselves so our species can progress as a whole.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

AmonTheMetalhead (1277044) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314348)

I'm losing my hair too but I'm not to fussed about it. Of course I'd like to actually keep my (long) hair (I'm a metalhead for one) and I'd buy a cheap remedy that actually works, but if not? Meh

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (3, Insightful)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313958)

I wasn't losing my hair at 17 but I am now so rather than prolong the agony I just shave it every day or so.

Hair is all about vanity and insecurity. You want to look attractive but to be honest confidence is more attractive than any hair style. So grasp the nettle shave off all or most of it and get on with living your life. The sooner you do it the sooner your skin tone will even out and you know women love a confident self assured man.

The guy worried about his hair loss isn't that man.
For women hair loss is probably harder to handle and pretty common but again do it bald women have character and attitude both sexy attributes.

There is nothing wrong with standing out from the crowd in fact it is an asset.

There is no cure for baldness just ways of looking a little less bald even hair transplants don't work they look like somebody who has had a hair transplant.

so feck it go get the razor and get on with your life.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

carvalhao (774969) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313980)

Completely agree on the importance of self-confidence but... statistics show that bald salespeople sell less than the ones with hair. Don't ignore the evolutionary hardwiring that tells us "good fur = healthy".

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314202)

Hair is all about vanity and insecurity.

It also helps keep you warm in the winter, and reduces how easily your scalp gets sunburnt in the summer. So it's not entirely a matter of vanity.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314290)

I agree with almost everything you say.

As a 'sufferer' of male pattern baldness myself, I've just gotta throw in that I understand guys wanting a 'cure', it is not for me. Likewise, guys that shave their heads seem no less vain to me, it is still a matter of not wanting people to know you're losing your hair. Hide it with more hair or hide it with no hair, it is still a process of hiding this 'shortcoming'.

I get my hair cut far fewer times a year than my full-haired friends, which offsets the fact that barbers *still* don't give you a discount for less hair!.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314698)

"cure for baldness"

OMG. I have an illness that needs curing! Phone me an ambulance!

I was about 18 when it started. 20 years ago.

I have friends who try and take the piss but it doesn't work. And these days, when they're all going grey, it kind of backfires on them.

I have no problem with it. Neither does the wife. And as life goes on, I get more attention than I ever did.

I can't go along with 'cut fewer times a year' though. I cut mine twice a month down to 1mm, else I end up looking like a tennis ball (and that's more ammunition for the piss taking).

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314404)

"You want to look attractive but to be honest confidence is more attractive than any hair style."

A LOT of women find a shaved head very attractive. so of you are losing your hair, shave it. Instant solution to the vanity problem.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (2)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315274)

Hair is all about vanity and insecurity ... So grasp the nettle shave off all or most of it and get on with living your life.

Isn't shaving it all off a way to hide male pattern baldness, and thus a sign of vanity and insecurity?

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314342)

man.. being completely bald is different from being a bit bald... my body is making that half-assed move and i am a little bald.. i would clearly prefer patrick steward baldiness to this shit..

so i shave the remaining crap... it's a fashion thing..

I doubt they are in it for the money (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314400)

These researchers like most others in basic sciences are learning how the body works. It will be a pharmaceutical company that will devote massive amounts of money to making the vanity drug. I doubt these researchers would see a dime from it. My wife does pain research and some day someone may make a better, non-opiod base pain medicine. She is happy just learning and contributing.

Basic research into how the body works is a very important job, even if the press wants the research to be about something else and reports it as such.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (2)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314436)

I really don't understand the level of vanity that causes some men to be prepared to throw so much money at trying to fix a process that doesn't cause any harm other than in their own heads.

Maybe your hair just wasn't awesome enough.

Re:I started to lose my hair when I was 17... (1)

grumling (94709) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314520)

Well good for you. As for me, every Mother's day I call my mom and thank her for the great hair she brought to my genetic soup.

Mice skin toupees (2, Funny)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313898)

The trick is in getting adipocyte precursors under the skin to talk to stem cells at the base of the hair follicles.

So why not skip all the steps in between, and just sew together toupees of peeled mice?

. . . um . . . warning sticker . . . "Stay away from cats, when in use."

Re:Mice skin toupees (1)

fooslacker (961470) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315060)

Because then the mice would be bald and we'd have to develop a drug for them...come on, think!

IN MICE (4, Informative)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313906)

This finding has been made IN MICE. Now, I'm not usually one to suggest that just because an effect is demonstrated in a lab animal that it won't apply to humans, but hey, saccharine only caused bladder cancer in lab rats because they have a different urinary tract, and they were retaining it in a way that would never happen in humans.

Now, the disclaimer being made, women have a larger dispersion of fat about the whole body, and while they have more vellus hair then men, vellus hair is hardly noticeable, and in fact, "balding" is typically a result of the hair on one's head turning into vellus hair. So, making humans grow more vellus hair isn't really going to solve anything.

Re:IN MICE (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314072)

I know, from the summary title I was hoping for a link between being fat and being bald, since often we men exhibit both characteristics. Disappointments all round. I can take down that banner welcoming our fat, bald, vellus enveloped overlords.

Re:IN MICE (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314230)

I know, from the summary title I was hoping for a link between being fat and being bald, since often we men exhibit both characteristics. Disappointments all round. I can take down that banner welcoming our fat, bald, vellus enveloped overlords.

Well, there's no reason to doubt that fatty tissue could lead to more vellus hair. In fact, since women typically have more of both, it might actually be related in humans. I suppose, the point I was trying to make was that when we think of "hair", we think there is only one kind... silly us, there's actually three kinds. (vellus hair, and two types of terminal hair: on the head, and "axillary hair", which is vellus hair that turns to terminal hair under exposure to testosterone.)

So, it's entirely possible that we could cause humans to grow more hair with this process, we just wouldn't usually call it hair, because we don't typically consider vellus hair to be "hair".

So, don't let your desire to wave your banner wane, there is still a chance that that much might actually apply to humans.

Re:IN CATS (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314296)

. silly us, there's actually three kinds. (vellus hair, and two types of terminal hair: on the head, and "axillary hair", which is vellus hair that turns to terminal hair under exposure to testosterone.)

Interesting... so which type is the hair that women have under their armpits and around their pussy? Obviously not vellus (it's to thick for that), not head hair (it's preferred by pubic lice rather than by head lice), and not "axillary hair" (where would the needed testosterone come from?)

Re:IN CATS (2)

FalcDot (1224920) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314582)

Women have testosterone, just not as much as men.

Re:IN CATS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314664)

and women with more testosterone tend to have more axillary hair... and tend to be a bit more daring (and crazy).

Re:IN CATS (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315736)

. silly us, there's actually three kinds. (vellus hair, and two types of terminal hair: on the head, and "axillary hair", which is vellus hair that turns to terminal hair under exposure to testosterone.)

Interesting... so which type is the hair that women have under their armpits and around their pussy? Obviously not vellus (it's to thick for that), not head hair (it's preferred by pubic lice rather than by head lice), and not "axillary hair" (where would the needed testosterone come from?)

As someone else already noted, it is axillary hair. Women have some testosterone in their systems, but not enough to usually activate axillary hair beyond the pubic area, and armpits. However, since each "axillary hair patch" has a different level of response to testosterone, pubic hair being highly sensitive, and chest hair being quite low sensitivity, women tend to get pubic hair, but not chest hair.

Women with CAIS (Complete Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome... and no, there are no men with CAIS) actually have limited if even any pubic hair, because their whole body lacks sensitivity to androgens regardless of the location on their body. It's one of the first traits that one should use to suspect CAIS: "does she have surprisingly low amounts of body hair regardless of being well into puberty?"

Oddly, in some cases, women may have medical conditions that require a treatment with testosterone. They usually can expect increased terminal hair as a side-effect of the treatment. Namely, the mustache is usually the next axillary hair growth area and may even activate into terminal hair growth even under only natural testosterone levels.

The idea that many of our biological traits are as drastically different as our genitalia has little evidence to support it, and is actually counter to almost the entire evidence available. Functionally, men and women are nearly identical, and use testosterone and estrogen equally, and both tend to respond each to the other just as much as a person of the other gender at the same age. But when we hear, "men use androgens, and women use estrogens", we are naturally drawn by our common sense to assume that this means that those traits are exclusive traits, but they are not. Beyond the state of the gonads (testicle vs ovary), almost nothing is exclusive to only one sex.

Re:IN BEARS (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314282)

I was hoping for a link between being fat and being bald

There is a link. Hint: very few men wear their fat on the top of their head...

Re:IN BEARS (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314364)

Oh, you'd be *amazed* if you did a body-fat test on the people wearing ties at my company. I swear, they just use the ties to squich the fat up to their heads.

A lot like a colorful silk cock ring, really.

Re:IN MICE (1)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314078)

You just ruined the days of hundreds of slashdot readers, thanks for the FACTS pal!
Someone mod this guy +5 dream shattering.

Re:IN MICE (2)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314236)

You just ruined the days of hundreds of slashdot readers, thanks for the FACTS pal!
Someone mod this guy +5 dream shattering.

I'm also a girl... so the -5 No girls on the internet modding will probably equal the two out?

Re:IN MICE (1, Offtopic)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314422)

oops, respect m'am. pls ignore previous profanity.

Re:IN MICE (2)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315538)

oops, respect m'am. pls ignore previous profanity.

Fuck that noise. ;)

Re:IN MICE (1)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314084)

Yeah, but the upside is huge. Imagine all those mice with all those neat hair styles? It would be a blast.

Re:IN MICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314152)

That's no upside! That's an adipose nursery ship! Someone call the Doctor, these are illegal breeding mice!

Re:IN MICE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314372)

Does "vellus" mean "pubic"?

Re:IN MICE (2)

FreakyGreenLeaky (1536953) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314408)

You're not bald right? So shut the fuck up and allow the rest of us to dream.

I can just imagine you sitting there with your ridiculously thick mop of lush hair and pompously stomping on our hopes.

it's a pretty basic pathway (2)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315512)

i wouldn't, for example, use mice as a valid model for say, genes having to do with brain structure in human beings. homo sapiens have made some changes in that department as compared to our mammalian cousins or even our simian cousins

but, evolutionarily speaking, we are so close to mice that a cell signalling pathway as basic as this one is most likely shared between mice and men

even if the signalling system were dormant in humans, we most likely still have the genes for it, and it could be revived in human beings under certain conditions

it's valid to talk about something like this in mice applying to humans. it would be exceptional if we did not share the same pathway

Re:it's a pretty basic pathway (1)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315590)

You're of course right, and my first paragraph was intended to be a disclaim of "I'm not saying that nothing in lab animals is applicable to humans", but rather, I wanted to point out that "hair" isn't just one thing in humans. There are two types of hair, vellus hair, and terminal hair, and it's entirely possible that this process would only activate vellus hair growth (being that women have more fat on average, and more vellus hair, this seems like a possibility).

My objection was that while this could be used to grow more hair, there is no guarantee that it could be used to grow more of the same type of hair that most people mean when they say, "hair". Because, in fact, bald men don't have any less hair, they just have had terminal hair follicles change to vellus hair follicles. (Excepting the case where a man is bald because he shaved, or used a form of epilation.)

They'll Make A Fortune (1)

SplicerNYC (1782242) | more than 3 years ago | (#37313970)

Off of vain people although I find that being bald is not only cheaper but neater. Now if they can only find a way to get reverse the hair growth on my back.

Re:They'll Make A Fortune (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314000)

Off of

If only there was a cure for redundancy.

Re:They'll Make A Fortune (0)

JustOK (667959) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314180)

there's several cures for redundancy

Re:They'll Make A Fortune (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314306)

Now if they can only find a way to get reverse the hair growth on my back.

Exercise. RTFA!

Re:They'll Make A Fortune (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314406)

Cheaper? Surely the expense of cutting your hair is offset by the increased amount of sunblock you need to buy.

Anecdotal (0)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314010)

I could have told you that.

WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT ALL ABOUT THEN !! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314022)

Has slashdot really become so mundane in its story-acceptance critera that page 13 in the Weekend Recorder is somehow nerd-ly ??

Come on, motherfuckers !! This is some sorry ass shit !!

Re:WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS SHIT ALL ABOUT THEN !! (0)

pz (113803) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314170)

Yeah, the editing has been going downhill for some time now, and with Taco's departure, there is no hope left.

load of rubbish (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314060)

If it was true I would grow a beard on my belly.

Connection? (0)

hedgemage (934558) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314088)

I am a fat man that is apparently repugnant to women. Despite this, many different women have commented on the quality of my shoulder-length hair.
Am I blessed with great hair because I am a fat little man?
I imagine that on Slashdot I can't be the only fat man with great hair who can't get a date...

Re:Connection? (1)

ArsenneLupin (766289) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314320)

I am a fat man that is apparently repugnant to women.

:-)

Despite this, many different women have commented on the quality of my shoulder-length hair.

And how is your chest (and back...) hair?

I imagine that on Slashdot I can't be the only fat man with great hair who can't get a date...

Maybe you are too restrictive in your choice of partners?

Re:Connection? (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314424)

You cant get a date because you are too "picky" of what you call acceptable. I know a lot of fat geeks that will "only date a hottie".. Yet they also refuse to get any social skills or even bathe weekly let alone the normal bathing cycle. oh and washed clothes, teeth brushing, etc.....

Guess what, you are not gonna get a hottie. So either start looking at realistic pool of women to target or give up. Honestly, 99% of the time it's not just "looks" that is the repulsion. it's personality, interaction and hygene that have 75% of the repulsion factor. And a lot of guys are simply completely idiotic in their expectations.

Re:Connection? (1)

garyebickford (222422) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314828)

A while back (1980s) my company used to do business with a very rich guy who was short, fat, ugly, with an obnoxious personality and a comb-over. Unlike many like him, he was aware of all of the above. He also had a Ferrari Testarossa, primarily because money + Ferrari was an effective antidote to the rest of his 'features'. It worked. Of course, a typical date cost him $1000s.

Re:Connection? (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 3 years ago | (#37315474)

Meh, he should just get hookers and cut out the red Italian middleman, and save some cash on his dates. I don't see how it could be any worse for his self-confidence than knowing he's just attracting gold-diggers with his wealth.

Re:Connection? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314434)

Might help if you took a bath.

Is this why bald men are usually slim? (1)

master_p (608214) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314112)

It's not the rule, of course. There are fat men who are bold. But, from what I see, the majority of bald men have little fat on their bodies; they are usually slim.

Re:Is this why bald men are usually slim? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314138)

I guess it's also why fat bastards are often so hairy!

"There are fat men who are bold?" (1)

aapold (753705) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314466)

But with science we can force them to be meek and timid so they keep in their place.

Re:Is this why bald men are usually slim? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314510)

being fat lowes testosterone levels. also, high testosterone produces muscle, which decreases fat and is also the cause of baldness.

so, kind of?

Re:Is this why bald men are usually slim? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314832)

It's not the rule, of course. There are fat men who are bold. But, from what I see, the majority of bald men have little fat on their bodies; they are usually slim.

Yes yes it is :P

I wish I was a mouse/rat (1)

dimeglio (456244) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314186)

I always hear "may not work on humans." Sounds to me like scientists pretty much cured rodents of all possible disease. Even cancer, now baldness, is no longer a problem for mice.

Re:I wish I was a mouse/rat (1)

p0p0 (1841106) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314412)

They probably planned it that way. They are the most intelligent life form on this planet. Really, who's the one being experimented on?

Ban this research (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314190)

These "scientists" are terrorists, I saw the word 'stem cells'

No cure...ever. (0)

Capt James McCarthy (860294) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314442)

There is no long term money to be made in curing baldness. The target has always been long term treatment.

Re:No cure...ever. (1)

foniksonik (573572) | more than 3 years ago | (#37314742)

But that's true of every disease or genetic annoyance. Why invent a cure when you can invent a treatment? The only cures include heinously expensive surgery and artificial device implantation with potential lifelong anti-rejection treatments.

OTOH if there were cures available countries like Sweden with full healthcare coverage would have them, so it's unlikely that they exist but are being suppressed.

all i here is (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37314446)

all I here is YADI YADI YA. fix it already. I whould not mind having hear again

m]od uP (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#37315076)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?