Someone brought up...elsewhere..that nanosomes may not be the best thing for targeting hair.
Talked about the size of nanosomes and their being intended for fast penetration of the stratum corneum. Crossing the blood-brain barrier. 600 nm is the best size. A steering agent to get the liposomes to where you want them- outer shaft and sebaceous glands- is needed.
Everyone's a critic I guess. Am just curious how you'd respond to that one. Thanks..
What are your thoughts on nanosomes?
Moderator: moderators
-
Dr.Yechiel
- Occasional Poster
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2005 1:54 pm
- Hair Loss Type: Don't Know
- Have you had a hair transplant?: No
Hello Jacob and thanks for your question.
We received other comments on this question with a few hints which helped decipher this mystery article which is supposedly quoted but not identified. I believe it refers to an article entitled Electron Microscope Demonstration of the Penetration of Liposomes Through Skin, Published in Folia Biologica (Praha) 43, 165-169 (1997).
Usually I would comment only if an article cited is identified but I took the extra steps to retrieve the article and make from it an exemplary case so that you and others can see how a person who only read an abstract but did not read the article can make comments which are irrelevant or even in contradiction to the article. I do not mind answering questions from people who read an abstract and do not know what to make of it, but I am concerned about the confusion that can be caused by those who read abstracts and make strong expert statements from such reading, assuming authoritative language should be taken at face value.
I don't know who that person is who "shares his concerns" about small liposomes. You cannot know what a person's motives are and who they are, especially in forums where every one has a fake name and can say what he wants in an authoritative tone for reasons of his own.
Should one read the full article, one would find that the conclusions are very different from the claims made about it by someone who didnt read it. You mentioned that the source alleged that the article says that topical nanosomes will cross the blood brain barrier. There is no mention of this in the article.
It is theoretically possible that in certain type liposome compositions a few intact liposomes may find their way to the blood but the article describes liposome presence or absence in some skin layers, not in the blood. Most liposome compositions, even if injected to into the blood system will clear the blood stream in minutes to hours by specialized organs which will capture and metabolize them.
1. The article does not compare between small liposomes and large liposomes in general, it only relates to a specific liposome composition they used in their study.
2. The article presents a study at the level of the skin only.
3. The liposomes in the article include a combination of many phospholipids.
4. The liposomes in the article were not of uniform size but included a large array of liposome sizes some which are 2 orders of magnitude apart from others.
5. The liposomes in the article included 10% cholesterol.
6. The liposomes in the article included 8% alcohol.
7. The liposomes in the article were multi-lamellar with only few possibly
uni-lamellar.
The few sporadic liposomes or lipidic structures found in skin deeper than the horny layer were found as swallowed (internalized) by certain cells and their identity is addressed as liposomes or lipid vacuoles which can be partial degradation of multilamellar liposomes swallowed by certain cells into smaller size liposomes or some other lipidic structures, or internal organelles of cells or endoplasmic reticulum which captured the gold conjugated proteins after being released from the liposomes.
And this was in animals.
In humans, a liposome cream (different carrier than in the animal study but not specified in detail) was topically applied, after which liposomes were observed after 48 hours only in the horny layer (only large liposomes were found after 48 hours, where the smaller could be sweated out, or rinsed, or degraded. Unfortunately, the study was not comprehensive or did not report on necessary controls which may or may not have been added). In keratinocytes, sporadic membranous structures were seen. They could be remnants of liposomes (not intact liposomes).
There are many studies on topical liposomes about the skin distribution gradient of liposomes; that's a very large field of study and not something to be judged on one abstract of one misquoted article. Taking an abstract and misrepresenting it could be an act of bias and BS or ignorance. As I said before, I would respect asking a question after reading an abstract, but to make strong, false, and authoritative comment after reading an abstract and not even understanding it and potentially misleading people is not an act I will classify as ethical.
Our Nanosomes are beneficial to skin whether they carry other ingredients or not. Other ingredients are important but are secondary to the Nanosomes themselves. Naosomes induce potent anti-aging effects not matched by any other technology. Though balding is not always associated with aging, it may as well be. Not all organs and cells age at the same rate. Maturation and aging may not be morphologically the same but are both time-related events and may technically represent different points of expression of the same phenomena. Anti-aging effects on scalp and hair roots may be the foundation for successful scalp regimens.
Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
http://www.elsomresearch.com/
http://www.the-formulator.com/
210.493.5225
We received other comments on this question with a few hints which helped decipher this mystery article which is supposedly quoted but not identified. I believe it refers to an article entitled Electron Microscope Demonstration of the Penetration of Liposomes Through Skin, Published in Folia Biologica (Praha) 43, 165-169 (1997).
Usually I would comment only if an article cited is identified but I took the extra steps to retrieve the article and make from it an exemplary case so that you and others can see how a person who only read an abstract but did not read the article can make comments which are irrelevant or even in contradiction to the article. I do not mind answering questions from people who read an abstract and do not know what to make of it, but I am concerned about the confusion that can be caused by those who read abstracts and make strong expert statements from such reading, assuming authoritative language should be taken at face value.
I don't know who that person is who "shares his concerns" about small liposomes. You cannot know what a person's motives are and who they are, especially in forums where every one has a fake name and can say what he wants in an authoritative tone for reasons of his own.
Should one read the full article, one would find that the conclusions are very different from the claims made about it by someone who didnt read it. You mentioned that the source alleged that the article says that topical nanosomes will cross the blood brain barrier. There is no mention of this in the article.
It is theoretically possible that in certain type liposome compositions a few intact liposomes may find their way to the blood but the article describes liposome presence or absence in some skin layers, not in the blood. Most liposome compositions, even if injected to into the blood system will clear the blood stream in minutes to hours by specialized organs which will capture and metabolize them.
1. The article does not compare between small liposomes and large liposomes in general, it only relates to a specific liposome composition they used in their study.
2. The article presents a study at the level of the skin only.
3. The liposomes in the article include a combination of many phospholipids.
4. The liposomes in the article were not of uniform size but included a large array of liposome sizes some which are 2 orders of magnitude apart from others.
5. The liposomes in the article included 10% cholesterol.
6. The liposomes in the article included 8% alcohol.
7. The liposomes in the article were multi-lamellar with only few possibly
uni-lamellar.
The few sporadic liposomes or lipidic structures found in skin deeper than the horny layer were found as swallowed (internalized) by certain cells and their identity is addressed as liposomes or lipid vacuoles which can be partial degradation of multilamellar liposomes swallowed by certain cells into smaller size liposomes or some other lipidic structures, or internal organelles of cells or endoplasmic reticulum which captured the gold conjugated proteins after being released from the liposomes.
And this was in animals.
In humans, a liposome cream (different carrier than in the animal study but not specified in detail) was topically applied, after which liposomes were observed after 48 hours only in the horny layer (only large liposomes were found after 48 hours, where the smaller could be sweated out, or rinsed, or degraded. Unfortunately, the study was not comprehensive or did not report on necessary controls which may or may not have been added). In keratinocytes, sporadic membranous structures were seen. They could be remnants of liposomes (not intact liposomes).
There are many studies on topical liposomes about the skin distribution gradient of liposomes; that's a very large field of study and not something to be judged on one abstract of one misquoted article. Taking an abstract and misrepresenting it could be an act of bias and BS or ignorance. As I said before, I would respect asking a question after reading an abstract, but to make strong, false, and authoritative comment after reading an abstract and not even understanding it and potentially misleading people is not an act I will classify as ethical.
Our Nanosomes are beneficial to skin whether they carry other ingredients or not. Other ingredients are important but are secondary to the Nanosomes themselves. Naosomes induce potent anti-aging effects not matched by any other technology. Though balding is not always associated with aging, it may as well be. Not all organs and cells age at the same rate. Maturation and aging may not be morphologically the same but are both time-related events and may technically represent different points of expression of the same phenomena. Anti-aging effects on scalp and hair roots may be the foundation for successful scalp regimens.
Elishalom Yechiel, Ph.D.
President
Elsom Research Co., Inc.
http://www.elsomresearch.com/
http://www.the-formulator.com/
210.493.5225
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 73 guests