This is our first controversy, a carryover from a discussion that began on truthinaging.com. It deals with products that contain a single cytokine (epidermal growth factor) as an active ingredient. it is being sold by Sif Cosmetics of Iceland (www.bioeffect.co.uk). Absent from the web site is any reference to scientific studies documenting the safety or efficacy of the products, or the active ingredient. The actual concentration of EGF is not listed for the product. The controversy has two parts. 1) The use of transgenic plants to produce drugs and biochemicals has been a subject of scientific debate for some time. 2) The wisdom of applying EGF without counterbalancing cytokines to human skin is examined in light of extensive scientific evidence as to it’s known effects.
What is transgenic pharming?
Transgenic pharming refers the use of genetic engineering to cause plants to create drugs or biochemical that are not native to that plant. It is akin to genetically modified animals and microbes. The purveyors of the transgenic EGF product under consideration have labeled this author as “completely unscientific” for suggesting that there is any danger whatsoever to transgenic pharming. As it turns out, I am not alone. In fact there are prominent scientists all over the world (experts in the field, which I am not), proclaiming the dangers of transgenic plants. The Institute of Science in Society is a nonprofit) has published a statement signed by 136 scientists, which you can find here: http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/world-cn.htm.
There are multiple dangers cited; the most common is the risk of transgenic plants sharing their altered DNA though pollination with other “wild” plants, potentially devastating agriculture across a wide area. Proponents say it can be contained. Yet there have already been incidents where contamination has occurred. In Iceland, where the company making this is located, there has been trouble for the company. It turns out that barley is the only crop grown in Iceland. While they currently have their government’s approval, there has been discussion of shutting this down. In fact, many in Iceland want to ban the import of foods made from transgenic crops, which is already banned in Europe. In the U.S., the USDA and FDA have a zero tolerance policy when it comes to security around experiments with plants. In Iceland, the company growing ECF-producing barley was sabotaged by food safety activists when it was discovered that they were growing their genetically modified barley outdoors (NOT in a greenhouse).
Because this is not our primary field of study, we do not wish to state a strong opinion on either side of this controversy. Rather, we point you to a just a few places on the internet where you can gain further insight.
What is EGF?
Epidermal growth factor (EGF) is one of many hundreds of chemicals that cells use to communicate with each other. Generally speaking, we call these cytokines. Cytokines can be broken down into families according to their principal actions (to the extent that we understand their function – sometimes they have multiple functions). EGF belongs to a family known as growth factors. There are about a dozen of them. As their name implies, they are involved with growth, development, and healing (damaged or dead tissues undergoing reconstruction).
EGF and Skin
Skin has multiple layers. The outermost layer is the epidermis, which itself can be divided into multiple layers. The outermost layer of the epidermis (stratum corneum) is about a dozen cells thick (on the face, thicker elsewhere). The innermost layer (basal cells) is only one cell thick. In between there are 2-3 layers of varying thickness.
Under normal physiologic conditions, EGF would reach the basal layer of the epidermis not from the outside in, but from the inside out (from the dermal layer, which is rich in blood vessels). In the case of skin damage, cell communication signals would have resulted in migration of a certain class of stem cells to the area, which would orchestrate a damage control strategy though a complex array of secreted cytokines, including growth factors. But they would do so in a carefully controlled sequence, as there are many steps involved in cutaneous healing. Toward the end of that sequence, EGF may predominate to stimulate basal cells to increase production of new cells which, as they mature, advance from inner to outer layers, and are ultimately shed.
When applied to human skin in the absence of other cytokines (that provide a synchronized set of signals to local cells, the outer layer of cells (the epidermis) proliferates. This is accomplished my increased mitosis (cell division) within the epidermis itself. Normally, new cells are formed by miosis at the basal cell layer, and work their way up to the surface over time. This normal progression may be bypassed with unbalanced EGF hyperstimulation. Cells that have already progressed from basal to midlayers may be stimulated to divide. These cells are more likely than deeper cells to have been stressed by free radical generation due to UV exposure and the like.
What does EGF skin proliferation look like?
The outer epidermal layers thicken, as more cells are produced. This can have positive cosmetic effects, as the skin “plumps up” not unlike what happens when a good moisturizer is applied to dry skin. But in this case it is more (surface) skin. Now the plumped up skin can help the contours of thinned (aged) skin to look younger, more rounded. However, problems may arise. The growth of new epithelial cells narrows the pore through which the hair grows. Over time the hair may become thinner and thinner until it become peach fuzz (vellus) hair. The follicle may be so smothered that it stops producing hair altogether. Eyebrows and eyelashes may start falling out, and your scalp hairline may recede. (It’s a superb depilatory – in fact EGF is used commercially to remove wool from sheep). This type of hair loss has also been reported as a side effect when EGF is taken internally. Skin texture may become less pleasing as well, as pores may become more prominent over time. Like other actives, a certain “dependency” can develop. Stopping the application of EGF may lead to a period of skin “hypoplasia” or slowed growth as a compensatory defense.
EGF and wrinkles
Wrinkles are defects in the dermal layer of the skin, where collagen precursors and elastin are produced by fibroblasts. During aging, collagen forms cross links that cause it to deform its shape and lose elasticity at points of stress. The process of removing old collagen and replacing it with new slows down.
Mitogenic cytokines that act in the dermis layer include basic fibroblast growth factor (bFGF), transforming growth factor alpha (TGF-α), and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) along with transforming growth factor-beta 1 (TGF-b1). Companies that tout products with EGF as an active claim that it stimulates collagen and elastin to reduce wrinkles. But EGF, it turns out, has only a weak effect on fibroblasts.
The “cytokine context” of the dermis again is driven largely by specialized local cells, assisted by cells that migrate to areas of (acute and chronic) damage. Assuming that any topically applied EGF reaches the dermis, it would be a minute fraction of that applied, and thus not likely to affect collagen production. Also, wrinkle reduction requires not just the making of new collagen, but also the breakdown and disposal of old collagen. That is the role of a different group of cytokines, and their target cells, some of which are phagocytes (immune cells that gobble up debris and export it).
So, all in all, EGF as a lone cytokine applied topically is not likely to affect wrinkles at the dermal level. Epidermal plumping may temporarily alter fine lines, but is just as likely to exaggerate them (hills plump, riverbeds less so).
The epidermis is a keratinised stratified squamous epithelium. The main function of the epidermis is to protect the body from harmful influences from the environment and against fluid loss. It is well designed for this task. Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF) is a 6.2 kDa polypeptide (protein) containing 53 amino acid residues, not huge by biomolecule standards , but too big to slide through the spaces between the stratum corneum brick and mortar wall. Like most proteins, EGF is a polar molecule, making it doubly difficult to breach the defensive barrier. Without a specialized strategy (e.g. stable liposome, solid lipid nanosome, or other such envelope) it is likely that very little will past the SC. Most will be denatured and leave protein debris on the skin surface. Which actually can be a good moisturizer when combined with water (albeit a relatively expensive one).
EGF and Cancer
While EGF is not mutagenic (it does not initiate cancer formation), it is mitogenic (it stimulates the proliferation of cells, including cancer cells). Inhibitors of epidermal growth factor signaling can slow and even stop proliferation of some tumors
Cells in the body, must ask permission to multiply and expand, thus restricting growth to the places and times when it is needed, e.g. for baby who is growing, or for an adult healing a wound. Normally that growth is precisely orchestrated; tissues communicate through a panoply of growth factors and cytokines, passed from cell to cell to control growth and ensure that cells behave normally and healthfully. Cancer cells, however, often acquire the ability to give themselves this permission, so they can grow without worrying about the consequences to their neighbors. Epidermal growth factor (EGF) and its receptor are one place where cancer cells short-circuit the normal controls. EGF is part of a complex network of growth factors and receptors that together help to modulate the growth of cells. EGF is released by cells, and then is picked up either by the cell itself, stimulating its own growth, or by neighboring cells, stimulating their ability to divide (mitosis). Many aggressive types of cancer have overactive signaling through the epidermal growth factor system. They either create excess amounts of the growth factor or develop mutant forms of the receptor that are unnaturally active. Many anti-cancer drugs target this very pathway to slow or stop the spread of tumors.
What does this mean for skin? It does not mean that you need to worry that ECF will cause a skin cancer. However, if you should have skin cancer in any stage (including one too early to detect), ECF will make it grow more quickly. So, who has skin cancer? Consider this – skin cancer is the most common form of cancer in the U.S. More than 3.5 million skin cancers are diagnosed every year. Who is at risk? Older people. If you are over 40 and have a history of sun damage, there is a pretty good chance you will experience skin cancer. Between 40 and 50 percent of Americans who live to age 65 will have either skin cancer at least once. Up to 90 percent of the visible changes commonly attributed to aging are caused by the sun. The more signs of aging, the higher your risk for skin cancer. So, who is likely to have skin cancer? The same people who seek products to counteract skin aging. There are also pre-cancerous lesions to consider. Basal cell carcinomas often arise in lesions previously diagnosed as actinic keratosis. There is some evidence that mitotic overdrive can move a pre-cancerous lesion to a cancerous one.
Addendum: since the original publication of this article in 2011, we have fielded many questions regarding the safety of EGF. Since the discussion below is now quote lengthly, we decided to add right here a firm statement of opinion on that topic. We do not believe that EGF causes cancer. Period. There is much research about how cancers use EGF and other growth factors and their receptors to further their agenda of growth at all costs. But the same can be said of the ability of cancers to beg, borrow, or steal blood, oxygen, nutrients, and everything else they need for growth, often at the dire expense of tissues, organs or the whole organism. In short – that is the very nature of cancer and why it is dangerous – but that is not the nature of EGF. To blame EGF would be like blaming amino acids, carbs, fats, vitamins, minerals, hormones, etc. (cancers use them all). But you should think of EGF as the stolen object, not the thief. To the extent that cancers may co opt EGF, well then so does healing tissue after a surgery, or skin after damage by the sun. There is no scientific evidence that EGF applied to skin in any dose causes cancer. But then you don’t want to apply it to known skin cancers either. That is common sense. Knowing your own skin, and the signs of skin cancer, and promptly presenting to your doctor if you perceive any changes is the reasonable caution there.
We hope this message is clear. We can defend it with a huge body of knowledge in the published literature literature. We will present that for you soon.
1. Topically applied EGF, without counterbalancing cytokines, will cause epidermal cells to proliferate, plumping up the skin, but it may do so in a non-physiologic fashion.
2. The site of action is the epidermis itself, as most of the growth factor will be unabsorbed anyway, in the absence of a specialized transport vehicle.
3. EGF is an effective depilatory agent, popular among sheep farmers as an effective way to strip wool from the hides of their animals. Watch your eyebrows and hairline!
4. EGF is a potent mitogen, but not a mutagen. Tissues, normal and otherwise, will grow under its influence. This does not mean that EGF causes cancer. (see above addendum)
5. EGF is relatively expensive to isolate or manufacture. That may change in the future.
6. Several companies are now marketing EGF derived from barley through a process known as transgenic pharming. This has its own set of concerns. We are not experts. We refer you to the links provided here for details.
EGF is a potent, natural biochemical. It clearly does what its name suggests. However, putting a single cytokine (cellular signaling molecule) on your skin, unbalanced by other cytokines that work in concert during growth and healing, may not create the best cosmetic result.
Your comments are welcome.
Goodsell, D.S. (2003). The Molecular Perspective: Epidermal Growth Factor. The Oncologist October 2003 (8,) 496-497.
Yu L, Cho CH, Liu SW. (2011). Epidermal growth factor stimulates the proliferation of human esophageal squamous cell carcinoma HKESC-1 cells by increasing COX-2 expression. J. Southern Med. U. (8), 1323-6.
Soeda A, Inagaki A, et.al (2008). Epidermal growth factor plays a crucial role in mitogenic regulation of human brain tumor stem cells. J Biol Chem.18(16),10958-66
Thank you for the explanation of how EGF’s work! If counterbalancing cytokines were being added to the skincare products, how would they be labelled? Are there any “natural” products in our environment which could mimick the counterbalancing act of ese needed cytokines? Also, would a product that restores elastin fiber production be more beneficial?
Generally, the products that are labelled with “conditioned medium of stem cells” or “conditioned medium of fibroblasts” contain a mixture of hundreds of different cytokines, some from each family. Skinmedica TNS serum is one. ReLuma Anti-aging Serum gets close with a product based on adipose derived human stem cells. Not my choice of stem cells (wrong cytokine recipe). And not sure whether they are isolating only a few (9 according to Marta).
Now, you need to know that products claiming to contain plant stem cells don’t contain human cytokines, and in fact are really just ground up plant bits. These products are based on pseudoscience, and should be avoided. They do not pass the BFT truth test. We will do a detailed report on that whole scam soon. Products like Juice Beauty Stem Cellular Repair and Hydropeptide Hydrostem+6 are perpetuating this marketing myth.
In terms of “natural”, we consider the cytokines from human stem cells to be quite natural, because they are the exact same ones your own body makes (just makes a lot more of them when you are younger). You won’t find these cellular messenger molecules in plants (unless you transfect them with human DNA), because plants share very few cytokines in common with humans (they are called cytokinins in plants, and they are different). For instance, a plant tends to deal with a wounded limb by killing it off and growing a new one. Until we figure out how humans can grow new limbs, we should probably not try to dose up on the plant limb killer chemicals.
Elastin is under cytokine control. Transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) is the best known of these. The problem with elastin (some of the oldest proteins in your body) is not lack of production, but the problem of glycation leading to stiffness. If it gets broken down, it gets replaced. So a better strategy is to undo cross links, clear out old collagen and elastin, then make new, fresh fibers. We will do a collagen & elastin physiology primer soon.
Apart from the many parabenes, do you really think the tns essential serum is safe for long term use?…: http://www.beautypedia.com/Brand/SkinMedica/254.aspx
The review you linked to must be very old, as it ignores a good deal of evidence in favor of the efficacy and safety of so-called “conditioned media”, not just from SkinMedica but from many sources, around the world, including soiid academic centers . It also presents a number of errors in interpreting the biochemistry of CM. Whoever wrote is not expert in cell biology. I recognize it is a fast moving field, and the terminology has changed, adding confusion. Most scientiosts in this area look to stem cells as superior sources of these cytokines and growth factors. SkinMedica sticks to fibroblasts. The fact is this stuff has been extensively researched, and has been around for about a decade without reported safety issues. They should dump the parabens.
it is very exciting to see others thinking about long-term effects of stem cell-based cosmetics. I have brought it up to Marta’s attention in the past in r/t ReLuma serum; unfortunately this subject never became a discussion (the comments’ thread is no longer available for review). Regranex gel used in care of diabetic foot ulcers was the first red flag. The end-result of growth factors’ use in some of the trials of therapeutic angiogenesis in coronary artery disease was malignancy. We simply have no control over these powerful “signals” of cellular growth. There is no end-result research either to prove safety. It is sad to see that vanity takes over common sense so easily.
Growth factors are indeed potent molecules. Regranax does work, but carries a significant warning label. You are right that signalling proteins in general are very powerful, and they work on just about every cell/system, and thus have a high potential for unintended consequences. Platelet derived growth factors are quite similar to epidermal growth factor (same family). They do the same thing (stimulate mitosis, or cell division, growth, and proliferation). It makes total sense that if a potent mitogen meets up with a tissue that has undergone mutagenesis (DNA altered to be come cancerous) … tumor proliferation could occur. Some cancers deviously figure out how to amp up their own growth factors (or receptors for same). I suppose if we feed a tumor some unopposed growth factors, we would be saving them the trouble.
disagree about Regranex – look at the Warning box. as far route of administration – we don’t know enough about the variations in the effect depending on the route. so, who really knows?
BOXED WARNING: An increased rate of mortality secondary to malignancy was observed in patients treated with 3 or more tubes of Regranex Gel in a post-marketing retrospective cohort study. This means that it didn’t cause any cancers, but if you had one it grew / spread faster, leading to earlier mortality.
This is consistent with what we have been saying — Regranex, like EGF, is not a mutagen, but a really potent mitogen. Some cancers thrive on growth factors. Thanks for reminding us of that.
I like this post, enjoyed this one thanks for putting up.
I think you should call it carcinogenic. According to Mirriam-Webster dictionary, carcinogenesis is defined as “the production of cancer”. It seems that production has several parts – 1) initiation 2) growth 3) spread. While EGF may not initiate, it sure is part of growth, which leads to spread. If 50% of older people are going to get skin cancer, then half of those women who put this on their face are going to produce (grow, spread) their cancers by their own hands
You make a good point. The FDA says Regranax is “linked to” cancer, not “causing cancer”. Here is a review:
Diabetes Gel Regranex Linked to Cancer
Regranex Users Have 5 Times More Cancer Deaths
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Louise Chang, MD
June 6, 2008 — Diabetes patients who use Regranex gel to treat dangerous foot and leg ulcers may have a fivefold higher risk of dying from cancer, the FDA today warned.
The FDA will ask Regranex maker Ethicon (a division of Johnson & Johnson) to put a “black box” warning label on the drug. The black-box warning is FDA’s highest warning level.
“In announcing this label change, FDA still cautions health care professionals to carefully weigh the risks and benefits of treating patients with Regranex,” Susan Walker, MD, director of the FDA’s Division of Dermatological and Dental Products, says in a news release. “Regranex is not recommended for patients with known malignancies.”
The cancer finding comes from an FDA review of a postmarketing survey that suggested there might be a link between Regranex and cancer.
“FDA has now completed its review of the study and has concluded that the increase in the risk of death from cancer in patients who used three or more tubes of Regranex was five times higher than in those patients who did not use Regranex,” the FDA reports.
Despite this fivefold increase in risk, the finding is based on only four excess cases of cancer, according to an Ethicon news release.
“We remain committed to the safety and efficacy of this product when used according to its label,” Ethicon spokeswoman Jackie Jankewicz tells WebMD.
Regranex is a medicine that is a genetically engineered form of a human growth factor that helps wounds heal faster. It is a huge benefit to diabetic patients with slow-healing wounds on their legs or feet that often result in amputation of the affected limb.
Because Regranex makes cells grow faster, there has been concern that it will also make cancer cells grow more quickly. That’s why Ethicon has monitored patients since the drug was approved in December 1997.
There’s no evidence that Regranex causes new cancers, although the follow-up study has not gone on long enough to rule out this possibility.
I just wanted to thank you doctors for taking the time to educate us about these products. It really makes you think about how easy it is to believe the false science and product claims, I guess because we so much want it to be true. Keep up the great work.
Hey Dr John,
I’m a bit perturbed by point no 3 in your summary list, where it says that EGF is an effective depilatory agent. This because Reluma, in their hair growth products, use the Human Adipose Derived Stem Cell Conditioned Media as a primary ingredient. Isn’t that kind of counterproductive? I would be more than grateful if you would explain this to me. Thank you. 🙂 ,
Hi Arandiel. They are two different things. Conditioned media of stem cells contains a cocktail of cytokines derived from stem cells in culture, including low (physiologic, natural) levels of multiple growth factors. EGF is a single growth factor and is derived by transgenic pharming (in this case). It is present in non-physiologic (not natural) concentrations. EGF in this application has NOTHING to do with stem cells (another science error at truthinaging.com where they lump it in with stem cell products; it’s nothing of the sort).
I came across this study while delving into crosstalk between various cytokines and their cellular receptors. What it points out is that UV radiation works just like EGF on growth factor receptor (EGFR). Both lead to the activation of c-Jun, the activator protein involved in photoageing. It suggests that downregulation of the EGF-EGFR pathway could be exploited to prevent UV-induced skin aging. The obvious valid antithesis is that upregulation (by putting pure unopposed EGF on your skin) does the opposite – it would promote photoageing.
Cell Signal. 2010 Feb;13(2):139-44.
EGF receptor crosstalks with cytokine receptors leading to the activation of c-Jun kinase in response to UV irradiation in human keratinocytes.
Wan YS, Wang ZQ, Voorhees J, Fisher G.
Ultraviolet (UV) irradiation causes photoageing through induction of matrix-degrading metalloproteinases (MMP), which are upregulated by activator protein-1 (AP-1) (Jun/Fos). The c-Jun kinase activity proves to be critically important in the regulation of AP-1 activity. Our previous studies showed that UV irradiation activates epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and cytokine receptors leading to the activation of c-Jun kinase in cultured human skin keratinocytes in vitro and in human skin in vivo. However, the mechanism of UV-induced cell surface receptor activation and the crosstalk among growth factor receptor and cytokine receptors were not fully investigated. This study showed that UV (30 mJ/cm(2))-induced EGFR tyrosine phosphorylation in a manner similar to EGF (100 ng/ml), or IL-1beta (10 ng/ml) in cultured human keratinocytes. In all cases, EGFR tyrosine phosphorylation was completely inhibited by pretreatment of PD153035 (100 nM, 1 h). Also observed was that UV induced autophosphorylation of interleukin 1 receptor associated kinase (IRAK) in a manner analogous to IL-1beta or EGF. In both UV and EGF cases, the phosphorylation of IRAK was inhibited by pretreatment of PD153035. However, IL-1beta-induced IRAK activation was not affected by PD153035. In vitro kinase assay using GST-c-Jun as a substrate revealed that pretreatment of PD153035 completely inhibited UV- and IL-1-induced c-Jun kinase activity in cultured keratinocytes. Taken together, the above data suggest that EGFR plays dominant role in the crosstalk among growth factor receptor and cytokine receptors leading to the activation of c-Jun kinase upon UV irradiation, and that EGFR could be one of the targets for clinical and cosmetic prevention of UV-induced skin aging.
Hi Dr John,
This may be like trying to force black or white in an issue that clearly defines many interim shades, but from your articles about EGF would I be correct in surmising that usage of Bioeffect (or any othe EGF based product) is likely to introduce a faux anti-aging process? By this I mean that mitosis of the skin cells in the upper dermal layers is encourgaged but ultimately the root causes of aging are not addressed (Fibroblast reconstruction, collagenation of damaged tissue etc). In effect; cells multiply and produce a nice ‘plumped’ look – which would account for the subjective accounts posted on the internet by users – but the process is not actually ridding the subject of wrinkles or laying down any beneficial framework to retard or reverse the aging process?
Please forgive me if I’ve misunderstood any of the processes involved – it’s not an area I have any previous knowledge in.
PS. Fantastic site by the way.
Yum, your summary is spot on. Plumping the epidermis with EGF, without providing the other cytokines & growth factors needed for coordinated rejuvenation, leads to pleasing but superficial effects.
Analogy: your house is ageing, the foundation is slumping, wood has rotted in some places, and it just plain looks old and tired. A guy comes along and sells you aluminum siding (remember Tin Men?), pocketing $20,000. The house looks pretty on the outside, at least for now. On the inside, the structure has not changed. The foundation gets worse, and the siding starts to bulge in places. The old wood can no longer breathe, and begins rotting (like those pores getting clogged). Now you could try taking off the offending siding, but things would by then look even worse! In the end, nothing short of a major renovation will fix the situation.
I am not against plumping as part of an overall renovation project, but not with unopposed EGF. The best moisturizers are also “plumpers” because skin is retaining more fluid (matrix, not just H20). Soy isoflavones stimulate receptors way upstream to stimulate skin to add additional layers (coordinated, not a single cytokine).
Thanks for your excellent comment, Yum.
Thank you for all the work you put into this site. I feel quite well informed. Keep up the good work. Did you ever find an affiliate site to do product reviews?
Hi Dr John and Dr George – I have a question on another EGF called rh-oligopeptide-1. Is this EGF oncogenic also and/or would it cause a “faux anti-aging process” referenced by Yum’s comment above? How do we know if a product contains the necessary cytokines to work in conjunction with the EGF? I am getting better at understanding the science talk (esp Stem Cell Part 2 article), so I hope this is not a dumb question. BTW, this is an ingredient in Skin Nutrition Cell CPR.
Hi Kris Ann. rh-oligopeptide-1 is EGF. The name on the label is an INCI (International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients) name. So why not just put “EGF” or “epidermal growth factor” on the label, since it is such a well known biochemical? Good question. Could it be a marketing ploy? Turns out anybody can petition INCI to get their own ingredient name in the database. Which is odd, since the whole reason for the database is to comply with regulations that state that ingredients need to be ‘clearly” stated on the label. This does not clarify, it obfuscates. Further, it is a total misnomer. By definition an oligopeptide has 20 or fewer amino acids. Since EGF has 156, it is not an oligopeptide. But hey, this isn’t about science, right? It’s about selling products. Peptides are good, right? So oligopeptides sound good.
Now to answer your other question, I would to know how much EGF is in the product you mention. However, if i try to go to their website, I get this from my computer protection system: REPORTED ATTACK PAGE. This web page has been reported as an attack page and has been blocked based on your security preferences. Attack pages try to install programs that steal private information, use your computer to attack others, or damage your system.Some attack pages intentionally distribute harmful software, but many are compromised without the knowledge or permission of their owners. Yikes! Stay away.
Your question about other cytokines is a complex one. I don’t think anyone has done the kind of work required to answer with surety, since there are hundreds of cytokines, and the combinatory permutations are therefore in the millions. But I can tell you a few basic principles that we use as guidance. The first is called primum non nocere. It’s a Latin phrase that means “First, do no harm”. If there is any doubt about an ingredient, go back and do the research to make sure it’s safe. The second principle is one called biomimicry. The best way to discover natural cures or benefits is to study the natural, and try to mimic or replicate it. We know that groups of cytokines secreted by human cells under certain situations are aimed at healing and restoration. We know that if you take a single cytokine and apply it, it may do something powerfully, but that is not the same as physiologic. Not natural. Pure EGF is not natural — your cells are far too clever to rely on a single signal to effect repair. Cytokines can be inflammatory or anti-inflammatory. EGF can be either, depending on the context or ‘milieu”. If it meets the wrong milieu and is not balanced by other cytokines, it will became an inflammatory agent. It will lead to growth, but not necessarily coordinated growth. More like scarring growth — fast but ugly. But when part of a coordinated, balanced cocktail of cytokines it can play an important role in growth and healing.
One of the cytokines that is definitely missing is fibroblast growth factor (actually a family of 22 different cytokines). This at least would generate more collagen synthesis. But again, all these growth oriented (mitogenic) cytokines have to be balanced with other cytokines that prevent the wrong kind of growth. We should post a list of the various families.
Here’s a board exam question. If you see this constellation of symptoms & signs in a male body builder, what do you think? Acromegaly, fluid retention, carpal tunnel syndrome, diffuse painful joints, gynecomastia (enlarged breasts in males), and liver damage … what is your diagnosis? That’s right, he has been injecting himself with human growth hormone. Some of the effects are quite similar to EGF, only systemic. Excess hGh is also inflammatory.
Sorry for the long answer. You got me started!
Is it OK to use product with both EGF and FGF?
They belong to the same family, and have some receptor crossover. I would want to be cautious.
Would this caution extend also to a product using FGF1 as its sole growth factor?
Yes, any cytokine or growth factor in isolation holds risks, because it upsets a complex interplay of cell signals. Especially growth factors, as cancers are famous for exploiting them for their own nefarious purposes. There need to be a physiologic balance. Don’t try to fool mother nature – she has ways of getting even.
I am a biochemist. A couple of points.
1. I respect your position on GMO, which is shared by some others. But it is a huge topic for discussion. Since the ingredient we are discussing is extracted and purified, the source of the molecule is irrelevant except for a moral debate. Insulin is produced by transgenic e.coli bacteria and has a blemishless safety record, being injected by millions of people everyday. The e.coli or barley is just a biological machine to produce a chemical which is extrated. The transgenic organism is not consumed in any way.
2. Dealing with the cynical remarks on the ingredients list – i feel your comments are unfair. They imply a cosmetic company is deceiving the public by hiding the name of the ingreident. I think they would actually like to do the reverse but are required under law to adhere to the INCI naming system. This is regulated by the FDA. They must list the ingredients of a product in order of concentration using a designated name for each ingredient. The PCPC issues names based on a chemical naming rationale.
3. Can I ask if you have any interests to declare? You seem to be in favour of Skinmedica as a conditioned media of balanced cytokines but you do not mention that this media is derived from humans (banned in the EU) because of the danger of using human derived products. The potential for prion transfer is significant leading to CJD is considered a risk meaning a blanket ban on all human derived produce. This apart from much larger ethical questions in my view, such as using Human baby foreskins as a source for cosmetics rather than plants.
4. I would need to more time to respond to your other main points about the dangers of using a single ingredient rather than a complex. To give a considered reply will take an entire day collating evidense and research that would paint a different picture. I am sorry but i do not have the time to do that. But I think that your argument could be used to say that there is no point taking vitamin C supplements without a thousand others to ensure the right mix. We may end up drinking the blood of other humans if we were to be literal.
5. EGF does NOT cause cancer. You said it yourself. It is a massive leap to say that a product which increases proliferation (as many cosmetic active ingredients do) may therefore potentially speed up skin cancer if someone has it, from saying it causes cancer. We do not confuse alcohol’s ability to induce procreation as proof alcohol can create human beings 🙂
Welcome to the debate. We are grateful that you would take the time to visit and for your very thoughtful comments. Please allow me to respond.
1. When transfected e.coli are employed within bioreactors under highly controlled conditions to create proteins via a transfected DNA-altering process, there is little or no risk that that same e.coli will find its way into the environment and spread that gene to the wild type. With transfected barley, not so safe. This company already got in trouble with the Icelandic authorities when it was discovered they were growing their genetically altered barley in an open field, rather than a controlled greenhouse. Their comeback was that Icelandic barley has such a short growing season the risk was small. Small comfort. If the GAO barley cross pollinates with wild barley, the risk is that the whole barley crop in Iceland could contain the EGF gene. Now recall, it is orally ingested EGF that strips the wool right off sheep. So imaging some sheep, some barley, you’ve got yourself a wooly mess. So, as you can see, the issues are not so much moral as public health, and economic.
2. The FDA requirements state a requirement for INCI naming, but it was based on the Second Edition of the INCI database, which uses common names, not chemical names. So, by law, they could have used Epidermal Growth Factor and been perfectly compliant. And since the regulations have as their stated purpose to make things clear to the consumer, I think that would have been a better choice than rh-oligopeptide-1.
3. All my interests and biases have been stated repeatedly, e.g. here and here and elsewhere. SkinMedica is a competitor to my company. You may know that prion transfer cannot take place via an epidermal route. It takes place by ingesting infected nervous tissue (e.g. brains) or by a parenteral route (injection). There has never in the history of the world been a case of transfer via skin, nor airborne transfer. Never. The EU regulations don’t anticipate dermatologic products, as far as I am aware, and so the restriction is perhaps over-reaching. As far as making the case that EU regulations are out of step with the rest of the world (my view), let’s look at transgenic crops again. How far behind is the EU in allowing exceptions, and how long was a ban in effect? I wasn’t aware of moral issues of baby foreskin…you will have to enlighten me. They are the waste products of a procedure done for other reasons, just like using adipose stem cells from liposuction. Not pretty, but not all that morally controversial.
4. There are many examples throughout human biochemistry. Take the example of amino acids. They exist in harmonious balance in your circulation, largely regulated in the liver. If you give a bunch of one or several amino acids, they compete for transport across cell membranes with other amino acids in that group, leading to a functional deficiency of others. Something quite physiologic like cysteine can become a poison. Here and here are classical papers on the subject.
5. Yes, I said EGF does not cause cancer. Yes, I also said that cancers can and do exploit EGF to grow and enlarge and slip past the normal growth controls. Both are true. Also true that 50% of people who live to 65 get skin cancer. Starts small, before you can see it. I see risk there, don’t you? Shouldn’t we at least tell people about that risk, so they can make informed choices?
I thought for sure it was the alcohol!. I guess the old reassurance “don’t worry, as long as you don’t drink alcohol tonight, you won’t get pregnant” will now have to be modified.
Dear Dr John,
Thank you for your considered reply. If I may, i would like to respond. For ease, i will stick to the numbers we have been using.
1. I take your point on barley crops mixing with regular barley crops. I take your expertise that this would happen.. It is not the same with e.coli as you have stated. However, I wanted to be clear that you are not saying that the EGF extract in the Bioeffect product can have environmental effect.
2. I am sorry to disagree but while you can use common name, you cannot simply choose any name you want. You cannot say vitamin C for example but l-Ascrobic Acid. If you include Titanouim Dioxide, the name changes to a color reference if you are using the same ingredient to make it white/opaque. The name of the Bioeffect ingredient includes the words ‘transgenic barley’ as the PCPC presumably asked for that. The SH stands for synthetic human, as in not simply recombinent (RH). All these things were out of their control. Peptide and amino acid chains have taken this nomenclature for many years and in my experience, the PCPC have criteria for naming. As part of my work, i register INCIs and the USA is out of sync with international regulations in Europe, Australia, China and much of Asia. Bioeffect go to great lengths to promote their product containing EGF, it is only your suposition that they are being deceitful when in fact this could just be name-calling on your part.
3a. Thank you for the links. I was not clear from the blog entry who you were at the time of reading or that you were a skin care company. Skinmedica is definitely banned in the EU.
3b. There is debate over the viability of transcutenous transfer of prions. It is certainly not clear cut. One has to also consider mucousal membranes, people with cuts and of course most importantly the ingestion of product through people putting their fingers in their mouth or kissing their wife on the cheek. Also there is potential for children to ingest through misuse. It is surely without question that there is a real danger and if you are to be as rigorous about your product as you being about others, then it is right you acknowledge this, even if you wish to qualify that risk as being small. You simply cannot with any credibility rule out prion transfer from using human derived products. This is why the EU bans it outright. From my experience, the EU is ahead on these things and many other countries seem to be adopting the EU regulation in favor of FDA ones. One of the benefits of being a relatively new institution and able to look at things fresh with less industry arm twisting. Plus since the EU is not a nation, it has less patriotic slanted rulemaking and really is focused on science.
3b. I suppose morality is a personal thing, but for me, using a baby’s foreskin as the base for a cosmetic product is fundamentally wrong. Adipose tissue,if your own, is a different matter. I have no objection to people storing their own foreskin for future use but that would rule out most potential buyers!
4. I agree entirely and I think you are making the same point as me.
5. According to Bioeffect, there is no evidence of abnormal cell growth using EGF. The issue is to do with receptors. Ronald Moy, the (past-) president of the American Association of Dermatology says EGF is a breakthrough ingredient – the best he has seen in 30 years. You can see him saying these words on Youtube. There are licensed skin ulcer drugs containing EGF which have been through the FDA medicine approval process (much greater test for safety than any cosmetic company would ever do). Also genetically altered mice to over produce EGF showed no cancerous outbreaks etc. (sorry no reference but this is again from Bioeffect). I am no expert in this area of cytokines so it is difficult to know what to believe. Whilst you are a perfectly charming gentleman, I certainly cannot take your words at face value, any more than theirs. And since you are a competitor – you would say all this.
Hello again Mandy,
1. I am saying that if EGF producing barley got into the human/farm animal food supply it could have effects, and that could be called an environmental issue.
2. I am not a regulatory expert. You can find them easily. Here is one (Marie Gale). Scroll down to Are INCI names required?. She says the same thing I did. Maybe the experts don’t agree – like all regulations, there is room for interpretation. However, BioEffect could have used the common name, or both common and obscure. They chose obscure. Perhaps they had no evil intent.
3a. If you want to look at the prion issue, do look at the only universally recommended precautions … “destroy all infected tissue”. How do you apply those sorts of “precautions” in a cosmetic marketplace. Further, by extrapolating from parenteral/enteral to topical risk for one substance (with zero data to support) you would have to do the same for every product. If anywhere along the way an animal (including human) substance touched any part of any product, it would be contaminated, and destroyed. If the glue on the label came from cow hide (as is common). You can see where this leads. It is not a reasonable extrapolation. No infectious disease authorities have even made this type of conjecture, as far as I know. The EU regs simply do not anticipate a human-derived product being used for topical purposes. I hear that may actually change in the future.
3b. I don’t like the foreskin idea myself. Whether or moral or intellectual, it lacks a compelling benefit to justify the concept in the first place.
4. Agree to agree.
5a. Interesting that you cite Ronald Moy, who has a direct and compelling commercial interest in EGF products, without questioning his bias, yet you call me a competitor to BioEffect and tell me you therefore cannot take me at face value. Honestly, your logic here totally eludes me. Seems a double standard.
5b.The mission at BFT is not my company’s mission. Noneltheless we recognize the contaminating effect of bias, and disclose all the relevant variables. That aside, let me say also that we like EGF, our products contain EGF. But balanced by a plethora of other cytokines to create a concerted physiologic effect. So, it’s not like we are some anti-EGF force at all. Rather, it’s that we recognize risk/benefit, and find unopposed EGF as deserving of a risk discussion. Which you should appreciate as someone who wants to calculate the risk of prion contamination via dermal contact for which there is zero evidence, ergo infinitesimally small if any risk). As we have pointed out, there are known examples of risk associated with the application of single cytokines in a wound healing context (read the comments above on Regranex and what earned its black box warning). You can call me to task for extrapolating from one cytokine to the whole slew, which is fine, because we are now in the realm of theory, and the evidence base is not sufficient to argue with ironclad conviction. But again, I bring up your prion concerns. If you are really so risk adverse as to want to make that leap (again – to remind – never in the history of the universe-despite much investigation-has there ever been a documented case), they why do want to relax your standards when it comes to something like this (e.g. Regranex, single cytokine, statistical association with excess death). Excuse me for saying it, but again I musty call double standard.
Thanks again for the thoughtful discussion. How about sharing with us your disclosures – why so interested in EGF/BioEffect? Any connections direct or indirect between you and them, or transgenic pharming, or any of this? Do you work in industry, or academe?
1. So we agree that there is no risk to the environment from using Bioeffect. The debate on transgenic farming is a red herring.
2. I think there is some confusion here. You said before that Bioeffect could have chosen any name they wanted but as I stated, the nomenclature is determined by prior art and the vagaries of the PCPC decision. The manufacturer does have input but they cannot simply state what the ingredient is called. The rules for labeling are different all over the world. In Europe, the law states clearly that the INCI name must be used. For a small cosmetics manufacturer, like Bioeffect, they will have wanted to produce one label to cover all markets. Therefore it is entirely plausible that with no bad intent whatsoever, the company used the INCI name on the pack so the product can be sold worldwide. In my experience, it would be unusual if the company made a change for the USA. On double-standards, you would be right to alleged in this case that they had changed things in the USA simply to talk about EGF rather than use the accepted INCI name.
3a. I really have no time or Medline access to properly address this points, but here is just one article from the FDA. I cite this solely to demonstrate that this is not as clear cut as you make it sound. http://www.fda.gov/cosmetics/productandingredientsafety/potentialcontaminants/ucm137012.htm
One of the reasons, if not the main reason, why cosmetic companies around the world use single GF ingredients is because there is a ban on human-derived produce that is set to expand internationally. I accept that a physiological blend of GFs rather than a single GF would be preferable, but given the former is not possible for companies selling in the EU, the single vector is more conservative that adding other GFs to a cocktail which if poorly thought through could end up with one GF blocking another. The rationale for using a single GF eg. EGF is sensible.
5a. I apologize if you feel there was a double-standard. I know that Ronald Moy has a financial interest in EGF and tried to state in my reply to you that i was not sure who to believe as both doctors have opposing financial interests. As a leading dermatologist, president of the world’s most important dermatologist academy which over 22,000 visitor last year to the San Diego conference, it would seem odd that he is not concerned about EGF in the same way as you are. Equally I would say the same to him about why you as a professional physician and researcher are not worried about prion transfer.
5b. Regenrex is a PDGF product. Different cytokine. The relevance of it being a single vector is overshadowed by the difference of action. Further and more importantly, this product is a medicine which has the scrutiny of multiple phases of FDA regulated clinical trials.The patients (with leg ulcers) are almost always very elderly people who are susceptible to side-effects, have by definition a poor immune system. The product is applied to an open wound. If your product was applied to an open wound, you have already conceded that this would result in possible prion transfer. If your product was registered as a drug and went through clinical trials, who knows what would come up. We have no data on your product or its long term effects. It not a fair fight.
I do appreciate your repsonses and also that you are big enough and professional enough to host this debate on your site – both sides of the debate. I would trust your position less if you were not transparent which i think you are being.
I have no involvement with Bioeffect but work in the cosmetics industry as a consultant – my interest is bringing product to international markets and claim substantiation. I have met the team from Iceland at various trade shows. There is another excellent company from England that makes EGF without proteases that they say is safer or more stable. Both the aforementioned are proper scientist-backed operations – real PhDs etc. But every other company I have seen on the circuit either uses adulterated EGF, blends of GFs that counteract each other or worse, they include the apple stem cells or plant stem cells nonsense. I dont know if you know about this junk circulating the industry but this is what we should be getting mad at. I guess I want to support science. If i was on their blog, i would be representing you just as robustly. I dont like one-sided arguments.
Back to #1.
2012-01-19 News report …
Greenhouse of GM barley damaged in storm in Iceland
The Environment Agency of Iceland is investigating an incident where a greenhouse run by the plant nursery Barri on behalf of ORF Genetics, where genetically-modified barley is grown, was damaged in the storm in east Iceland on Tuesday night. Biology professor Kesara Jónsson commented to ruv.is that it was lucky the greenhouse was damaged in the winter, otherwise the barley’s seeds could have spread beyond the nursery. The Environment Agency has issued ten licenses to breed genetically-modified animals and plants in Iceland, including flies and mice. The cultivation of genetically-modified barley has been authorized in five locations in the country; one of which is in the open.
In other words, the only reason this wasn’t an environmental emergency is because it happened in winter, not the pollination season. This is the parent to the cosmeceutical company, I am pretty sure, from other press reports. So not only is environmental contamination (e.g. spread to cultivated non-modified barley, the only cash crop of Iceland) and/or crittters a theoretic possibility, there seems to have been a near miss involving the same folks in Iceland. This company is also growing their GAO barley in open fields. What do you think of that?
#2. I accept your thesis. They were trying to do the right thing. Especially since i now know you are a pursuer of truth in regards such things as adulterated EGF, and plant stem cells nonsense. Seems we share some views. The enemy of my enemy is my friend (or whatever the PC version of that would be).
#3. ” Transmission of the BSE agent to humans through intact skin is believed to be unlikely; however, cosmetics may be ingested or applied to cut or abraded skin or to conjunctival tissues that can provide direct routes for infection.” Theoretically unlikely, actual measured incidence zero. Let’s just call it “highly unlikely”. In a relative odds ratio lets say it’s about the same as being struck by lightning 72 different times in 72 different places over 7.2 years. Theoretically possible, but statistically zippety-nada. Maybe we should put warning labels on – do not apply to open wounds or drink this stuff.
#3b I can accept your argument for the EU, but speaking for the rest of the world we don;t want to be limited to a single cytokine at a time, when nature clearly demonstrates that cells put these out in complex arrays, and that the net effect is not the same as a one off. Look at it from information theory (we are talking cell-to-cell communications) – suppose you were writing me a note but could only use key on your keyboard. Or if on my end I stripped out every word except those beginning with ‘C”. Further hint – I base a lot of my work in biomimicry. How did nature design it? How close to that can I get? How can I exploit that complexity therapeutically? I accept your economic argument (can;t sell into EU), but that can be said for a lot of things. Which could explain some of the current economic difficulties over there.
#5a There was only a double standard when you failed to point out that he had interests while pointing my own. Now that you acknowledge it, its no longer a double standard. Yeah!
#5b. It’s not a fight at all! It’s different perceptions on the balance between risks and benefits (science), regulations vs consumer choice (politics), and the realities of big companies vs small lean startups (I was a medical director for the big PDGF company, BTW). We continue our testing, and will likely apply for registered drugs in the not-too-distant future. Maybe even on open wounds. There may even by a cytokinal therapy for CJD!
I bet we could work this whole thing out in a evening over a few pints. Oh, and if you would like to test some AnteAGE (lab or face trials) we know a smuggler 😉
I am 23 going on 24, with previously VERY youthful skin and a baby face, and about 9 months ago under the effects of doxycycline, got UV induced oxidation on my face, specifically the under-eye area, and it destroyed my skin. I was off balanced psychologically and googled how to get rid of wrinkles, and retin-a came up. I immediately went to my general physician and begged her to prescribe me it and applied it every day, and all of a sudden noticed I could see veins and I had MORE wrinkles. I look back and if I had just applied a nice moisturizer like jojoba oil or grape seed oil and kept hydrated, and consumed natural cancer fighting foods/oils, I would be fine. However I look sad, the skin is sallow and dark because it THINNED the epidermis and up close there are tons of lines and without frequent moisturization it is super ugly and a huge blow to my confidence and identity. In desperation I also purchased a very expensive cold laser that said the word “stem cell” in the marketing so I thought in my irrationality that it would fix everything. Here I am, 10 months later, really seeking answers, obviously wishing I never used the harsh chemicals under my eyes, but knowing I was not thinking clearly. I just want real advice on how I can re-thicken the epidermis and recover its hydration if possible, so I don’t have to lather oil on it every 10 minutes. Desperately seeking help, if someone could help me, I know the science is complicated but I am really seeking to fix the EPIdermis right now, and help my skin out with good food, sleep, exercise and home-made serums- wondering how I could harness EGF or niacinamide or peptides, etc. If anyone knows someone I could talk to I would pay for your consultation. I know our skin and bodies have tons of interactions going on at once and it would be bad to just put one thing on without complementing it with other things, etc- I just want my skin to recover itself to be able to reproduce in a healthier state. Much much much appreciated… It’s affecting me greatly and has emptied me of resources and taken away my trust of profit-based skin care companies wiling to prey on people. My situation is unique though as I am so young and the “wrinkles” are jagged cuts in my skin from oxidative stress. It’s been a process of becoming more clear eyed and understanding of holistic health. Please help anyone if you can. I could make my own serum or if anyone can recommend me a way to just get this improved, including red light therapy etc, if that works too. Regretting using retin-a, but can’t go back in time. Please help me with present and future. AMAZING THAT YOU ARE PUTTING THIS INFO ON. MUCH APPRECIATED AS THE TRUTH IS HARD TO FIND, WITHOUT UNDERLYING MOTIVES AND CONFLICTS OF INTEREST.
Sorry you are experiencing all this. Suggest you consult a dermatologist if you have concerns. The sallow/dark comment suggests some post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, or solar hyperpigmentation, both of which can be associated with retin-a. If you are looking for a really good DIY formula, or kit, we suggest http://skinessentialactives.com. SeaKinNiaNAG serum (http://stores.skinessentialactives.com/-strse-93/Kinetin-DIY-kit%2C-SeaKinNiaNAG/Detail.bok) addresses both issues, may be all you need, and you can make it yourself inexpensively.
Uff. That was an embarrassing post. I am just seeing your reply now. I am definitely in the process of seeking integrative/naturopathic/holistic dermatologists, but I live in the U.S. and in Chicago. All the dermatologists offer are injections and chemical peels, and other treatments that induce short term inflammation, etc.
My main question is how to re-thicken and re-hydrate the epidermis (MAIN priority- the lines due to dehydration and thinning, and subsequent need for constant hydration is frustrating and saddening). I know I will need an integrative treatment. If anyone can engage in a brief email exchange with me that would be great, as I have a quick list of questions about copper peptides, soy isoflavones, red light therapy, sound therapy, and crystals with regenerative properties).
Another thing is to possibly regenerate the subcutaneous fat around the outer edges under my eye and whether or not peptides can do that.
Thank you for your response. It’s just very difficult knowing I compounded the damage to my skin (which could have been adapted to by smoothing some jojoba oil over it and going about my day).
You can get as scientific with me as possible, as I will comprehend it through my research and increased understanding and levelheadedness. Thanks again, and namaste.
It may take us a few days to get around to commenting on Michelle’s comments, so if any of you readers want to chime in, feel free. We know that many of you are quite knowledgeable, and we encourage open discussion & multiple viewpoints.
(And thanks for the lead on the kinetin DIY). Much appreciated, will look into it.
Is this communication still going? Its very interesting and I dare say that after reading this, and since I have started using EGF, then I have my doubts whether I will buy a second bottle again….
As for Michelle that has used Retin A….I just started using it, very very sparingly, though, I am sorry to hear what she is going through. My skin has become drier, however I don’t use moisturisers and am always careful what I use around my eyes. I recently used a gel for lifting (my eye area, just under my eye) and it did create some wrinkles that I never had! its so frustrating. especially knowing that I created them myself…Now what I use around my eyes is plain vitamin E pure oil, and also jojoba oil, I use this all around my face took and put sunscreen every day. I like to mix Vitamin E, Jojoba, Extra virgin olive oil, argan oil and coconut oil. I put some glycerin and shake. My face is loving it. I think most of the wrinkles we think we have is lack of hydration.
However, would be interesting to hear what to doctors have to say about peptides…what can we use to correct the wrinkles that are already there, and are maybe getting deeper as we age…how can we stop that, or reverse that? What about LED? What do doctors think about it? how about antioxidants and matrixyl 3000?
Thank you for the information, I am so much into cosmetics always trying to stop the aging and correct the damage, but I have never had any wow effect yet. In the process of trying dermarollers now….
Antioxidants are preventive, but a good thing nonetheless. Matrixyl (one of the only peptides with much supportive data) is restorative, but not in a major earth moving way. Dermarolling is destructive, inducing a controlled level of dermal trauma and then relying on your own healing mechanisms to restore (hopefully to a better state – but there are variables involved, like inflammation, that could make it go in the wrong direction). LED is a poor man’s laser on the one hand (and therefore destructive), and claims to directly stimulate matrix generation on the other (but the data there is weak). If you are looking for WOW! this side of plastic surgery, I would suggest dermarolling plus stem cytokines. Potent induction of healing response, but that response is significantly enhanced by providing a youthful pattern of anti-inflammatory, non-fibrotic, youthful pattern regenerative biosignals.
Dear DR John,
Thanks for this article…
I am a little bit scared because I bought the serum and I used it for 4 nights before reading this article..I am 32 years old and I have very fair skin (but I never go to the sun and always wear sun block)..there are never been any case of skin cancer in my family….
Do you think that I increased my chances to develop skin cancer by using this product for 4 nights???
Nothing to worry about. Would take much longer.
Thank you very much for this information. I had read information on a few different sites about this chemical, thingy, what ever you want to call it. The sites were claiming that this was a miracle for wrinkles and scar treatment. I even looked it up on the ewg.org website, and they didn’t cite any problems with it.
I was sitting on the fence about buying it when I found your article. It’s not worth playing with fire.
You know, we humans think we’re so damn clever when we find out more about how our world is put together. It always seems to turn out that the more we know, the less we know.
Thank you, sincerely, for the information. It makes sense.
Vain Woman (but not that vain of a woman)
I am just a simple consumer and I have no scientific knowledge but
I found this article in the “international wound journal”
It seems to me that many studies have been done on the EGF grow factor and concluded it is safe to use.
So how do your base your claims? Do you have proof that the EGF in the bioeffect serum can actually make a tumor grow faster? If it is registered as a cosmetic it should only have a superficial effect? doesn’t it?
Hello, Dr John ,
Thank you for the reply…
So applying bioeffect serum might have more risks than benefits..Is there any effective cosmetic product able to slow down the aging process and minimize wrinkles that we can trust and that don’t have any risk?
What about the neostrata brand?
I’ve been using the Bioeffect serum for about one week now and it’s truly very effective …I noticed my skin looks plumper today and my crow’s feet wrinkles almost vanished…but something looks “unnatural” in my face and I’m not sure I like it so much..it’s like it was giving me an artificial younger look ..and knowing now that I’m applying something that may have some risk on long term use is frightening me.
SO thank you for the informations you give us.
But something you say is a bit contradictory to me..
you say that EGF is not “mutagenic” but “mitogenic” ..
But then you write:
“Cells that have already progressed from basal to midlayers may be stimulated to divide.
These cells are more likely than deeper cells to have been stressed by free radical generation due to UV exposure and the like.”
So you imply that EGF could turn normal cells into cancerous ones ?
There is great complexity in this topic, and it is more focused on the role of EGF receptors in cancer – the fact that blocking them is a cancer treatment. But blocking them also upsets skin. Now I am not against growth factors in general – they are powerful and natural and generally quite safe unless you do something silly with one of them (like rub them on a cancerous lesion). My issue is with giving the skin just one piece of the puzzle – one growth factor. In nature, we see healthy tissues responding to e.g. sun damage with multiple growth factors and cytokines. So a balanced mix is just more natural, or more “physiologic” as we doctors are fond of saying. But when you elevate one of them, but not others, you create a non-physiologic growth factor profile. We worry about the quality of collagen, elastin and cross linking when the proper signals are absent. This is not a cancer issue – it’s an issue of skin aging & appearance. Rather than recreating the regenerative signals of early life, you might stimulate growth, disguising wrinkles, but not regenerating nice, flexible, “young” style matrix.
No such implication. Cell division or multiplication (starts with mitosis) is something all tissue do, normal ones as well as cancerous ones. Need to replace senescent or damaged cells with new ones. It turns out that cancerous tissues are just really good at stealing whatever they can find to further their agenda of uncontrolled growth. Our major beef is not about safety, but about efficacy (in an aesthetic sense).
Again, I want to emphasize, EGF does not cause cancer. Cancers are clever and devious and may co-opt EGF receptors to further their growth agenda. Just like tumors will suck up all the good nutrients and vitamins, leaving the rest of the body to starve. It doesn’t mean that protein, carbs, fats, vitamins, etc causes cancer just because cancers consume them. Same with cytokines and growth factors like EGF. Cancers use them, just as normal cells do. Cancer causation has strictly defined terms in science. Let’s stick to those.
ok it makes sence and it’s really not comforting.
But sorry to say, but your products don’t seem safer (based on mesenchymal stem cells, …on wikipedia it says that it can promote cancer) so who can we trust? I believe those type of products are too young to really know if they are safe to use…I think I should rather accept my wrinkles and use more natural product because this is really frightening
Melissa, we don’t like to talk about our own products in particular around here, as we try to keep BFT non-commercial. But you express a common misperception about both MSC’s and skin care products based on human stem cell science that needs correcting. It’s complex science; I apologize in advance and will try to keep it simple.
1. MSC’s are cells, cells generally contain DNA, DNA can mutate, and thus any cell can start a cancer. Nuff said.
2. However, BMN-MSC’s do not tend to “promote” cancers (i.e. help them along) .In fact, there is much work going on that shows benefit of MSC stem cell therapies for tumors. I’ll give you one example paper (whole thing free, not just abstract – click here– Systemic mesenchymal stem cells reduce growth rate of cisplatin-resistant ovarian cancer Int J Clin Exp Pathol 2013;6(11):2506-2514. Other work going on in lung cancer, breast cancer, etc.
4. Topical products like AnteAge do not contain any cells at all – they only contain cytokines & growth factors (the “secretome” signaling proteins) that stem cells make in abundance. The good stuff is extracted & purified, the cells themselves are discarded.
3. Adipose-derived stem cells however have a different “secretome” and may promote certain cancers, like breast cancer, which are sensitive to hormones & cytokines they express. (we don’t use adipose derived stem cells). See e.g. Kilroy GE, et al. Cytokine profile of human adipose-derived stem cells: expression of angiogenic, hematopoietic, and pro-inflammatory factors.J Cell Physiol. 2007 Sep;212(3):702-9.
5. The secretome of MSC’s can be controlled in the laboratory. Which is why e.g. AnteAge is so anti-inflammatory, as it contains the right (anti-inflammatory) cytokines for regeneration without promoting aging or the epigenetic events that accompany aging (like cancer).
6. Finally, don’t believe everything you read on Wikipedia. You can read the wiki on Nerium oleander and find statements that it has never been shown to be toxic to skin. Oh really? Look around here at BFT for some solid evidence to the contrary. The sole paper cited on that wiki to support a cancer connection deals with cross talk between MSC’s and tumors, which can be positive or negative. It has the same causality implication as the relationship between nutrients and cancer. Just because a tumor consumes vitamins (etc) during growth doesn’t mean the vitamins promoted the cancer. If that were the case then starvation would be indicated for all tumors. But in fact tumors are really good at stealing things, like nutrients, while depriving nearby tissues. So not a good strategy. Cross talk with stem cells? Tumors are talkative. So are stem cells, and politicians. Doesn’t make them evil (I mean the stem cells. We all know tumors and politicians are evil).
Finally, I want to say that I support your idea of wrinkle acceptance. Wrinkles aren’t the problem as much as our culture’s response to wrinkles.
You can read more of our philosophy on that in this piece on Beautiful Aging.
hi dr jon
what do you think about micro needling / roller while using EGF ? Does that alter what layer the EGF works at? I see this on the web used together.
I also see it used for alopecia (needling) with serums so isn’t that the opposite of loosing hair over time with EGF use?
is it the combo used together that changes the dynamics?
Ive never used any of them- just curious about micro needling for wrinkles and what I should use on the face while needling. I don’t want to use something unsafe.
Hello Holly. Microneedling has some solid science behind it, as a way to naturally stimulate collagen synthesis. However, the various parameters such a needle depth, frequency, and accompanying topicals (especially at the time of needling) needs careful consideration. I spent quite a bit of time over the past month swapping science & sipping brew with Dr. Lance Setterfield who literally wrote the book on microneedling (we attended several specialty medical congresses together). I can attest to his deep knowledge base and insightful approach to the topic. I believe we agree on nearly all aspects of the state-of-the-art (and the science) that will answer the question you raise. So I will give you my take on it, but rather than quoting him I have asked him to reply to your question as well. Expect that to show up here shortly as well.
EGF works mainly on keratinocytes, less so on fibroblasts. So it acts mainly on superficial layers of skin. That is its “natural” function. If you are using 0.25mm needles in a typical “corneotherapy” fashion, you are bumping up EGF levels where it will do the most good. Going deeper might get some into fibroblast rich areas of the dermis or DEJ, but EGF’s effect on fibroblasts (e.g. proliferate & create matrix) is weak in comparison to other cytokines & growth factors such as the FGF (fibroblast growth factor) and TGF (transforming growth factor) families.
I do not believe that EGF causes cancer, or anything like that. I am not concerned about EGF application on (or into) skin from a safety viewpoint. But I am from an aesthetic one. EGF actually has a role in several phases of healing, which approximates regeneration (the goal of regenerative dermatology) especially after “wounding” with microneedling. In the early phase of wound healing EGF helps to orchestrate other cytokines to promote wound closure and new vessel formation. In later stages it helps to proliferate new tissues (keratinocytes or skin cells, as well as fibroblasts). During that first phase it can be classified as pro-inflammatory, while later if becomes anti-inflammatory. I call it an amphi’lammatory (which is a word I made up). But here is the question: the point of needling (literally and figuratively speaking) is to create a micro-wound and let the body respond with its natural healing cascade. However, the older we get the more prone we are to “scarring” type healing, caused by getting stuck in the inflammatory phase. This prolonged exposure to the wrong cytokines & growth factors is what causes the problem in the first place. So, adding an inflammatory cytokine like EGF at the time of wounding makes no sense to me. In fact, I think the opposite is true – you want to add anti-inflammatory cytokines to push the skin toward a more youthful healing pattern, with nice flexible collagen bundles, better elasticity, etc. It predicts a better result aesthetically.
So, all-in-all, EGF is a good tool for the toolkit, but don’t use a hammer when a screwdriver is what’s needed. Unless you are trying to close a wound that won’t heal (e.g. diabetic ulcer) you don’t want to add to inflammation, you want to promote non-inflammatory healing (ergo regeneration). In some sense i would think you would be better off using nothing than adding EGF (unbalanced by other growth factors) during microneedling. Afterward (proliferative phase of healing) it may confer benefit, but even then I strongly advocate not single but multiple cytokine/GF containing cocktails (as any who have read around here well know).
In terms of hair, yes EGF is associated with one particular effect on follicles but the whole cytokine & growth factor picture of follicle regeneration is quite complex and we will need to save that for another post. Needless to say you will once again find me arguing for multiple, not single GF’s. Doesn’t need be 700, but a handful, and in the right sequence (with follicles, there is a clock, and timing is everything).
Let’s wait & see what DrLance has to say on the subject. We may end up in a full on debate. Or at least a good arm wrestle.
Dear Dr. John,
Please comment about this product
which is to be used in conjunction with peels that reduce the thickness of the outer layers of the skin, and seems to include several counterbalancing ingredients – but I am no expert.
Also.. whatever happened to Dr. Lance???
Your input is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
The EGF is exactly the same as that in Bioeffect EGF. Transgenic (GMO) molecules grown in a plant. Then the Platinum people hope you never read BFT, because they try to pull the wool over your eyes by hawking a phony stem cell product. What purported stem cell source you ask? Oranges. I am not kidding. This is a marketing ploy and has zero to do with stem cell science. It’s deception, or utter stupidity on their part, take your choice. Either way, they have zero credibility. Sorry if I sound harsh, but there really is no longer any excuse for this kind of stuff.
Well, you asked my opinion, and you got it. To read more about plant stem cell fantasy read DrGeorge’s piece here.
Dr. Lance is being a bit pokey, although it is the weekend. Maybe it’s that Canadian work ethic, like when Canada Post goes on strike to watch the Stanley Cup, or because its snowing or raining. If he is not here by Monday we will call the RCMP. Who may or may not answer the phone, depending on whether there is a sale at Canadian Tire. (P.S. I can razz Canucks because I am one).
I think what you say is bulls”***. Blah blah, blah blah blah blah…..
EDITED. WHEN SOMEONE IS SO UNCOUTH / INARTICULATE THAT THEY NEED TO INTRODUCE THEIR IDEAS WITH TRASH TALK, WE TEND TO NOT HEAR ANYTHING THEY SAY AFTER THAT. THIS IS A PLACE FOR LEGITIMATE SKIN SCIENCE DEBATE. WE HAVE STANDARDS.
First of all, barley is not the only crop grown in Iceland. However, it was selected by sif cosmetics as the most suitable candidate for EGF.
Secondly, the company never grew anything outside in Iceland. They only applied for a license to do so. All of their crops are within greenhouses.
Thanks for the correction. Note that these greenhouses have proven vulnerable to storms, and to vandalism. See news snippets below.
Greenhouse of GM barley damaged in storm in Iceland
The Environment Agency of Iceland is investigating an incident where a greenhouse run by the plant nursery Barri on behalf of ORF Genetics, where genetically-modified barley is grown, was damaged in the storm in east Iceland on Tuesday night. Biology professor Kesara Jónsson commented to ruv.is that it was lucky the greenhouse was damaged in the winter, otherwise the barley’s seeds could have spread beyond the nursery. The Environment Agency has issued ten licenses to breed genetically-modified animals and plants in Iceland, including flies and mice. The cultivation of genetically-modified barley has been authorized in five locations in the country; one of which is in the open.
Genetically-modified barley harvest in Iceland sabotaged
Genetically-modified barley, which was being grown for experimental purposes in Gunnarsholt, south Iceland, by start-up company ORF Líftaekni, was damaged by a group of activists in the early hours of Wednesday. There will be no harvest this fall. ”We are naturally shocked about this,” CEO of ORF Líftaekni Björn Lárus Örvar told visir.is.
This is a fabulous discussion with tons of excellent information! I wish I had encountered it earlier. I’m a biochemist and former dermatology drug development scientist and it’s great to see the science presented in a well substantiated and comprehensive mode. I too do my best to present the facts in describing the pharmacological effects of skin care related chemistry as there is way too much sensationalism in beauty-related product marketing. It is quite apt to recognize that while mitogenic compounds (of which there are many) do not cause cancer directly, they certainly can help stimulate its occurrence because carcinogenesis is the natural path a cell will take if it lives and divides long enough. I specialize in safe and effective mineral-only active ingredient sunscreens utilizing physiological building blocks as inactive ingredients, and I always cringe about the fact that FDA hasn’t stepped in to outlaw Vitamin A/retinoid derivatives in sunscreen products. If a given cell will live long enough, it’s DNA is guaranteed to accumulate enough genetic damage through normal oxidative processes to go cancerous. It’s just probability. As the sentient beings we are, if we want to reduce cancer risk, we need to do everything in our power to minimize the accumulation of this probability-based oxidative damage because, due to the simple fact that our bodies use oxygen to produce energy, it’s going to happen. Skin exposure to mitogenic compounds when coupled with oxidative damage are a recipe for accelerated permanent DNA damage, which is the requirement for carcinogenesis. Vitamin A derivatives in sunscreen products are akin to trying to use gasoline to put out a smoldering fire. The fire is already there naturally, but the gasoline is definitely going to accelerate the problem. In sunscreens, UV radiation creates a lot of DNA damage, which thankfully we have lots of repair mechanisms, but they’re not perfect. If a cell can’t repair everything before it’s told to divide by the mitogen, the damage is made irreparable because the repair mechanisms can no longer recognize the damaged base-pairs. When this happens enough times in the perfectly wrong proliferation control genes (such as EGF receptors), unregulated cellular division results and you’ve got cancer. Sunscreens containing retinoids are an extreme example given the vast amount of oxidative damage that occurs upon exposure to UV energy, but the same logic applies for any unbalanced mitogen.
well i just bought the bioeffect egf serum icelander and have used it two drops for 2 nights.sure i dont want cancer and will stop using .but i feel terribly cheated as no cautions were mentioned. its
a swindle in that sense.
Thank you so much Dr. John for this article. I was planning on buying some EGF products and then I read this post. It kind of scared me. The potential to increase cancer cells did give me pause, but also this:
“Skin texture may become less pleasing as well, as pores may become more prominent over time. Like other actives, a certain “dependency” can develop. Stopping the application of EGF may lead to a period of skin “hypoplasia” or slowed growth as a compensatory defense.”
That really scared me. I don’t want to have to keep using something forever.
However I did search and I found one serum that states it has growth factors cytokines. It lists EGF at 10%, FGF at 2%, and IGF at 2%. Below is the full ingredients list:
Human Oligopeptide-1 (10ppm, 10%), RH-Polypeptide-1 (10ppm, 2%), RH-Oligopeptide-2 (10ppm, 2%), Scutellaria Baicalensis Root Extract, Paeonia Suffruticosa Root Extract, Xanthan Gum
The company suggests that it be used with a dermaroller. It does not list any other growth factors. Would this be a decent serum to use or does it not contain enough growth factors to balance out the EGF?
Your feedback is much appreciated.
Multi-growth factor products can be both potent and safe, but they need to achieve a correct (physiologic) balance of specific growth factors. This is not a correct ratio. Still too high on the EGF. IGF and FGF are both good choices though as they are both pro-growth (regenerative) and anti-inflammatory (not trouble makers).
There are multiple ways to deal with the balancing act for growth factors. We, for instance, in our experimental work with stem cells and how they operate have amassed a database of growth factor “profiles” showing us what nature intends under various conditions during optimal regeneration. We then cross reference all this to the known physiologic and biochemical functions of each growth factor and cytokine. Many of these are competitive (e.g. TGF beta-3 suppresses TGF beta-1 to counteract inflammation). We then select idealized patterns of cytokines & growth factors to match a particular goal – let’s say general anti-aging, or rosacea, or acne scarring, or whatever.
Now, keep in mind that nature (and our stem cells) produce hundreds of these individual growth factors & cytokines. It’s complicated. Replicating all that with individual growth factors would be cost prohibitive to make. So often we purify & start with what the stem cells give us (a rich medium or broth chock full of regenerative factors) and then supplement that with individual growth factors. This fine tunes and amplifies what we can do in the laboratory and allows us also to reproduce early (fetal-like) healing & regenerative capabilities. In very early healing (fetuses prior to 14 weeks) healing occurs without any inflammation whatsoever, and is esthetically near perfect (complete lack of scarring).
If a product is using only externally derived growth factors such as the one you mention, our sense is that it would need to include at least 6-8 growth factors to be both balanced (safe) and effective in an anti-aging product.
As to the dermaroller issue, make sure you read this. You would not want to apply something with botanical extracts or even xanthan gum at the time of microneedling, or in the hours immediately after. That’s a setup for developing a granuloma or allergic reaction. Only safe / effective substances natural to humans (e.g. hyaluronic acid & growth factors).
Thanks for being curious, Curious.
Thank you so much for the detailed response Dr. John! I really appreciate it and it has added to my understanding. I think I will bypass purchasing that product.
Also thank you for the link to the dermarolling article.
I speedread this lenghty discussion. The only thing I’d like to know in all sincerity is what products or ingredients should I use for optimum result. I became obsessed with skincare of late and got very confused over what reay works, and what is hype. Depending on whose opinion I read there can be so many different view points.
It is confusing. Largely because there are so many companies making so many claims for this and that, most of which is pure marketing fluff with no science substance. Who do you believe? Then there is the individuality factor – not all skin is alike. We recommend professional consultation for anyone who is serious about skin care. But then, many estheticians are about as scientifically sound as the average daytime TV doctor (you know who I mean). So you need to find a good one – one who appreciates real science. I think somebody should start an organization of science-savvy estheticians. We will help. Any takers?
Menton – the field is filled with flights of fancy and marketers with the gift of gab. Buyer beware.
Science-Savy Estheticians. That has an appealing ring to it. Let science be the demarcation between marketing hype and proven skin actives for skincare products. As this industry emerges out of the mud, literally, and takes a legitimate place in viable clinically proven products, it’s not a moment to soon. The sleeve for the esthetician to create in this industry is to do due dilegence on proven technology like microneedling ( its called Collagen Induction Therapy for a reason) then couple that with AnteAge serum during the treatment and after, now you’ve got a science based treatment and product that’s giving clients what their looking for. Results. No downtime.
You have to 1. apply critical thinking 2. have the motivation to stay up with developing science, 3. the desire to provide your clients with the very best that’s available. But then that should be the credo for the industry.
I am not sure to believe everything which is said in the above study. Really, in view of the high cost of EGF I don’t think farmers use EGF commercially to remove wool from sheep! Reality is like for any new product in the market there are always the skeptics and the optimists and the truth is somewhere in the middle.
No, really they do. In fact the economics make it quite attractive. From an L.A. Times article:
Scientists say EGF will spell an end to the back-breaking work of sheep shearing, which increasingly relies on imported labor. What the effect of EGF will be on the number of sheep-shearing jobs remains to be seen, however. Shearing accounts for 25% of the cost of wool production, amounting to $203 million a year in Australia, the world’s biggest wool supplier. It costs about $2.74 to shear the average animal, including labor and equipment. Rams, which are heavier and more aggressive, cost twice as much to clip.
The genetically engineered hormone EGF weakens wool strands on the back of the sheep and makes the fleece peel off. EGF’s maker is IMCERA Group Inc. of Northbrook, Ill. “Within about 10 days of injection, the animal is bare,” said Oliver Mayo at the animal production division of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization, a research group. “Sheep don’t like to be shorn,” he said. “It’s very traumatic for them. This is a lot easier on the animal, and you get this beautiful, evenly cut creamy-white fleece.”
EGF, which stands for epidermal growth factor, takes five to 10 days to weaken wool follicles. When wool resumes growing, the weak strands are pushed out and the fleece’s weight pulls it off. “We’re looking at ways of producing EGF in commercial quantities, which requires genetic engineering techniques, and we’ve done that,” he said.
I just purchased Alphaeon Beauty Epidermal Growth Serum. Unfortunately, I cannot find information on how it was manufactured and whether or not it has multiple GFs or just one. I have checked their website, as well, but it does not list information there. Do you have experience with this serum and, if so, if it’s a deal (with regards to safety and long term benefits) or a dud.
This is a synthetic human growth factor. They are grown in single celled organisms like e.coli using human gene splicing. We have no personal experience using this one, but are generally not fans of single growth factor products, which you can read about here (see above). Dr Lance Setterfield write this piece, and Dr John this one a number of years ago. EGF is our least favorite GF to use alone because it can cause abnormal architecture of new skin growth.
No experience with this product, but it does contain only the single growth factor.
I am 29 and I got a PRP/CRP(platelet-rich plasma/cytokine-rich plasma) injection from my withdrawn blood in a medical office a few months ago for hair growth. I liked the results and my next visit(planning 2x/yr) I was going to add on their facial CRP injection as well. Since their CRP for facial skin is a combination of growth factors in a protein matrix, does this seem like the best way to benefit from these growth factors assuming I always use SPF 30 1-2x/day, 365 days/year?
Good question, Justin, and one dear to our hearts since we have developed a topical growth factor / cytokine product for use with microneedling at depths performed by etheticians (< 0.5 mm) and medical personnel (all depths). Bio-signals produced in laboratory culture of our beloved bone marrow stem cells are once again proving to be of very significant value. The most impressive results have been with people receiving a series of monthly treatments (2 to 4), along with daily use of our two-part anti-aging skincare system. In rejuvenating aged skin and treatment of post-acne scarring, the photographs being sent to use clearly rival the results we have seen with fractional CO2 laser resurfacing. The downtime and costs are substantially less. Let's briefly look at PRP for two indications - hair restoration and facial rejuvenation (the so-called trademarked "Vampire Facial".) Use of PRP (platelet rich plasma) is recognized as beneficial in promoting hair regrowth in patients with pattern hair loss. In one controlled study of a series of three treatments a month apart, skin biopsies and high resolution photographs showed an increase in hair density (number of hairs per square centimeter), increased hair diameter, a positive change in the anagen/telogen ratio (the number of actively growing hair follicles over the number in “resting” stage), increased ratio of terminal (large diameter) hair to vellus (fine, thin) hair, and increase in vascular density near hair follicles. Smokers, persons prone to keloid scarring, and those who are immunocompromised are not candidates. PRP has a history of clinical use that spans more than two decades, primarily in promoting healing of indolent skin ulcers, and promoting bone, tendon and ligament repair and growth. More recent uses are injection into joints as treatments for osteoarthritis, in promoting healing of nerve injuries, even cardiac muscle injury. The particular cytokines and growth factors cited as responsible for the improvement in hair regrowth are below, along with a description of the effects they promote. During treatments, PRP is used to promote hair regrowth in two ways: intradermal injection of PRP at ½ to 1 inch spacing of the treatment area, and aggressive use of dermal rollers with topical PRP. The platelets in the PRP are activated after injection and dermal rolling by applying topical calcium chloride and thrombin. The effect of activation is to release the highly concentrated cytokines and growth factors contained within the alpha granules of platelets. The bio-signals felt to be responsible for the positive effects are: • platelet-derived growth factor • transforming growth factor beta • fibroblast growth factor • insulin-like growth factor 1 • insulin-like growth factor 2 • vascular endothelial growth factor • epidermal growth factor • Interleukin 8 • keratinocyte growth factor • connective tissue growth factor Platelet-Derived Growth Factor (PDGF)—promotes blood vessel growth, cell replication, skin formation; Transforming Growth-Factor-Beta (TGF-b)—promotes growth of matrix between cells, bone metabolism; Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF)—promotes blood vessel formation; Epidermal Growth Factor (EGF)—promotes cell growth and differentiation, blood vessel formation, collagen formation; Fibroblast Growth Factor-2 (FGF-2)—promotes growth of specialized cells and blood vessel formation; Insulin Like Growth Factor - (IGF)—a regulator of normal physiology in nearly every type of cell in the body Not all growth factors and cytokines contained within the alpha granules of platelets are beneficial, especially if one is considering the use of PRP for facial microneedling. Conspicuously absent from list above are the highly inflammatory biosignals - tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-alpa) and interleukins 1 and 6 (Il-1 abd Il-6.) These are the culprits responsible for initiation of inflammation in all wound healing, whether from a dog bite (dirty with lots of microbes) or a surgical incision with sterile scalpels into highly disinfected skin. In one case, the inflammation may be life-saving (kills the "bugs" in the dog bite), in the other, two or three days of redness, swelling and tenderness, that doesn't really contribute to the desired outcome. It is well established that inflammation promotes fibrotic healing (scars) and increases in pigmentation in susceptible individuals. Witness the fetus, where healing of skin wounds results in no scars whatsoever and the inflammatory phase is non-existent or very, very brief. Why? they have an abundance of anti-inflammatory cytokines, most notably TGF-beta 3. In our work developing a topical for use with microneedling, our objective is to quickly quench inflammation, something we can do because of the highly anti-inflammatory cytokine pattern secreted by bone marrow stem cells. In some products, we also boost TGF-beta 3 levels. We are currently working on a cytokine cocktail to use with microneedling for hair regrowth. We'll keep the BFT readers posted on our progress. You can surmise from the above that we think there are valuable uses for PRP. Microneedling of the face, in our opinion, is not one of them. We'll soon know if our approach makes the use of PRP in hair restoration a second-best choice also. Stay tuned.
Hello, Dr. John.
I’m one of the egf serum(from bioeffect) user in Korea. I used serum only 2 days so I can’t say it works or not, but some vivid changes appears. And those appearing changes on my skin make me believe that egf serum really works. However after I read your post, I started to feel confused. Then what are the changes on my skin? Is it only my thought?
Here are the changes in 2 days after using egf serum.
First, some tiny sebum acne(I can’t explain in english) appears on my under eye, but those are so tiny that can’t be pressed out.
Second, newly created red spots (the results of pressing out acne) has relieved and reduced.
Third, it can be only my thoughts, but I feel my skin becomes smoother.
p.s In Korea, there is few critics about egf’s potent side effects and it’s truth. So to me your blog is almost only way to find real information about egf. Thank you for that!
The condition you describe is call milia. Caused by sudden buildup of cellular debris in pores. Acne is also in play. We have seen this with EGF products. The smoother skin is temporary and sloughs off after a while.
Dr John, thanks for this article – it helped me understand EGF in beauty products a lot more. What are your thoughts on EGF being used together with microneedle facial treatments? Will it penetrate the skin deeper so as to repair the internal structure of the skin, rather than on a superficial level, or is this all just a marketing gimmick? At the same time, with the supposedly deeper penetration, will this up the speed by which existing cancer cells proliferate?
Jennifer – The problem is not EGF itself (an important growth factor in human physiology and development) but rather the use of a any single growth factor in isolation. The way growth factors work in our our bodies is in concert with one another. EGF is not a good “solo instrument” and when used alone can be a troublemaker. It throws the GF profile in skin out of balance. Sort of like playing Beethoven’s 5th Symphony, but with cymbals as the only instrument. The result is not harmonious, nor pleasing. Microneedling will indeed push it in deeper, perhaps to the dermis with longer needles. The problem, again, is that EGF alone can result in hypertrophic (growth stimulated) skin changes, but in a non-uniform manner. It can distort the skin’s architecture. Make it lumpy bumpy. EGF does not cause cancer. But many cancer are able to take advantage of EGF to promote their evil growth agenda.
I came across your site researching if EGF really worked to make skin more youthful. I actually purchased and started using a few days ago the Platinum Skin Care Regenerate serum that was linked above in earlier posts. I’m a little concerned reading about all the bad things EGF can do. Does it do any good????? Is the Platinum Skin Care Regenerate not a good product to use? I noticed that my skin does not seem as healthy, for lack of a better word, since I’ve been using it. I didn’t know if that was just my imagination or if it was something else I was using. Is it possible for EGF to make your skin look worse rather than better? If so, what is all the hype about it being the greatest thing since sliced bread? Thank you for your anticipated response. Great site by the way.
I came across this site in desperate search of a product that would help my 15 year old with her eczema. It is now on her face, she has been dealing with this since she is 3 and her skin is hard and aged. She found a product that had EGF in it and I wanted to research what it was. Now I see it would only help the skin on the surface. This site does not mention your product which I would be curious to know if it would help my daughter’s skin condition. It is now severely affecting her self esteem. I don’t want a product that will eventually harm her epidemically but something that will heal from the inside out. What would you recommend?
Also when you mention stem cells, please be very specific as to where these stem cells are being retrieved as morally some people cannot use products from aborted fetal tissue. Thank you. D
Dee- there are many different types of eczema. The type prevalent in children is called atopic eczema and is usually due to allergies (to just about anything – foods, environment, etc). EGF is definitely not a good idea for anyone with eczema. Edema, dry skin, and pruritus developed in a significant percentage of persons using an EGF cream.
We have not formally tested AnteAGE for use in eczema but have heard a number of of case reports of positive experiences. Likely related to its known natural anti-inflammatory effects as well as its ability to restore damages skin barrier function. AnteAGE is derived from adult (18-22 yr old) humans who are thoroughly medically screened and tested and are paid for their bone marrow donations (which doesn’t harm them in the least). It contains no material from fetuses, infant foreskins, or other morally troublesome sources.
Not knowing your daughter we cannot recommend treatment but would suggest you talk with her doctor. If he/she is not familiar with AnteAGE point them to anteage.com or have them contact us (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Thank you for this fascinating discussion. I have a question about the source of SkinMedica’s human fibroblast conditioned media…do you know or can you point me in the direction of the source of this material? I know it is from human foreskins “voluntarily” donated. Do you know of those foreskins come from circumcisions or from aborted fetal tissue? It is one thing that I am morally concerned about.
MJ, as far as we can ascertain, the cells comes from neonatal discarded foreskins, not aborted fetuses (although we have asked many times and never got a straight answer). Many cell culture supply labs all over the world will sell you starter cells for culture. While foreskins (a discarded waste product of circumcision) overcomes the aborted fetus issue, there remains the issue of “non-consenting” donor since newborns are not of the “age of consent” for tissue or cell donations. Not as big a deal, but of some academic interest.
Wait, if this sheds hair then is it a new effective hair removal treatment?? I just bought some of this and my face is glowing but I’m iffy since you say it’s not good.
Hi Dr John,
I have been searching for a long time for something to help my acne and acne scars but to no avail. I have been too sceptical and afraid to use EFG serums as I dont wish to cause growth that is temporary and only from the surface potentially causing more problems then solving them. Although AnteAGE is your own product please be as unbiased as possible when you answer my question; If I stop using AnteAge after a few months of use will i my skin still retain its benefits ? As I have seen reviews of how after use was discontinued frown lines came back with a vengeance etc and this worries as I dont wish to be dependent on a product. Thank you.
Your question is interesting. On the one hand it makes sense that you don’t want to become “dependent” on a product. On the other hand, the notion that if you start using it and wrinkles go away, then stop using it and they return, that would be proof positive that the product really works! A great clinical trial design, to be sure. The thing about anti-aging products is that aging may be slowed but doesn’t entirely stop. You cannot permanently arrest your face in a living Portrait of Dorian Grey. So, if you stop using an effective anti-aging product you need to expect that aging will then become more apparent. Not that you age faster (catch up aging), but that aging becomes more visible. I’ve not heard any such comments about AnteAGE. To reiterate – I like what that would say scientifically, so I’m not adverse to hearing this. But my expectation would be that the return to a more aged appearance would be very slow and gradual, given that AnteAGE is regenerative, not just a cover up. But regeneration is in a constant balance with degeneration (aging). Take away the regenerative and you are tilted toward degeneration. So eventually you should expect that the benefits will wane. No product is going to be a permanent cure for aging. Even plastic surgery doesn’t accomplish that. Hope this helps.
Dr John, I have to say thank you for providing such an abundance of information. Your website is outstanding. I own and run dermal clinics in Australia therefore I do a substantial amount of research, and your website is by far one of the most informative sites I have visited.
I came across this site in my research of EGF. Last July 2015, I celebrated my 66th birthday and I decided to add serums to my skincare routine. I had previously used Neutragena’s Visibly Firm Night Cream with Copper for about 2 years until it was discontinued, 4-5 yrs. ago. I called it blue magic as it erased ALL of my deep forehead wrinkles and every other sign of aging. So the hunt was on for another GHK-Cu copper peptide. I bought this~~NCN Pro Skincare GHK-Cu Copper Peptide Serum with EGF. I’ve used it every night for eight months. Their Amazon site and their web site have no scientific info as to their EGF source, etc. As of this post, eight months later, lines and wrinkles are minimal. I thought I was very happy with this product. I was getting ready to reorder when I realized that I didn’t know much about this EGF ingredient. The first thing that popped up was the EGF side effect of hair loss. BINGO!! Was EGF what has caused me to lose a GREAT quantity of hair these past 7-8 months, to the point of barely there on the sides, scalp showing wherever I part, receding hairline, etc.?? Even though there was receding hairlines on my father’s side, my hair loss seemed to come on rather quickly. I did check all of my meds, etc. looking for a cause. I’ve always had very healthy hair; fine texture but thick on my head. At 66 my hair WAS my crowning glory! Six months ago I bought an argan shampoo and conditioner for hair loss and it has helped lessen the hair fall. My question is this, I just stopped using the copper serum with EGF and I need to know how long this stays in my system and I’m hoping you’ll tell me my hair will grow back now that I’m not using it. I greatly appreciate your forum and your response.
Valerie, I don’t thinks it’s the EGF – I think it instead may be the copper ions it is bound to. You have to feed sheep EGF orally in large doses to cause shedding. EGF in small doses on the scalp should not cause this problem. I know I am going to get hate mail on this – since there are a lot of “copper peptides for hair growth” products put there. But we now know that copper plus UV light (sunlight) causes extreme oxidative damage to hair. Consider this rather strong paper from the International Journal of Cosmetic Science:
Role of copper in photochemical damage to hair. RESULTS: In this work, we have developed new insights into the mechanism of UV damage using these proteomic methods. A marker fragment in the hair protein loss extract was identified (m/z = 1279) that is unique to UV exposure and increases with time of UV exposure. We have also identified for the first time in hair the role of exogenous copper in increasing UV damage both in terms of total protein degradation and also increased formation of the marker fragment and proposed a mechanism of action. It has been demonstrated that shampoo treatment containing a chelant such as N,N’-ethylenediamine disuccinic acid (EDDS) reduced copper accumulation in hair. CONCLUSION:
This work provides evidence for the role of copper in UV-induced damage to hair and strategies to reduce copper levels in hair using a chelant such as EDDS.
Also this recent update: Advanced hair damage model from ultra-violet radiation in the presence of copper. The objective of this work was to understand these mechanisms, explain the role of copper in accelerating the formation of ROS and identify strategies to reduce the hair damage caused by these reactive species.
So the question is whether induction of hair growth (by GHK) is counterbalanced by ROS damage to hair? I know some will argue that the tripeptide is itself a chelating agent. But only weakly so. And if you already have high environmental exposure to copper (e.g. hard water, swimming pools, some hair chemicals) you could have a problem.
We love GHK, There is a long history of copper tripeptide (GHK-Cu) in wound healing (but it works mainly in the initiation phase, which interestingly benefits from brief inflammation in adults). Copper peptides have validation for anti-aging in skin, but the GHK seems to work equally well without the copper. See Stem cell recovering effect of copper-free GHK in skin.
I am a certified aromatherapist. After a lifetime of well cared for beautiful skin, I was diagnosed with Rosacea. It started with little red spots that over the months got worse, and for is continuing with horrific redness and bumps that has spread from my under eye area to my jaw line. Horrific isn’t the word. There are days I would not be seen in public. Fast forward to looking for a cure, which I am told is not possible. I am a certified aromatherapist and herbalist of decades, so I can tell you I am making this a mission in my life for me and others like me, looking to my wellspring of fellow practitioners in the natural healing world and to my body of acquired knowledge. Boy, its going to be a fight! This is a tough one! So far, just a few days in to my terrible redness outbreaks I have been experimenting and have managed a formula of just water and essential oils that is helping tremendously! Sidebar: In my initial fear, I bought a topical product BEFORE I researched EGF (which I would NEVER apply to my skin!) They don’t state any side effects on the bottle. And even though EGF is not known to CAUSE cancer, it seems it CAN be a part of the chain of stimulating it – and what if you have a cancer that you don’t realize you have yet! Sharon
Rosacea is a condition marked by visible (and invisible) inflammation, and compications thereof. Essential oils from plants are interesting, along with flavonoids, terpenoids, pyrrolizidine alkaloids, phenylpropanoids, quinonoids; altogether there are more than 300 compounds in a typical plant species. Studies have shown that many possess a wide range of pharmacological activities, e.g. cytotoxic, antifungal, insecticidal, antibacterial, anti-inflammatory, and antinociceptive (anti-pain) activities. The goal would be to use just the anti-inflammatory ones, and be sure you don’t disturb the natural skin barrier through “lipid substitution” overload. None of these are, of course, native to humans. You should therefore be on the lookout for sensitivity reactions which are common in rosacea as inflammation and barrier disturbances leads to immune hyperreactivity. Our favorite essential oils? Bergamot, and hemp seed (cannabinoids).
Hi, I appreciate your research and information regarding EGF.
What would your opinion be for the best anti aging for the skin be, using a combination of EGF with Cytokins, or any other combination of growth factors.
Do you have infirmary ion of companies who manufacture these ingredients in the United States and sell for cosmetic purposes?
I’m always researching to find ingredients which work on the skin for anti aging purposes, which don’t contain acids/stripping agents.
Thank you for any information…
Hi L Ross, I am happy to share what I know about growth factors and skin care. I will say unequivocally that understanding the language by which skin cells communicate with one another, and with stem cells and the immune system, is the biggest scientific leap affecting anti-aging skin care so far this century. Dr George and I are hopping the globe these days lecturing on the topic to physicians, estheticians, scientists, and product companies. It is a topic of high science, so not for the weak of heart. But if you want to be on the leading edge scientifically, as well as achieve truly superior results, then this is a path you may want to consider. Once you grasp the basics, it’s really quite satisfying to be able to tell your clients about these ingredients and how they work to replicate natural skin growth and regeneration. This stuff is far more natural than “natural” applied to plant-based ingredients. It is natural because it is actually “native” – the same molecules we already have and use, but are diminished as we age (intrinsic) and confront environmental stresses like UV from sunlight (extrinsic). Stem cells enter the picture because they are our bodies natural defense powerhouse – and the key source of these healing and rejuvenating molecules.
There are two key approaches. One involves taking human stem cells (just the right ones) and growing them in the laboratory under special conditions. They then secrete a very large array of growth factors, cytokines, and a whole host of other molecules (last count about 600) in a regenerative “cocktail”. Another approach is to grow individual human growth factors in single celled organisms and make your own recipe from the bottom up. It requires intimate knowledge of each growth factor, and you need to match to clinical requirements or skin care goals. We also use a combination approach taking the stem cell cocktail and adding to it individual growth factors to bolster certain things and to make the whole mixture more like created in fetuses and newborns. Or to address particular skin conditions (rosacea, for instance).
As you are not a fan of acids/stripping agents (same here) you must understand that so many things we put on our skin are oxidizing and cause inflammation. Even may popular skin care ingredients are known to do so biochemically. There are also inflammatory growth factors (in fact, stimulating those is why so many ingredients can be troublemakers). So it requires a fairly deep knowledge base to be able to create the right balance of GF’s that is net anti-inflammatory. That’s one of our key messages in our lectures – that all skin aging is inflammatory. UV light, and anything else generating free radicals, is inflammatory. Most skin conditions (dermatitis, hyperpigmentation, etc) are inflammatory. If there is one goal in cytokine/GF skin care, it is to reverse that picture. Them and only then, can things that stimulate more collagen and elastin do so in an environment leading to superior aesthetic outcomes (as opposed to the gnarly, fibrotic collagen made under stress).
There are very few companies that can make these biologic products cost effectively. GF’s bought from commercial biochemistry labs can cost hundreds of dollars per dose. There are also some shady characters I would warn you to stay stay away from. That would best not be done here in public. It tends to upset them.
I’ve come across this site in my research on Skinmedica. My MediSpa highly recommends this product line, but I am wary of the cost and efficacy. After reading all of this, I am still not convinced one way or the other. My main concern is safety at this point, because there was no mention of this at the MediSpa, of course. In my quick read through all of these questions/responses, I’m gathering that you like the formulation in Skinmedica versus some other products. Am I correct in that interpretation? Do you feel it is safe? Does it provide a false sense of improvement that diminishes and even reverses over time? Or, is it scientifically proven to be regenerative?
Hi KRT, are you referring to Skinmedica products, or Bioeffect EGF (the thread we are in here)? We like Skimmedia in general, since in years past there were strong innovators in skin care. But as is often the case, when you grow and get acquired by bigger companies (first Allergan bought them, then Allegan was bought by a big pharma co.) things tend to change. Innovation takes a back seat. We are most familiar with Skinmedica TNS, as it was a pioneering growth factor product which was quite clever and worked at ~93% concentration of proteins, so it smells a bit wet doggish). However, in the past decade our work and others points to the marked superiority of stem cells to create those same growth factors. In our case at 10-50 times the potency. Now I’m sure that Skinmedia/Allergan reads the same science studies we do, but they haven’t changed what they do. Their product is still made from fibroblasts (from baby foreskins) which puts them about 10 years behind the leading edge. I get it – why change a product that sells well. That’s the triumph of marketing over science. So, we think they are good products, but better and newer technologies have made better products. Science marches on. Yes, they are safe. Since aging can be slowed but not stopped, even truly regenerative products will begin to lose their effect once stopped. Same goes for plastic surgery – its just a matter of time before a refresh is required.
what is the differences between human-oligopeptide and sh-oligopeptide? which one has better quality and safe to use? I am so confused @@
Hi, Granny. Many people are confused. First off, oligo means few so an oliogopeptide is a chain of between 2 and 20 amino acid molecules linked together. The reason you see them in cosmetic formulations is because they are man-made versions of naturally occurring molecules known as growth factors and cytokines, or de novo synthesized molecules with demonstrable benefit on skin health and appearance . Now, there are hundreds of different kinds of these incredibly important bio-signals but scientists have focused on a small number of them, those shown to impact cellular function and behavior of skin in particular. You often see them listed with the prefix sh- and rh-, which simply translates into “synthetic human” and “recombinant human”, so your “human-oligopeptide” and “sh-oligopeptide” are the same thing.
What you failed to include is the number that is assigned to the oligopeptide which designates which natural human cytokine or growth factor has been created chemically, or using genetically modified grains, mushrooms, bacteria or other organisms. The Koreans are masters at this as are some European companies. EGF (sh-oligopeptide-1) is obtained from genetically modified barley grown in Iceland. Check out the URL below and you’ll see a lot of different oligopeptides listed (the Korean text may be a challenge in some parts of the page.
I was very skeptical when I started using Bioeffect, but the first results are quite exciting. It definitely improves the skin appearance and I love the product. Now I am reading your studies, which are completely shocking: you are claiming that this serum, derived from plants, can cause any possible serious problems, starting from baldness and ending up with Cancer! I personally find this quite ridiculous and in a way misleading. Do you think that the Botox, different types of Skin Fillers, plastic surgeries and many other skin care products are safer to use?
Nadia, I don’t doubt that you are seeing effects from EGF. Our message is not the dangers of EGF, but the unpredictable effects of a single growth factor whereas naturally they are produced in concert with other growth factors and cytokines (and mRNA’s and other molecules) in our skin. Mainly these are aesthetic concerns. Baldness is unlikely unless ingested in large doses systemically (as they do with sheep). And we have already said many times NO, it does not cause cancer. Our m ain concern is that the growth EGF causes is non-physiologic (hence potentially pathologic) because it is not balanced with the other GF’s as would be the case if your own skin cells were secreting EGF. Consider this- EGF works principally at the level of the epidermis, but epidermal thickening alone is not necessarily “anti-aging”. You need volume enhancement at the dermal level with an increase in fibroblasts and matrix production, as might be conferred by FGF (fibroblast growth factor) of which there are several. Metabolically you need trophic metabolic signals such as those from IGF-1 (insulin-like growth factor). To assure that new growth occurs under conditions conducive to healthy growth as opposed to scarring & fibrosis, you might benefit from TGF-beta3 and/or one of the other inflammation (and inflamm’aging) inhibitors (like the amazingly potent IL-10 cytokine). So please understand – we love EGF. We would just like to see it in a group, not as a solo artist, in the realm of skin biosignals.
I’ve just read through all of the comments on the HA forum (LMW HA vs HMW HA) with great interest! And now I’m here with the same intent to uncover the real deal around EGFs. Can I ask your opinion on the barley sourced EGF used by some companies? For example, from DNA EFG Renewal? Or E’Shee and Bioeffect? I corresponded with the people at DNA EGF, and they sent me so much to read about the efficacy of their products (research results, etc)…but I just couldn’t be bothered knowing that they could be biased. Would love your insight!
Ela, we have no issues with barley sourced EGF, or EGF from any other recombinant technology. It’s not EGF per se that bothers us. Rather, it is any approach to skin rejuvenation that relies on a single growth factor. EGF or any other. Lets use human nutrition as an analogy. There are many thousands of individual nutrient molecules (think of all the vitamins, minerals, trace metals, etc.). To help a child’s body to grow, would you recommend for them just one vitamin, and calling that sufficient? Of course not. Not only is it a drop in the bucket, but giving just one may cause the others to go out of balance. If you ingest too much mg++ it can make ca++ get out of whack. Same for growth factors. There are dozens at play at any given time (plus lots of other classes of regenerative signaling molecules). Just providing one may have some effects, but those effects themselves will be out of balance, leading to a less-than-natural tissue growth effect. We call such single molecule effects “pharmacologic” as opposed to “physiologic”. Our current work (as yet unpublished) suggests that there should be at least 6-8 growth factors working in concert to achieve a more natural, balanced, physiologic, and aesthetically pleasing effect.
Hi Dr John,
Thanks so much for your response. It’s all very clear now especially since I’ve gone through and actually read and processed this entire thread…where you make you case for balance and purposeful harmony of all GF’s in true (physiologic) skin rejuvenation (healing, even?) This is an extraordinary source of information you have provided here. With the incessant 24/7 marketing machine we endure here in the US, there is no way we can escape the onslaught of misinformation and malice(?) of the cosmetics industry. I’m going to keep my eyes on this sight and your research/ future products… Thanks again. Ela
Dear Dr. John,
I have a question about the BioEffect EGF Day Serum and pore size. Above you state “The growth of new epithelial cells narrows the pore through which the hair grows. — Skin texture may become less pleasing as well, as pores may become more prominent over time.”
So it seems a little contradictory. I understand what you are saying as, the pore size decreases and then it’s said later in the paragraph that the pores may become larger over time. So which is it?
Also, it has been quite some time since the publication of the original post. Does the BioEffect EGF Day Serum now contain the other ingredients needed (as you discussed above) to make it more effective?
I have a lot of facial hair fuzz on my face now that I have to shave, so I wouldn’t mind losing that if this product helps with that. I also have hormonal acne and heard that it should help with that as well.
Thoughts? Thank you so much for educating us and for your wisdom.
As the cells of the gland proliferate, it both makes them bigger and clogs the opening. This results in the appearance of an “enlarged pore”.
We have just learned that BIOEFFECT 30 DAY TREATMENT now contains IL-1a, a well known highly inflammatory cytokine. This makes no sense to us, as there is abundant medical literature that links this molecule to skin diseases. The logic of this totally eludes us. Maybe someone can ask them why they would do this.As for acne, IL-1a is implicated in the inflammatory aspect of that.
So would using a serum that also contains bFGF along with EGF make it safe to use? As in it wouldn’t cause proliferation and the bad effects on the skin?
My current thinking is that there needs to be at least 4 individual growth factors in order to avoid distorted effects. Look for one that also have IGF-1 or IGF-2 and TGFb 2 or 3.
Thank you for this very vital information concerning Bioeffect EGF serum. But I must say that I am so disappointed to read the info above because I’ve been using the Bioeffect EGF serum for only 5 days now and I’m already beginning to see positive effects. After losing 70 pounds I developed a small turkey neck, some loose, hanging skin under my chin which I want gone. Three plastic surgeons have recommended Ultherapy for the lower half of my face, but after reading some terrible reviews about Ultherapy I have decided against it.
The EGF serum is making that small amount of loose skin under my chin become less. And the extra hanging flap of skin seems to be smaller than it was even 5 days ago. But now I’m concerned about losing my facial hair under my chin and the ability to grow a beard when I want to, and the other neg effects you mentioned. I voiced my concerns to the company but I haven’t heard back from them yet.
The company now has another EGF product called “BIOEFFECT 30 DAY TREATMENT” with other ingredients:
Glycerin, Aqua, Sodium hyaluronate, Tromethamine, Sodium chloride, Hordeum vulgare seed extract EGF (Barley sh-oligopeptide-1), IL-1a (Barley sh-polypeptide-17, KGF (Barley sh-polypeptide-3).
1- Would these ingredients qualify as the extra “4 individual growth factors in order to avoid distorted effects” as you recommend a product should include? Would this product be safer than their Bioeffect EGF Serum?
2- Can you recommend a particular Skinmedica product that might tighten my skin enough to get rid of the small amount of turkey neck skin that I have under my chin?
I have searched high and low, spent tons of money on serums/creams only to see no results at all so I would so much appreciate any product advise you can give.
I’m just a simple man, not a scientist or chemist so please keep it simple… LoL
Thank you very much, Vincent
Vincent – Whoa! That’s the most irrational product ingredient list I have ever seen. IL-1a is the most inflammatory cytokine known to dermatology. It is the classical, textbook example of an inflammatory molecule, the very definition of an inflammasome. it is implicated in the pathogenesis (causation) of many skin diseases, including the inflammatory component of acne. It is so pathognomonic of inflammation that it is used in research as an inflammation biomarker – to test something that you think is anti-inflammatory you measure whether it can knock down IL-1a in skin cells (keratinocytes). This is not a benign bit of tomfoolery – applied daily, you will create chronic inflammation in skin. The exact opposite of what you want. Do they not check their products out with actual scientists? Anybody with a skin physiology textbook on the shelf could have told them this is crazy!
In terms of turkey neck after weight loss, it won’t go away in 5 days. All you are seeing is edema caused by inflammation (IMHO) which puffs up skin and hides such things temporarily. The best thing for turkey neck these days is radiofrequency (e.g. Venus) rather than ultrasound (e.g. ultherapy). The other approaches to turkey neck include biochemical (anti-fibrotics), exercise (build neck muscles to compensate for neck fat loss), and of course the reassurance that being a skinny turkey is much better than being a fat goose. You look better, even if older, and will live longer. Gobble with pride!
This from a toxicology journal: IL-1a can be used to measure the sensitizing potential of a skin care item. That’s an indictment if I ever heard one. It is the very model of skin inflammation.
J Appl Toxicol. 2016 Sep;36(9):1129-36.
Discrimination of skin sensitizers from non-sensitizers by interleukin-1α and interleukin-6 production on cultured human keratinocytes.
In vitro testing methods for classifying sensitizers could be valuable alternatives to in vivo sensitization testing using animal models, such as the murine local lymph node assay (LLNA) and the guinea pig maximization test (GMT), but there remains a need for in vitro methods that are more accurate and simpler to distinguish skin sensitizers from non-sensitizers. Thus, the aim of our study was to establish an in vitro assay as a screening tool for detecting skin sensitizers using the human keratinocyte cell line, HaCaT. HaCaT cells were exposed to 16 relevant skin sensitizers and 6 skin non-sensitizers. The highest dose used was the dose causing 75% cell viability (CV75) that we determined by an MTT [3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide] assay. The levels of extracellular production of interleukin-1α (IL-1α) and IL-6 were measured. The sensitivity of IL-1α was 63%, specificity was 83% and accuracy was 68%. In the case of IL-6, sensitivity: 69%, specificity: 83% and accuracy: 73%. Thus, this study suggests that measuring extracellular production of pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1α and IL-6 by human HaCaT cells may potentially classify skin sensitizers from non-sensitizers.
The combination of KGF plus IL-1a is especially irrational as it promotes melanogenesis. The pathway to post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation, and brown age spots (lentigo).
Ann Dermatol Venereol. 2012 Dec;139 Suppl 4:S148-52.
Mechanisms underlying post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation: lessons from solar lentigo.
Hyperpigmentation of the skin is a common dermatologic condition in all skin types but most prominent in brown-skinned population. In skin of color any inflammation or injury can be accompanied by alterations in pigmentation (hyper/hypo-pigmentation). Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation (PIH) can be observed in many skin conditions including acne, eczema, and contact dermatitis. In the control of skin pigmentation, parallel to the cross-talk between keratinocytes and melanocytes, increasing evidence has underlined the crucial role exerted by the interactions between mesenchymal and epithelial cells through the release of fibroblast-derived growth factors. Among these factors, the keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), alone or in combination with interleukin-1α, induces melanin deposition in vitro and hyperpigmented lesions in vivo. Furthermore, a moderate increase of KGF and a high induction of its receptor have been shown in solar lentigo lesions, suggesting the involvement of this growth factor in the onset of the hyperpigmented spots. Several studies highlight the possible contribution of the fibroblast-derived melanogenic growth factors to the hyperpigmentated lesions, in the context of the mesenchymal – epithelial interactions modulating melanocyte functions.
Is it ok to use product with both EGF and FGF?
We prefer to see a greater balance. I would say tat at a minimum 4 growth factors would be the goal to create a biomimetic signal complex in skin.
have you heard of . Lab-based epidermal growth factors in a serum- ingredient list below. A lot of these are great ingredients but in terms of providing one with proper growth factors, are these really going to do the trick? Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Water, Water, Niacinamide, Dipropylene Glycol, Glycerin, Pentylene Glycol, Phenoxyethanol, Alcohol, Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Arginine, Carbomer, Caffeine, PEG-40 Hydrogenated Castor Oil, 1,2-Hexanediol, Hydrogenated Lecithin, Allantoin, Adenosine Fragrance (Parfum), Dipotassium, Glycyrrhizate, Sodium Hyaluronate, Vitex Agnus Castus Extract, Disodium EDTA, Lecithin, Caprylyl Glycol, SH-Oligopeptide-1, Xylitylglucoside, Anhydroxylitol, Tocopherol, Cyclodextrin, Ascorbyl Tetraisopalmitate, Xylitol, Madecassoside
There are no growth factors or any other human biosignals on that ingredient list. Maybe you are confusing the term “growth factors” with things like nutrients, that are required for things to grow. But growth factors in biology are specific molecules that cells use to communicate with one another. You can put “growth factors” in the little search box here at BFT and read all about them.
Great articles. I discontinued Teprenone usage and never started the EGF. A skincare site has released a product recently that claims to plump up areas of face by increasing the fat volume due to 2 plant extracts. I looked for studies on the ingredients and found them referenced in an article on the life extension foundation website.
“In the laboratory, researchers found that sarsasapogenin stimulated the differentiation of adipocytes (fat cells) by 201% and proliferation by nearly 32%.” 10
The reference to this in-vitro test linked to a domain no longer used.
“Macelignan, a polyphenolic compound from nutmeg seeds, has been shown to switch on genes that traffic fatty acids into these newly formed adipocytes for storage.11,12 This mechanism increased adipose tissue volume by an average of 12% compared to a placebo in 30 human volunteers after 28 days.”13
Same website problem when I clicked on the link to this in-vivo reference.
“Together, sarsasapogenin and macelignan promote fat accumulation in newly formed adipocytes. The topical application of these two compounds may restore the fullness and plumpness usually seen in youthful hands.”
In the comments section they said it would work on facial skin also.
From the skincare website that sells the formula:
“Using three natural ingredients, sarsasapogenin, macelignan, and macadamia ternifolia see oil, this formula stimulates fat cell production and then plumps those cells up as much as possible. The result is a softer, more cushioned look. Some results can be seen in 28 days. Full results can be seen in 56 days.”
Would it be possible to have any effect on plumping of facial skin such as the under-eye area?
Thank you for your time and expertise.
Temporary under eye plumping is easy to produce in the short term by moisturization. There is no credible evidence that these seed oils increased the production of human fat cels when applied topically. I suppose if you eat enough of the nuts you can become obese and that would work to add fat to the face. You need to be skeptical in reading about the studies supplied by ingredients manufacturers who do the work in their laboratories in some remote part of the world. They often don’t add up scientifically.
Hello! Very interesting topic, thank you, I know understand how EGF works. I wasn’t sure on buying the ‘Beauty of Joseon Dynasty’ cream because it contains synthetic EGF, but it’s not listed on its first main ingredientes. How safe is to use it?
Because all bio-signals are in low concentration in products, and in our bodies for that matter, synthetic EGF will be in the product at minuscule amounts. It will not show up until the end of ingredients, or close to it since all ingredients under 1% can be listed in any order. We’re not fans of single growth factor products at all. The body does not work using single bio-signals; there are always dozens if not hundreds in play. For that reason, we have focused on the pro-healing anti-inflammatory combination of bio-signals secreted by bone marrow stem cells. We also use synthetic bio-signals for very specific purposes in some of our product. We NEVER produce anything with a single bio-signal in it; it is so non-physiologic to do such a thing.
Well there is nothing like a retinol cream or serum to help skin texture and stimulate rejuvenation. A well formulated blend with out parabens.
If used with a hydrator it helps prevent peeling..
Also Hydration is the key to smoother, softer looking skin at least thats what I think.
Are there any issues on polypeptides in skincare ?
Most peptides are wishful thinking, and the results are underwhelming.
I have been using Bioeffect since 2013. I am addicted to it. I am 45 years old and this serum is my evening routine every evening. Dr John, do you think it is a mistake to use it so long.I am concern about my hair. It is getting thiner , do you think the serum is to blame or it is my age and hormones.Do you recommend me to stop using Bioefect EGF serum?
I bought an eye cream from Korea that contains EGF and many other active ingredients. I was so excited but then I’ve found this article and got scared to use the cream. Could I use it maybe every other day, or once a week? Or shall I just throw it away? Thank you!
Acetyl Hexapeptide-8(10Ppm,64%), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride(Ecocert Natural), Butylene Glycol, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Water, Dicaprylyl Carbonate(Ecocert Natural), Glycerin, Niacinamide, Cetearyl Alcohol(Ecocert Natural), Fucoxanthin, Human Oligopeptide-1(Egf), Rh-Polypeptide-11(Fgf), rh-Oligopeptide-2(Igf), Astaxanthin, Heptyl Glucoside(Ecocert Natural), Betaine, Trehalose, Hyaluronic Acid(Ecocert Natural), Sodium Hyaluronate, Tocopherol, Beta-Carotene, Vitis Vinifera (Grape) Seed Extract, Ascorbic Acid, Polyglyceryl-10 Stearate(Ecocert Natural), Adenosine, 1,2-Hexanediol, Allantoin, Dipotassium Glycyrrhizate, Sorbitan Olivate, Cetearyl Olivate
Our cautions regarding EGF (which BTW was one of our earliest posts) questioned the prudence of applying a sole, single mitogenic bio-signal to the skin. As we explained, this is not the way human physiology works. Cell signaling occurs from the net message of the pattern of cytokines and growth factors in the local cellular milieu. Your Korean product has additional bio-signals including synthetic versions of FGF (fibroblast growth factor) and IGF (insulin-like growth factor), among many other ingredients. We see no concern. If you would like to start using occasionally and increase usage based on how your skin responds, that sounds like a reasonable approach.
I read through the comment section and understand that you prefer a mix of growth factors rather than a product dominated by EGF. I recently came across a Cellular MD Eye Balm that “combines DNA + EGF”, and I will paste the INCI below. Can you give me your personal opinion on the possible effectiveness of this product? and what does it mean that it “contains” DNA? I can’t even find it here among the ingredients and never heard of DNA being applied topically.
Water, Dimethicone, Polysilicone-11, Isohexadecane, Ammonium Polyacryloyldimethyl Taurate, Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-1, Tetrahexyldecyl Ascorbate (Vitamin C), Caprylic/Capric Triglyceride, Glycerin, Isoprene Glycol Hydroxyethylacrylate / Sodium, Acryloyldimethyl Taurate Copolymer, Squalane, Simmondsia Chinensis (Jojoba) Seed Oil, Glycosaminoglycans, Hyaluronic Acid, Growth Factor, Micrococcus Lysate, Copper PCA, Zinc PCA, Calcium PCA, Aloe Barbadensis Leaf Extract, Panthenol (Vitamin B5), Tocopheryl Acetate (Vitamin E), Laureth-12, Santalum Album (Sandalwood) Extract, Phellodendrom Amurense Bark Extract, Hordeum Distichon (Barley) Extract, Hydrolyzed Wheat Protein, Phytic Acid Triticum Vulgare (Wheat) Germ Oil, Linoleic Acid, Rumex Occidentalis Extract, Nonapeptide-1, Ubiquinone, Sorbitol, Urtica Dioica, (Nettle) Extract, Equisetum Arvense (Horsetail) Extract, Cucumis Sativus (Cucumber) Extract, Centella Asiatica Extract, Chamomilla Recutita (Matricaria) Extract, Chlorella Vulgaris Extract, Hydrolyzed Algin, Lecithin, Polysorbate 20, Polysorbate 80, Phenoxyethanol, Capryl Glycol, Ethylhexylglycerin, Hexylene Glycol.
I think you are confusing the brand name, DNA Renewal, and assuming therefore that the product Eye Balm actually contains DNA. It doesn’t. Even if it did, so what? Such large molecules are not going to penetrate the stratum corneum, let alone find its way deeper into living tissue. And you’re right, we’re not fans of single growth factor products simply because they are so unphysiologic. Mother nature never secretes a single growth factor. It’s always scores, if not hundreds.
What you are seeing in action is much of what we disdain about cosmetic marketing. Buzz words without scientific context or veracity purloining $$$$ from the consumers who just don’t have the training or education to know what’s real and what is fiction. There are some reasonable ingredients in the mix but the first two are silicones. Nice feel and “spreadability” but not true skin actives.
Thnx Dr George! So it looks like without the buzz word “DNA” (I knew I smelled a rat there, lol) I think it would be a decent product…
Just FYI, the DNA Renewal brand is now Cellular MD, produced by the same guy – Moy Ronald MD. You probably came upon him when you looked at the DNA Renewal : from the website: “Previously known as DNA Renewal, Cellular MD was created by world-renowned dermatologist and skin cancer specialist Dr. Ronald L. Moy to widen the dialogue of skincare to include ingredients that impact the very foundation of your skin’s DNA as well as its surface appearance.”
More nonsensical language – “impact the very foundation of your skin’s DNA”. Sorry, don’t buy that for a second…but unwary consumers certainly may.
I just saw you guys have a new Brightening serum! The ingredients look great.
I am wondering what % of Tranexemic acid is in it? I’ve been interested to try this active, a few brands have it in their formulations at varying %…. thnx:-)
I came across this site while researching a do-it-yourself EGF serum sold by Skinactives. They sell a synthetic EGF intended to be mixed into a 4oz water-based formula. It can be mixed with hyaluronic acid serum or water-based creams. This EGF serum is 50mcg and the ingredient is sh-Oligopeptide-1. Can you comment on how effective or damaging this is for skin and hair? I am suffering from melasma and use mild peeling solutions at home. I read somewhere that EGF will help with hyperpigmentation and melasma.
Epidermal growth factor (EGF) plays an important role in the regeneration and proliferation of skin cells. It promotes the synthesis of fibrous proteins, such as collagen, and induces the proliferation of keratinocytes and fibroblasts. It can also induce hyaluronic acid synthesis, which subsequently leads to improved skin elasticity, wrinkle improvement, and moisturizing effects. These effects are what make EGF an attractive cosmetic active ingredient. The synthetic version of EGF is produced through GMO technology in barley grains and fermentation in genetically altered e. coli bacteria. The synthetic version is molecularly identical to natural EGF. It is a skin active widely available in many products.
A trial comparing the effect of a recombinant EGF cosmetic serum to fibroblast conditioned media (TNS) found the EGF product superior in improving skin firmness and smoothness. A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, split-face study of fifteen women (mean age 44) demonstrated that topical EGF was significantly superior to placebo. Improvement in melasma was observed in 73.4% of subjects compared to 13% improvement for the placebo side. Readers may want to revisit our post that discussed fibroblasts and what puny producers of biosignals they are. That is why TNS serum contains more than 93% fibroblast-conditioned media and smells like dirty gym socks. Not much oomph there. Read about them at: http://barefacedtruth.com/2017/08/23/thinking-makes-sense/
The Effect of a Combination of Recombinant EGF Cosmetic Serum and a Crosslinked Hyaluronic Acid Serum as Compared to a Fibroblast-Conditioned Media Serum on the Appearance of Aging Skin. J Drugs Dermatol. 2016 Jun 1;15(6):738-41
A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Split-Face Study of the Efficacy of Topical Epidermal Growth Factor for the Treatment of Melasma. J Drugs Dermatol. 2018;17(6):970-973. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30235384/
Readers who read BFT with some frequency are aware that your hosts are not fond of products containing a single cytokine or growth factor. The reason is quite simple: Mother Nature NEVER works in this fashion. Physiologic responses, including inflammation, wound healing, pigmentation production and regulation, and every other function, are the result of the “combined” effects of dozens if not hundreds of bio-signaling molecules. We much prefer strategies based on more physiologic combinations of growth factors and cytokines. This can be done in a rudimentary fashion with synthetic versions, but we prefer a foundational approach based on conditioned media produced by stem cell cultures. With proper “coaxing” in the laboratory, their bio-signal profile i.e. the secretome, can be nudged into emphasizing particular patterns to achieve a desired physiologic result. To learn more, browse around BFT as we have covered this topic in significant detail.
To review our blog article and comments on EGF, please visit:
So EGF COULD promote cancer cells to spread? The question I have is, is this only where you put EGF serums or creams? In that case, it’s fairly easy to notice and keep an eye on. And are we talking about just skin cancer or also melanoma?
There is no information of which we are aware that has proven topical EGG promotes cancer cells to spread. That has not been a concern to us. Our objection to its use as a single biosignal is it is unphysiologic. Many are involved in all human processes. The review below covers the subject in detail.
Bodnar RJ. Epidermal Growth Factor and Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor: The Yin and Yang in the Treatment of Cutaneous Wounds and Cancer. Adv Wound Care (New Rochelle). 2013 Feb;2(1):24-29. doi: 10.1089/wound.2011.0326. PMID: 24527320; PMCID: PMC3840479.