Lokki
Recognising patterns
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2024
- Posts
- 1,567
- Reputation
- 2,274
I got this thread idea from @BlackpilledBodus thread: https://looksmax.org/threads/surgeon-told-me-about-a-protein-that-grows-bone.1149297/ , its also worth reading
But now to start,
INFO ABOUT BMPs AND HOW THEY COULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION IN BETWEEN OF BONESMASHING AND IMPLANTS
Thread music (skip to 0:31)
Bone morphogenetic proteins or BMPs for short are basically proteins that build bone. The difference between autogenous bone graft and BMPs is that BMPs dont need bone from anywhere else in your body but they actually create it on the spot.
What i just said was a very broad explanation, and i can copy paste some articles and medical research from google in the spoiler below if anyones interested.
Here's a list of BMPs and their functions (copied from wikipedia because typing them here would be too much unneccessary work)
Now here comes the bad part why I said "Could have" and didnt spend nearly enough effort into this thread
Its so fucking over. when I first read about this i thought this could revolusionize looksmaxxing by making us able to add bone without surgery until i saw the price.
There is literally no reason to use experiemental proteins on your face for 10000$, at this point you should just save your money and wait until you have enough for implants by @RealSurgerymax
TLDR: These proteins build new bone mass anywhere on your body, but it costs 10000$ and is highly experiemental making it very impractical for looksmaxxers
Its so over. tagging my favourite cels.
@LooksThinker @BlackpilledBodus @cromagnon @asdvek @Gengar @97baHater @N9wiff•˚₊‧⋆. @gigell
But now to start,
INFO ABOUT BMPs AND HOW THEY COULD HAVE BEEN AN OPTION IN BETWEEN OF BONESMASHING AND IMPLANTS
Thread music (skip to 0:31)
Bone morphogenetic proteins or BMPs for short are basically proteins that build bone. The difference between autogenous bone graft and BMPs is that BMPs dont need bone from anywhere else in your body but they actually create it on the spot.
What i just said was a very broad explanation, and i can copy paste some articles and medical research from google in the spoiler below if anyones interested.
Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs) are a group of secreted proteins which exerts an osteoinductive effect, of which BMP-2 has been shown to induce osteogenesis [6]. Due to its potency at stimulating bone growth at implantation sites, BMPs are an alternative for autogenous bone grafting in bone healing [27,51]
Clinically, BMP is utilized for the treatment of bone fractures and spinal fusion procedures [5,45]. Bone formation is induced when BMP-2 is present locally at the site of administration and also limited to the time when BMP is present. However, its efficacy is reduced due to the fast clearance rate and diffusion rate of BMP-2 from the site of administration [17]. Hence, a carrier which maintains BMP-2 at the treatment site was required. One of the most effective carriers used recently is the type 1 bovine absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), which although has excellent properties as a carrier, has inherent problems with the control release of BMP-2, often suffering from high initial burst release and inability to provide sustained release of BMP-2. In a previous work by the authors, BMP-2 containing bovine serum albumin (BSA) nanoparticles (NPs) with a polyethylenimine (PEI) coating were prepared and analyzed accordingly in an in vitro system [63
In this study, PEI-coated BMP-2 containing BSA NPs were evaluated in a subcutaneous implant model to examine the pharmacokinetics of BMP-2 release and also to assess their osteoinductive activity [62]. Firstly, a comparison was made between PEI-coated and non-coated BMP-2 NPs to examine the effect of PEI. Non-coated BMP-2 NPs experienced significant burst release (>70%) as compared to PEI-coated NPs (20–30%) after one day. At the end of seven days, about 40–50% of BMP-2 remained in PEI-coated NPs while less than 15% of BMP-2 remained in non-coated NPs. This was expected as the PEI coating was expected to delay BSA degradation from the NPs and thus allow the retarded release of BMP-2 from the BSA matrix. The osteoinductive activity of BMP-2 NPs was then assessed by subcutaneous implantation in rats. Higher ALP activity, osteocalcin levels and calcium deposits were all observed in non-coated BMP-2 NPs as compared to PEI-coated BMP-2 NPs, suggesting of an undesired effect of PEI on the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2, even when free BMP-2 was administered along with PEI-coated BMP-2 NPs. To determine if altering the concentration of BMP-2 could reduce the negative effects of PEI, NPs were loaded with different concentrations of BMP-2. As before, both ALP levels and calcification results showed that non-coated NPs had the highest activity as compared to PEI-coated NPs and free BMP-2. It appeared that the NP formulation process did not adversely affect the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2, however, the inclusion of PEI during NP formulation produced cytotoxic effects that were detrimental to BMP-2 bioactivity. This observation was further confirmed when little signs of bone formation were observed with the delivery of PEI-coated NPs together with the addition of free BMP-2. In conclusion, PEI-coated NPs had reduced burst release and sustained delivery of BMP-2, however, PEI adversely interacted with BMP-2 causing BMP-2 to lose its osteoinductive activity. The results also showed a dose-dependent increase in bone formation with increased BMP-2 loading into NPs. Hence, the authors believed that the toxicity of PEI can be reduced by optimizing the BMP-2 loading and retaining the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_morphogenetic_protein
Clinically, BMP is utilized for the treatment of bone fractures and spinal fusion procedures [5,45]. Bone formation is induced when BMP-2 is present locally at the site of administration and also limited to the time when BMP is present. However, its efficacy is reduced due to the fast clearance rate and diffusion rate of BMP-2 from the site of administration [17]. Hence, a carrier which maintains BMP-2 at the treatment site was required. One of the most effective carriers used recently is the type 1 bovine absorbable collagen sponge (ACS), which although has excellent properties as a carrier, has inherent problems with the control release of BMP-2, often suffering from high initial burst release and inability to provide sustained release of BMP-2. In a previous work by the authors, BMP-2 containing bovine serum albumin (BSA) nanoparticles (NPs) with a polyethylenimine (PEI) coating were prepared and analyzed accordingly in an in vitro system [63
In this study, PEI-coated BMP-2 containing BSA NPs were evaluated in a subcutaneous implant model to examine the pharmacokinetics of BMP-2 release and also to assess their osteoinductive activity [62]. Firstly, a comparison was made between PEI-coated and non-coated BMP-2 NPs to examine the effect of PEI. Non-coated BMP-2 NPs experienced significant burst release (>70%) as compared to PEI-coated NPs (20–30%) after one day. At the end of seven days, about 40–50% of BMP-2 remained in PEI-coated NPs while less than 15% of BMP-2 remained in non-coated NPs. This was expected as the PEI coating was expected to delay BSA degradation from the NPs and thus allow the retarded release of BMP-2 from the BSA matrix. The osteoinductive activity of BMP-2 NPs was then assessed by subcutaneous implantation in rats. Higher ALP activity, osteocalcin levels and calcium deposits were all observed in non-coated BMP-2 NPs as compared to PEI-coated BMP-2 NPs, suggesting of an undesired effect of PEI on the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2, even when free BMP-2 was administered along with PEI-coated BMP-2 NPs. To determine if altering the concentration of BMP-2 could reduce the negative effects of PEI, NPs were loaded with different concentrations of BMP-2. As before, both ALP levels and calcification results showed that non-coated NPs had the highest activity as compared to PEI-coated NPs and free BMP-2. It appeared that the NP formulation process did not adversely affect the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2, however, the inclusion of PEI during NP formulation produced cytotoxic effects that were detrimental to BMP-2 bioactivity. This observation was further confirmed when little signs of bone formation were observed with the delivery of PEI-coated NPs together with the addition of free BMP-2. In conclusion, PEI-coated NPs had reduced burst release and sustained delivery of BMP-2, however, PEI adversely interacted with BMP-2 causing BMP-2 to lose its osteoinductive activity. The results also showed a dose-dependent increase in bone formation with increased BMP-2 loading into NPs. Hence, the authors believed that the toxicity of PEI can be reduced by optimizing the BMP-2 loading and retaining the osteoinductive activity of BMP-2.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_morphogenetic_protein
Here's a list of BMPs and their functions (copied from wikipedia because typing them here would be too much unneccessary work)
Now here comes the bad part why I said "Could have" and didnt spend nearly enough effort into this thread
Its so fucking over. when I first read about this i thought this could revolusionize looksmaxxing by making us able to add bone without surgery until i saw the price.
There is literally no reason to use experiemental proteins on your face for 10000$, at this point you should just save your money and wait until you have enough for implants by @RealSurgerymax
TLDR: These proteins build new bone mass anywhere on your body, but it costs 10000$ and is highly experiemental making it very impractical for looksmaxxers
Its so over. tagging my favourite cels.
@LooksThinker @BlackpilledBodus @cromagnon @asdvek @Gengar @97baHater @N9wiff•˚₊‧⋆. @gigell
Last edited:
