• We have updated Tinnitus Talk.

    If you come across any issues, please use our contact form to get in touch.

Frequency Therapeutics — Hearing Loss Regeneration

Hello, everyone, I don't understand one thing about the FX-322 and the patent:

- How can they know that the FX-322 is replacing support cells?
- And in what cases?
It's not replacing them per se but dividing them first before the hair cell is produced from one of the daughter cells. If you look up the company on YouTube, you can find videos that explain.
 
No not too personal at all. A bad combination of split second noise exposure (multiple times over - a scream here, a shout there). It tough to see people attend 2 hour concerts at 100 dB sound levels and come out fine, and here I am being exposed to 10 seconds of shouting and it gets worse and worse. It feels like something just broke inside my ears.

The thing is that it's only the reactivity that gets worse. My normal tinnitus has not worsened, or at least not in any dramatic way. Even though I categorize my normal tinnitus as moderate it is live able and I wish I had that back. Although having clean ears (for the most part) is still my dream.
Thanks HootOwl.

My ears are certainly "broken" like yours. Universe willing we will get some help. Fingers crossed for good luck. Thanks again.

Daniel
 
You know that feeling once you wake from a nightmare and reality sets in and you begin to relax.

Well I think the day that a successful cure/treatment comes out will be EXACTLY like that.

I would seriously consider flying out somewhere for a round of drinks with everyone once this hell is over for all of us.
 
You know that feeling once you wake from a nightmare and reality sets in and you begin to relax.

Well I think the day that a successful cure/treatment comes out will be EXACTLY like that.

I would seriously consider flying out somewhere for a round of drinks with everyone once this hell is over for all of us.
Just know that nobody is stopping me from playing my quasi-optimistic detached shoegaze over my Bluetooth speaker when this day comes.
 
One thing I'm not clear on is the role stereocelia plays in the cochlea. Will FX-322 help repair damaged stereocilia or regenerate it with the new hair cells?
Damaged stereocilia should lead to death of the HC. Even some healthy OHC's are killed after acoustic trauma.
That's a lyric from a song isn't it? I know that song...
Haha my username sure is... it was my AIM name when I was 15.
 
So if I follow you then FX-322 won't be able to regenerate a HC where stereocilia has been destroyed? Or will we get new stereocilia with the regeneration?
It will be able to regenerate destroyed and damaged cells. Stereocilia are a part of the hair cells.
 
From what I understand, it is from the support cells that the FX-322 remakes OHC and IHC. Apparently it works better with IHCs. Apparently it would also rebuild support cells. It should also be injected several times if I'm not mistaken.
 
From what I understand, it is from the support cells that the FX-322 remakes OHC and IHC. Apparently it works better with IHCs. Apparently it would also rebuild support cells. It should also be injected several times if I'm not mistaken.
It has not been confirmed that it works better with IHCs but there is some evidence that it might.

It does not rebuild support cells. It does not deplete them, though. Here is an explanation from Frequency:

 
So if I follow you then FX-322 won't be able to regenerate a HC where stereocilia has been destroyed? Or will we get new stereocilia with the regeneration?
Apoptosis happens with cellularly signaling from messengers released from damaged cells. Every animal has different apoptosis pathways (birds are especially different from mammals) and sensitivities so I'm not sure you can deduce anything meaningful from non-human animal studies. My opinion (just my personal opinion) is anything that can damage the hair cell enough to lose the stereocilia should "register chemically" as a damaged cell at the very least and could be replaced by regeneration the same way. I can't prove this but it makes intuitive sense to me.

The best way to ascertain this will happen with clinically meaningful data, which we will have (specifically with tinnitus this time too) over a large enough population to get some good stats. If "theoretical" situations won't matter over this population, then they very likely shouldn't matter for you or anyone else.
 
@FGG
I don't understand anything anymore. It was mentioned in their patent: "In certain embodiments, the present disclosure relates to inducing, promoting, or enhancing the growth, proliferation or regeneration of inner ear tissue, particularly inner ear supporting cells and hair cells."

It is therefore possible that the FX-322 can rebuild support cells.
 
@FGG
I don't understand anything anymore. It was mentioned in their patent: "In certain embodiments, the present disclosure relates to inducing, promoting, or enhancing the growth, proliferation or regeneration of inner ear tissue, particularly inner ear supporting cells and hair cells."

It is therefore possible that the FX-322 can rebuild support cells.
Sure, it's possible if the division is asymmetric but the literature they have released has presented it the way of the video, at least for now.
 
Slight chance it could be released next year depending on if they can receive breakthrough therapy status.
This would only be true if their original estimated complete date of September holds true but that's looking very unlikely as 4 of their sites haven't even started recruiting yet.
 
So if I follow you then FX-322 won't be able to regenerate a HC where stereocilia has been destroyed? Or will we get new stereocilia with the regeneration?
It absolutely should regenerate them, although it may require repeat dosing in areas where support cells are more intensely depleted.

The math of support cell —> support cell + active hair cell is imperfect. All we have to go off of is their presentations and the patent source provided by @Diesel.

In my case, it'd be most advantageous for the math to be closer to a 1:1 ratio. For the health of more of the sufferers on this board, it would be more favorable for it to first bolster the support cell population before newer generations of HC's can be induced to create active HC's. I hope, and actually believe the case will be the latter. I want more people to be helped than just the preferential few with abundant SC populations. I wouldn't mind at all undergoing this procedure two or three times for it to do what it needs to do.
It has not been confirmed that it works better with IHCs but there is some evidence that it might.

It does not rebuild support cells. It does not deplete them, though. Here is an explanation from Frequency:
I would find it odd if it were to preferentially restore IHC's considering their quote of 15k hair cells, which refers to the OHC population, with no mention of IHC's (although that other presentation seems to depict IHC restoration as well).
 
It absolutely should regenerate them, although it may require repeat dosing in areas where support cells are more intensely depleted.

The math of support cell —> support cell + active hair cell is imperfect. All we have to go off of is their presentations and the patent source provided by @Diesel.

In my case, it'd be most advantageous for the math to be closer to a 1:1 ratio. For the health of more of the sufferers on this board, it would be more favorable for it to first bolster the support cell population before newer generations of HC's can be induced to create active HC's. I hope, and actually believe the case will be the latter. I want more people to be helped than just the preferential few with abundant SC populations. I wouldn't mind at all undergoing this procedure two or three times for it to do what it needs to do.

I would find it odd if it were to preferentially restore IHC's considering their quote of 15k hair cells, which refers to the OHC population, with no mention of IHC's (although that other presentation seems to depict IHC restoration as well).
Their published pre-clinical study also shows both being regenerated. The reason I suspect IHCs may be preferentially regenerated is there are a much higher number of LGR5+ cells around IHCs and therefore more "substrate" to bind to.
 
Do you think that hearing regeneration treatments could cure or reduce hyperacusis / noxacusis?
Not well read enough on hyperacusis but if noxacusis is a product of loudness hyperacusis, then yes. I think it would/could help both.

Just going to inject this thread with another theory for those wondering in what order hearing loss drugs would best be administered. I would think that if cochlear synaptopathy is a contributor to tinnitus/hearing loss, this aspect should be addressed first. Reason being, when problems arise in the body from both distal and proximal sources, it is prudent to treat the more proximal source first because the hierarchy of bodily function typically flows down from the top. For example, if you have a knee and an ankle sprain, vigilant physical therapy on the knee will have greater effects on gait mechanics than would addressing the ankle first, whose residual effects benefits the more distal injury (ankle).

The cochlea is obviously way more sophisticated than this but I can't discount the many instances where this relationship proves its salience.
 
Not well read enough on hyperacusis but if noxacusis is a product of loudness hyperacusis, then yes. I think it would/could help both.

Just going to inject this thread with another theory for those wondering in what order hearing loss drugs would best be administered. I would think that if cochlear synaptopathy is a contributor to tinnitus/hearing loss, this aspect should be addressed first. Reason being, when problems arise in the body from both distal and proximal sources, it is prudent to treat the more proximal source first because the hierarchy of bodily function typically flows down from the top. For example, if you have a knee and an ankle sprain, vigilant physical therapy on the knee will have greater effects on gait mechanics than would addressing the ankle first, whose residual effects benefits the more distal injury (ankle).

The cochlea is obviously way more sophisticated than this but I can't discount the many instances where this relationship proves its salience.
I don't know that you can use weight bearing physics here and I don't see a reason it would matter as much here.

Let's say at one frequency, you only have synapse loss, FX-322 won't do anything but it won't hurt either.

Now if you have IHC and synapse loss at the another location simultaneously, FX-322 would address both.

Now if you have synapse loss and OHC less without IHC damage, I still don't see physiologically why you'd have to repair the synapse first. Both would need to be repaired but it's not as if there is no functional gain repairing one first. Maybe I'm not understanding this right...
 
I would find it odd if it were to preferentially restore IHC's considering their quote of 15k hair cells, which refers to the OHC population, with no mention of IHC's (although that other presentation seems to depict IHC restoration as well).
The human cochlea has est 2500 IHC and est 13000 OHC. So, when they mention 15000, it's a broad reference. And appropriately generic considering the context of the presentation.
 
Their published pre-clinical study also shows both being regenerated. The reason I suspect IHCs may be preferentially regenerated is there are a much higher number of LGR5+ cells around IHCs and therefore more "substrate" to bind to.
I don't know that you can use weight bearing physics here and I don't see a reason it would matter as much here.

Let's say at one frequency, you only have synapse loss, FX-322 won't do anything but it won't hurt either.

Now if you have IHC and synapse loss at the another location simultaneously, FX-322 would address both.

Now if you have synapse loss and OHC less without IHC damage, I still don't see physiologically why you'd have to repair the synapse first. Both would need to be repaired but it's not as if there is no functional gain repairing one first. Maybe I'm not understanding this right...
It was just one hierarchical model that demonstrates my point. Another would be neuropathic pain—treating the region of the brain that's malfunctioning or whatever, over localized nerve blocks.
 
This would only be true if their original estimated complete date of September holds true but that's looking very unlikely as 4 of their sites haven't even started recruiting yet.
What would happen if they couldn't get enough participants for those 4 locations or none at all due to the criteria? Can results still be released end of September?
 
What would happen if they couldn't get enough participants for those 4 locations or none at all due to the criteria? Can results still be released end of September?
If they don't reach their target amount worked out with the FDA beforehand, they won't release results until they do.
 

Log in or register to get the full forum benefits!

Register

Register on Tinnitus Talk for free!

Register Now