Copper peptides and hair counts
A combination in a human trial; a related peptide in an experiment on removed follicles.
The combination trial
The controlled hair-growth trial followed 45 men with androgenetic alopecia for 6 months. It tested a topical complex of 5-aminolevulinic acid and GHK. Androgenetic alopecia is the pattern of hair loss named in the study population; the findings belong to that population and that combination.
The reported hair-count increases were 52.6 in the 100 mg/mL group and 71.5 in the 50 mg/mL group, compared with 9.6 for placebo. Those concentrations describe what the study tested. The trial reported a statistically significant difference from placebo and no adverse events in any group.
I appreciate having a count to discuss. There is something refreshingly concrete about hairs counted over a defined trial period. At the same time, the treatment includes another active component, so the result leaves the contribution of GHK alone unresolved, along with the performance of a different copper-peptide preparation.
The AHK-Cu experiment
The hair-follicle study used AHK-Cu, the alanyl analogue of GHK-Cu. It reported elongation of removed human hair follicles and proliferation of dermal papilla cells in culture, along with reduced cell-death markers under the studied conditions.
One letter changes the substance. Useful neighbouring chemistry has its own appeal. Its contribution belongs beside the GHK work, with the change of material stated clearly. Its results concern the AHK-Cu material, removed follicles and cultured cells described in the experiment.
This is also a good reason to slow down at a paper's generic title. “Tripeptide-copper complex” can sound comfortably familiar while leaving the identity of the actual tested peptide unresolved. Here that identity matters to every proposed connection with GHK-Cu.
What would strengthen the hair case?
For the human combination study, my next question stays close to the result: how much does each component contribute? That would tell me something the combination's hair-count result leaves unresolved.
The report of no adverse events also has a definite home: this trial, its participants and its duration. It gives no universal assurance about another formulation, another route or a longer period. That limitation can coexist with interest in the observed count difference.
The AHK-Cu experiment offers a separate biological lead. I see promising hair-research questions here, with quite different distances still to travel. The skin-delivery discussion follows a similar concern about what happens when the material or its preparation changes.