Living and Studying Alopecia

Published: December 27, 2010

Angela Christiano, 45, an associate professor of dermatology
and genetics at Columbia University Medical Center, studies hair.
Last summer, she announced the discovery of the genes implicated in
alopecia areata, the hair-loss disease that she herself suffers from.
We spoke for two hours in her Washington Heights laboratory and then
later on the telephone. An edited version of the two conversations

HAND OF FATE Angela Christiano studied alopecia
soon after her diagnosis.

Q. When did you first learn that you had Alopecia?

A. In 1995, a time of big transitions in my life.
After doing highly successful postdoctoral research on genetic
blistering skin diseases at Jefferson Medical College, I’d arrived
here at Columbia to start my own laboratory. I had just turned 30. I
was getting a divorce. When you start your first lab, a researcher is
expected to find something different from their postdoc work. For my
first six months here, I sat thinking, “What am I going to do when
I grow up?”

In the midst of all this, I went to a beauty parlor and the
stylist said: “What’s happened here? You have a big patch of hair
missing from the back of your head.” I ignored that. But the next
day at the lab, I asked a colleague to take a look. She let out a
bloodcurdling scream: “You have a huge bald spot!”

I immediately went over to the clinic here. They said: “Oh, you
have alopecia. There’s not much we can do to treat it.”

Q. Alopecia is genetic. Do you have relatives with it?

A. My mom and her mother had hair loss from a
young age. I have a cousin also who lost all of her hair. Ironically,
hair is a big part of my family’s life. My grandfather was a barber
in Italy and then later in New Jersey. And my mother was a
hairdresser before retiring. I’m the first person in my family to
go to college and graduate school: Rutgers. My mother now says,
“You’re just another hair person — you just do it differently.”

Q. How did this history lead to your research?

A. In the months after my diagnosis, I went
through panic and shock. Every morning, I’d wake up wondering if it
was all going to fall out. And new spots did show up. I’d cover
them with the most careful combing. Then there’d be a new one. It
was like plugging holes in a dam. It finally stopped after two years.

I began reading all the papers on alopecia. In my training, nobody
had talked much about hair. I thought maybe the reason was because it
had all been figured out. When I started digging, I saw the opposite
was true. I thought, “Maybe this is the hand of fate directing me
to a topic? This is a wide-open field.” If I could identify the
genes involved in alopecia, then maybe we could figure out what they
did, and that might be the way to a treatment.

Having the chance to work it through in the lab was one of the
things that kept me sane in this period of my life. The disease was
very destabilizing.

Q. Why had hair loss been so minimally researched?

A. I suspect it’s because it’s seen as a
“cosmetic” problem. It’s the life-threatening diseases that get
priority — and money. The other problem was that in 1996, the tools
weren’t ready. The Human Genome Project hadn’t finished its work.
There were no road maps. Nobody had yet solved a complex disease
where multiple genes are involved, which is what alopecia is.

Q. So how’d you overcome that?

A. You could see the tools were on their way.
Every year, you’d go to conventions and there was excitement about
what was coming. My plan was to get all the ducks in a row for when
the genome was mapped. While we waited, we tried to lay some
groundwork by trying to find single genes that control the normal
hair growth cycle. By looking for rare hair-loss diseases where only
one gene was the factor, we learned some of that. My lab found six
such genes.

The other thing we did was to line up a patient registry for
alopecia. That way, when the time was right, we could compare the
genomes of people with the disease to those of people without it. An
advocacy group, National Alopecia Areata Foundation, N.A.A.F., helped
us connect with patients.

Q. When were you able to actually do the study?

A. In 2008. We published our findings this past
July. Ours was the first study of alopecia to use a genome-wide
approach. By checking the DNA of 1,000 alopecia patients against a
control group of 1,000 without it, we identified 139 markers for the
disease across the genome.

We also found a big surprise. For years, people thought that
alopecia was probably the stepchild of autoimmune skin diseases like
psoriasis and vitiligo. The astonishing news is that it shares
virtually no genes with those. It’s actually linked to rheamatoid
diabetes 1 and celiac disease.

Q. What will this new information mean for patients?

A. It should have amazing benefits. There are
existing drugs on the market for several of these diseases. Based on
the overlapping genetics, we have a chance of pushing forward with
clinical trials for potentially effective drugs much sooner than we’d
thought. One approach would be as a new indication for an already
approved drug.

Going the other way, our research opens up possibilities for the
three related diseases. With them, till now it’s been hard to study
aspects of how the immune response goes wrong because it is difficult
to biopsy the pancreas or a joint. But now researchers might be able
to use a patient’s skin, a much more accessible organ.

Already, the finding has helped with diagnosis. At Columbia, we
have large clinics for diabetes and celiac disease. Since we’ve
published our paper, those clinics are asking patients, “Have you
experienced hair loss?” About 10 percent say, “Oh, yes, I lose
hair in clumps.”

Q. What does it feel like to have accomplished this?

A. It’s wonderful, of course. This summer, I
spoke at the patient conference of N.A.A.F. and told the young people
there, for the first time, about their genes. Before I could finish
my talk, they gave me a standing ovation. I was in tears. Many of
them later said, “We wouldn’t wish this on you, but we’re glad
you got this disease.”

I understood what they meant. Without it, a serious geneticist
might never have given their attention to what was thought of as a
cosmetic disease.


  1. I know Terri it is really cool!! This lady has near become famous in America! She couldn’t believe there was hardly any research done on hairloss……. because it was “not important enough”, not life threatening! If only people who didn’t suffer it themselves could understand how it can make a person feel!……. Notice i use the word “suffer”!!
    Anyway it got me thinking, and my mother’s sister has celiacs disease, so looks like the genetics could have been handed down to me? I have started a gluten free diet, prompted by the reading of Mary Corrigan’s book….”Whats up with my Hair”….. recommended read, and even if it doesn’t make hair grow back it will certainly make you healthier!
    I am going to blog that one too….. 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s