An Interview with Carolina Oliveira of OneSkin Technologies

OneSkin Technologies is one of the few companies in the present community of startups focused on rejuvenation and slowing aging to adopt a serious cosmetics focus on development. Here "cosmetics" is a regulatory term, not an indication of something used for the purposes of looks: it is perfectly possible for a topically applied product that is regulated as a cosmetic to have therapeutic effects, just like a drug. Nonetheless, cosmetics and drugs have entirely distinct paths of regulation, very different from one another, and each with their own costs and challenges. In regulated cosmetics development there is no animal testing at all, everything proceeds to human trials on the basis of tissue models of skin. The trials themselves are quite different. It is arguably easier to run a rejuvenation therapy through the cosmetics regulatory pathway than to try to introduce it as a drug, provided that has a significant effect on skin aging.

This is the direction taken by OneSkin, where the staff are working on a line of senolytic compounds to selectively destroy senescent cells in aged tissues, and that will be developed as cosmetic products at the outset. I met the OneSkin founder earlier this year, and had a chance to pose a few questions about the work being carried out at the company. I think that this approach to the challenge of medical development is worth watching, particularly given that the next major area of rejuvenation research to take off may be cross-link breaking. Cross-links are influential in the age-related loss of elasticity in tissues such as skin and blood vessels. I imagine that companies analogous to OneSkin will emerge quite quickly in that space, once it has reached the same level of maturity as presently exists for senolytics research and development.

How did OneSkin Technologies come about? What led you into cosmetic senolytics?

OneSkin's initial proposal was to validate the effectiveness of "anti-aging" skincare products available in the market, in order to meet the needs of consumers for science-validated products as well for the companies that are looking to differentiate their products from competitors. Our approach for this validation was to test a given molecule in 3D human skin equivalents and analyze changes in the methylation pattern by running age-predictor algorithms, such as the Molecular Clock developed by Steve Horvath in 2013. Since this and other algorithms used at the time largely failed to predict skin age accurately, we decided to develop our own skin-specific molecular clock, in which the average difference between predicted age and chronological age is lower (approximately 4.6 years) than the currently available molecular clocks. Later on, we realized that we could create more value and offer a scalable solution by developing new and more effective products for skin rejuvenation, instead of limiting ourselves to validating third party products. We also realized that there wasn't any initiative for targeting senescent cells focused on our body's largest organ, the skin.

We believe the skin will be the first tissue to benefit from a senotherapeutic approach since it allows for topical application, virtually no contact with the bloodstream, and possibly a faster route to the market, if categorized as a cosmetic. We also love the proposal to develop senotherapeutics for skin because their effects will be visually perceived by consumers. Finally, the International League of Dermatological Societies (ILDS), a global, not-for-profit organization representing 157 dermatological societies worldwide, has identified the consequences of skin aging as one of the most important grand challenges in global skin health. Reduced functional capacity and increased susceptibility of the skin with development of dermatoses such as dry skin, itching, ulcers, dyspigmentation, wrinkles, fungal infections, as well as benign and malignant tumors are the most common skin conditions in aged populations worldwide and may be prevented with the use of technologies that have been designed to promote skin age reversal, like ours.

The audience here is more familiar with the FDA process for new drugs. How does cosmetics development differ from that?

Here in the US, the law does not require cosmetic products to have FDA approval before they go on the market, but there are laws and regulations that apply to cosmetics on the market, including the voluntary cosmetic registration program. Despite the general feeling that cosmetics are hardly regulated by FDA, safety is the number one rule, accompanied by the important observation that cosmetic products must be properly labeled. This means that any cosmetic product in the market should do no harm to the skin. For this purpose, there are guidelines to be followed when introducing a new molecule in a cosmetic product.

Basically, the company should provide data regarding mutagenesis and chromosomal changes by performing tests such as the Ames test (which uses bacteria to analyze the potential of a given compound to cause DNA mutations), cytotoxicity (using human cells) and karyotyping analysis (using human cells). Since OneSkin does not use animals to develop products, additional safety studies using the complete formulation to assess skin irritation, corrosion, and sensitization are performed in human skin equivalents (in vitro) and also in human subjects. Additional tests, such as ocular toxicity are desirable and even mandatory according to the cosmetic product. At OneSkin, we performed most of the cited tests, including cytotoxicity in human fibroblasts and keratinocytes derived from different donors, mutagenesis (Ames) and chromosomal aberration (karyotyping), toxicity through human skin equivalents, and, finally, we have already performed the Repeated Insult Patch Testing (RIPT) in 54 human subjects, provided by an independent contract organization. All of them came out clear and in accordance with the parameters required, guaranteeing safety for our future clients.

Tell us something about your development. What is your candidate molecule, and how far along are you in the process of validation leading to human use?

Our lead candidate molecule is a new synthetic peptide, which was initially screened in a synthetic library for antimicrobial peptides (AMP). AMPs have multifunctional behavior and accumulate several interesting properties for skin applications, including tissue repair, antioxidant activity, collagen synthesis, anti-inflammatory activity and we decided to evaluate their senotherapeutic potential. From our initial 200 library, we selected 4 hits - the 4 compounds which were most effective in decreasing senescent cells in human skin. Then, we used an algorithm to create variations of such sequences, leading to hundreds of possible leads. Among those leads, we selected the two best peptides, deemed OS-1 and OS-2, which have consistently shown the ability to decrease human cellular senescence caused by aging, ultraviolet light, and other types of genotoxic stress by 25-50%.

It is worthy of mention that we chose to build a human cell-based platform in order to close the gap between preclinical and clinical scenarios and to mimic skin aging as closely as possible. Indeed, our valuable technological platform is proprietary and has been patented. To briefly outline our pipeline, first, we evaluate the ability of new compounds to decrease cellular senescence through two markers. The classical senescence associated-β-galactosidase (SA-β-Gal) marker is analyzed, as it has been consistently used in the aging field for a least 30 years and is considered an easily identifiable marker of cellular senescence. Nevertheless, since SA-β-Gal also has important limitations, we complement our analysis with a more recent and sensitive marker of cellular senescence, ATRX foci formation.

For each compound, we test both markers in cells obtained from at least three different healthy and aged donors. As positive controls, we have used senolytic and senomorphic molecules, such as fisetin and rapamycin. We also have tested most of senolytics described in the literature and most have failed to induce apoptosis in senescent cells in those cell types or show nonspecific effects, causing a significant toxicity to non-senescent cells. To date, our peptides are the molecules that have performed the best, considering safety and efficacy endpoints. We have been able to replicate human skin aging in vitro by growing skins with cell donors of diverse ages, ranging from a neonatal (0Y), to young (approximately 30Y) to aged (over 50Y). We have characterized these models according to skin equivalent structural organization, gene expression, and accumulation of senescent cells. Using aged skin equivalents, we test compounds by adding them into the culture media for 5 days. At this time, histological, SA-β-gal staining and qPCR analysis are performed to evaluate the skin health and the senotherapeutic and age reversal potential of such molecules. Additionally, we have formulated our main peptide in a topical cream and have applied onto skin biopsies of aged donors, and we could observe an improvement in epidermal thickness after 5 days of treatment.

Importantly, OS-1 is performing better than retinoic acid, currently considered the gold standard molecule for anti-aging skincare products. It is also worth mentioning that we have consistently seen an increased expression of p16 and inflammatory cytokines like IL-6 and IL-8, along with the "peeling effect" of retinoic acid, which is usually perceived in human use.

Finally, after performing these in vitro studies and clearing the safety (including an IRB approval) of our lead candidate, we have improved our own topical OS-1 formulation and began testing it on a group of 23 healthy volunteers, ranging from 32 to 84 years old. This experiment was initially focused on safety assessment only, but we already consider it a first validation of OS-1 effectiveness in humans, since our preliminary data is extremely promising, with 100% safety and a significant visual improvement observed in most patients within the first month of continuous use. Later this year, we will proceed to a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical study provided by an independent contractor organization.

Why can't one just use dasatinib, or other established senolytics, in some form and spread it on skin? Why something new?

Despite major proofs of concepts generated in the longevity field recently, the clinical use of senolytics must be carefully evaluated. We initially tested several senolytics like dasatinib and unfortunately, the majority that we tested on our platform were either very toxic even to non-senescent cells, or are not effective in decreasing the relative percentage of cellular senescence. Initially, we were disappointed by the lack of reproducibility in our hands, but since we have tested such compounds consistently, we believe that the discrepancies observed may result from different experimental settings, since most papers are based on animal models or genetically-modified cell lines, while we work with healthy and normal aged human cells.

Furthermore, when tested in skin equivalent models, senolytics continued to be highly toxic, compromising skin equivalent general structure, and decreasing the thickness of the epidermis. ABT-263, A1331852 and Dasatinib + Quercetin are but a few senolytics we have already tested. We have tested other molecules which are safer and effective like fisetin, but this molecule has the limitation of requiring high concentration to be effective (i.e. 20 μM), due to its low bioavailability. Fisetin's natural color (yellow to orange) also impairs its use in a topical product.

If your product works topically on skin, why not administer it systemically to clear out senescent cells throughout the body?

As mentioned before, we believe skin health is an important and highly overlooked target to rapidly promote drastic improvement of wellness, self-confidence, and prevention of aging-related skin disorders. Therefore, we have chosen skin as a starting point to validate our lead molecule and start bringing its benefits earlier to consumers. Once OS-1 ́is proven to be well-tolerated and effective at reducing skin senescence when applied topically, it will then open several avenues to explore other indications of the peptide throughout the body, which would fall in the regular FDA pathway for drug development. In this regard, one basic assay we performed in order to assess the potential application of OS-1 for longevity purposes was the evaluation of healthspan improvement and lifespan extension in C. elegans worms. In this experiment, parameters of healthspan (thrashing and esophageal pumping - which basically indicates how well the worm moves and eats) were improved, and the treated worms lived longer (median life extension increased approximately 12%).

This is comparable to other age reversal strategies published in the literature, and reflects the potential of OS-1 to be used for other therapeutic applications in the future. The positive result surprised us, because we have not yet optimized our candidates by applying any medicinal chemistry. However, this will soon be performed once the mechanism of action is elucidated. On this subject, we have shown that OS-1 promotes a decrease of cellular senescence levels of cells and tissues by promoting apoptosis (decrease in phosphorylated Akt on Ser473), increasing DNA repair capacity (induction of BLM and SIRT6 gene expression) and preventing DNA-damage induced senescence (UVB exposure induction model).

What other areas of rejuvenation research do you think would benefit from a cosmetics approach, to speed adoption?

Most strategies targeting one of the hallmarks of aging could be useful for a cosmetic approach. The main limitation we see is the delivery of whatever rejuvenation technology through the stratum corneum, the outermost layer of the skin, which is very well designed to work as a barrier to protect the skin from potential harm or infections. Our peptide, as a reference, is considered small (10 amino acids) and we were fortunate to validate its ability to penetrate through the stratum corneum barrier and into the dermal layer. Larger molecules may face additional challenges in penetratration and to promote their effects in deeper skin layers.

Importantly, to be able to validate any technology to promote skin rejuvenation it is not a trivial process. Previous experience has shown that skin aging is a little bit different from aging in other tissues. Therefore, it will be important to validate other strategies while considering the important drivers for skin aging by testing on aged models that replicate chronological aging such as UV exposure, oxidative stress, and pollution, and not on less important drivers such as oncogene-induced and chemically-induced senescence. The ability to replicate these models required years of optimization and it is an ongoing process when you start considering not only the influence of age, but also how the diverse genetic background plays a significant role in this matter.

What is the future of OneSkin Technologies beyond your first senolytic product?

OneSkin's main goal is to build the first skincare line targeting cellular senescence and bring its own products to the market. We believe there is no proposal out there, focusing on skin, that tackles aging from its cause as we do. This makes us confident in the value our products will bring to consumers. After the first validation for aesthetic skin rejuvenation, we are going after other age-related skin disorders and eventually, age-related disorders beyond the skin. An oral application of our peptide is another avenue to be explored. As we intend to keep our focus mainly towards skin applications, we envision to explore these additional indications through partnerships with pharma or other longevity companies. Finally, OneSkin's main asset is our screening and validation platform, which will constantly screen and identify new leads, be them small molecules, peptides, natural compounds or combinations thereof, to target cellular senescence and senescence-associated diseases. We are determined to work to position our technologies in the forefront of the future therapies for aging and longevity.


good, the more commercialization of senolitics is there the better

Posted by: cuberat at April 29th, 2019 5:23 PM

Reason, did they mention a timeline?

Posted by: Robert at April 29th, 2019 5:58 PM

It's a great place to start because the approval process is quicker and there are potentially huge pots of money available for any treatment that produces a visible improvement in appearance. The huge pots of money can then be used to branch out into similar treatments for other organs besides the skin.
What's the earning potential of a treatment that can make a 40-year old woman look 5 years younger? What's the earning potential of a treatment that can give a balding 40-year old man a full head of natural hair? How much research could you fund with the billions in revenue coming from the cosmetic side of the business?

Posted by: Chris at April 29th, 2019 7:16 PM

Great article! A success here would not only make money for OneSkin but galvanize the entire cosmetics industry into researching true anti-aging products. The tiny trickle of money coming into angi-aging could turn into a waterfall.

The speed of the research and the visibility of results are hugely important. If OS-1 does indeed work and reach the market, they'll also test it internally in the body. If those results look good, you could always mix the stuff in your morning yogurt if you don't want to wait 10 years for FDA approval :)

Posted by: Paul at April 29th, 2019 7:54 PM

And if those cosmetics really work then suddenly you will have half a billion middle-class people knowing the wirds 'senolitic' and 'rejuvenation' . That will attract enough attention to bring some trail investment Monday for rejuvenation research.

Posted by: Cuberat at April 29th, 2019 8:23 PM

Not enthusiastic about the validation process of using a methylation clock. I am not even convinced senescent cells accumulate significantly in the dermis, I think most skin aging is due to cross links. They should do skin biopsies before and after treatment and count senescent cells.

Posted by: JohnD at April 29th, 2019 8:37 PM

You are right. However,
There are some things that are not related to the cross links. And yet, I wouldn't be surprised if a good senolytic can slow down or even revert to some extent cross-linking. It happens, or at least it resend to happen, much more when there is inflammation, and where is inflammation the usual suspect du jour are the senecent cells.

Senolitics look like a very good hammer to treat age related deterioration... And we see the senecent cells nails everywhere...

Posted by: Cuberat at April 29th, 2019 8:44 PM

"The main limitation we see is the delivery of whatever rejuvenation technology through the stratum corneum, the outermost layer of the skin, which is very well designed to work as a barrier to protect the skin from potential harm or infections."

Surely microneedle patch technology can be used to overcome the limitation of poor skin penetration?

Come to think of it, microneedle patches could also be useful for partial epigentic reprograming of skin fibroblasts using OSKM Yamanaka factors. Giving people a lotion and telling them to only apply it for four days to avoid to much reprogramming sounds like a recipe for disaster (mistakes or people thinking more is better). Instead going into a clinic and getting a controlled dose from a face sized microneedle patch for four consecutive days eliminates that hazard.

Posted by: jimofoz at April 30th, 2019 12:00 AM

Also, how far can you push the whole "cosmetic path" aspect? Could Oisin Biotehcnology use a microneedle patch to deliver their lipid nanoparticles with suicide genes to the skin and still have it approved quickly under the cosmetic pathway?

Posted by: jimofoz at April 30th, 2019 12:33 AM

Azithromycin preferentially targets senescent cells, removing approximately 97% of them with great efficiency (Figure 11 in This represents a near 25-fold reduction in senescent cells (p < 0.001). Azithromycin dissolved in lanolin perfectly penetrates the skin. However, it is not enough to destroy the senescent cells, it is still necessary to stimulate the proliferation of the remaining cells to compensate for the loss. How to do this is described in my article: "Some suggestions on the use of conditional cell reprogramming technology for tissue rejuvenation in situ"

Posted by: Dmitry Dzhagarov at April 30th, 2019 5:42 AM

Wow! I'm going to be looking for an investment opportunity in this, because if it doesn't hit any roadblocks in random trials against placebos, I predict they will be bought out by a major line in less than a year (might be contingently happening now).

And as far as "Fisetin's natural color (yellow to orange) also impairs its use in a topical product." Topical fisetin might even get a Presidential endorsement ;) . I've got a bulk bag at home for my monthly fasts. Has anyone identified any emulsifiers like cocoa butter that I could mix it up in for use at night?

Posted by: Tom Schaefer at April 30th, 2019 9:48 AM

I would try mixing with propylene glycol (or propylene glycol + ethanol), maybe add in some caffeine. DMSO would probably work, but I'm not a fan. Have some glycolic acid cleanser on hand to help with the yellow stain.

Posted by: CD at April 30th, 2019 11:09 AM

@Dmitry - that azithromycin result is in vitro, no in a mouse model. It will probably only around wider interest if the result hold up in mice (as with fisetin).

Posted by: jimofoz at April 30th, 2019 1:12 PM

Dimitry, great article. Do you think that its better to skip removing senescent cells until the technology exists to " fill in" the cleared spaces? And is there no natural way to do that?

Posted by: August at April 30th, 2019 2:48 PM

The evidence so far shows that it is better to kill the senecent cells, since their count is relatively low and they pro inflammatory secretions are quite harmful. In fact, the preclude the "good" cells from multiplication and regeneration. At some point we might run out of available stem cells but we have to live long enough to start worry about that. For now the inflammation will kill us much sooner

Posted by: Cuberat at April 30th, 2019 5:41 PM

Microneedles unnecessary for application of lipid nanoparticles.
Applied topically, they slip down into the dermis and deeper by navigating between the skin cells.
They appear to remain intact when doing this.

Posted by: JLH at April 30th, 2019 5:48 PM

@Tom Schaefer
Where did you obtain bulk fisetin?

Posted by: gheme at April 30th, 2019 9:10 PM

@JLH: do you have a reference for this? I ask because I'm spending a fair amount of effort working this problem - our data suggests LNPs don't penetrate the stratum corneum unaided.

Posted by: Gary at April 30th, 2019 11:37 PM

@gary - is this the Gary Hudson of Oisin Biotechnologies? Is this confirmation that Oisin are looking at direct skin applications for their LNPs? Could you answer my question on how far the cosmetics pathway can actually be pushed?

Reason, I think the new comments system has flaw in that anyone can enter any username and impersonate anyone else. It's not a problem so far as this community still seems to be small enough not to have many trollls, but this could be a problem in the future.

Posted by: jimofoz at May 1st, 2019 12:40 AM

@Dmitry Dzhagarov

Would you apply senolytics and conditional reprogramming factors together or separately?

Posted by: Mark at May 1st, 2019 1:05 AM

@jimofoz: Yes, it is I. You can safely assume Oisin has interest in pretty much any application of senolytics. I've a personal interest in skin, since it is one of the largest sources of SCs and the systemic SASP, so it is a high priority target for me.

I'm not a regulatory expert by any means so I'll steer clear of opining on the cosmetics pathway issue.

Posted by: Gary at May 1st, 2019 1:05 AM

@Larry: Sorry, that gets into company proprietary issues, so I can't comment, but we have been aware of this work for some time.

Posted by: Gary at May 1st, 2019 4:34 PM

Their website says rollout of first product in September of 2020.

Posted by: Jim Rice at June 15th, 2020 9:15 PM

It is now July of 2020, the last comment here was made over a year ago and much has happened since then. Alive By Nature has come out with an absorbable topical liposomal fisetin that won't turn your skin yellow, they also throw in some liposomal NAD. I've ordered their systemic liposomal fisetin to try. As for oneskin, they are moving right along. Check their website. I was able to join a current trial, can't wait to see if there are any " results" ?

Posted by: august33 at July 20th, 2020 9:55 PM

@ Mark Since all substances used as senolytics, ROCK inhibitors and 5-LOX inhibitors are more or less toxic to the body, their ratio and dosage must be carefully calibrated in order to maximize the benefits of their synergy, and not surpass the hormetic dosage and become toxic (especially when they act in or elicit the same molecular pathways). It is advisable to keep a short break and finish the procedure with the use of senolytics. I.e. first inhibitors of Rock and Lox, and then after a break, senolytic.

Posted by: Dmitry Dzhagarov at July 28th, 2020 3:34 PM

Update: Some comments, I signed up as a oneskin beta tester, 2 weeks in see no difference but really too early to tell. I'll update. The formula feels nice and is non irritating so far.

A couple things give me pause. The magic ingredient ( the senolytic) is listed last in the ingredient list. The product contains less of it than it's preservatives.

I also want to comment on the words" Fisetin's natural color (yellow to orange) also impairs its use in a topical product.". Well, Alive By Nature has a topical liposomal fisetin product that is not orange. I have it as well, it is goes on clear. Because it's liposomal it supposedly has much higher availability as well.

That's not to say I'm not excited by the concept. I really hope it's different than the thousands of heavily marketed products that in reality do very little. We get jaded.

Posted by: august33 at August 6th, 2020 9:43 PM
Comment Submission

Post a comment; thoughtful, considered opinions are valued. New comments can be edited for a few minutes following submission. Comments incorporating ad hominem attacks, advertising, and other forms of inappropriate behavior are likely to be deleted.

Note that there is a comment feed for those who like to keep up with conversations.