# What changed in the facial studies?

> Facial findings at Derma Glow Aesthetics — A closer look at topical GHK-Cu findings with Derma Glow Aesthetics: procollagen responders, facial outcomes and gene-expression claims.

**Back to the surface**

A percentage of subjects, a measurement of skin and a broad gene signature each describe a different kind of result.

## The procollagen comparison

The [2025 topical review reports increased procollagen synthesis in 70% of GHK-Cu-treated subjects, versus 50% for vitamin C and 40% for retinoic acid](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11830136/). The figures describe the proportion of subjects with an increase. They supply no percentage reduction in wrinkles.

The largest number initially had too much pull for me. The closer question is more modest and more useful: in what proportion of subjects did this particular biological measure increase? Procollagen is a precursor of collagen, and the reported outcome is synthesis. How much a person liked the appearance of their skin is a further question.

The comparison is worth seeing at its actual scope. Its attraction comes from a reported response in people, with comparator figures alongside it. For me, its value lies in that measured process; treating the figures as a complete ranking of visible facial benefits would outrun the account.

![Bars compare subjects with increased procollagen synthesis: GHK-Cu 70%, vitamin C 50%, retinoic acid 40%](images/procollagen-subjects.svg)

*Proportions of subjects with increased procollagen synthesis, as reported in the topical GHK review; the bars describe that response measure.*

## Wrinkle depth, laxity and clarity

The [skin-regeneration review describes placebo-controlled improvements in skin laxity, clarity, fine lines, wrinkle depth and density](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4508379/). Those outcomes make the aesthetic interest understandable. They also make glow an inconvenient umbrella: the word can stand in for a collection of different findings without revealing which one is being discussed.

Each outcome deserves its own space. A change in wrinkle depth invites a different account from a change in clarity, and a synthesis finding adds another kind of observation again. Placing them side by side helps preserve the specific reasons the research is promising. Collapsing them into a single rejuvenation claim loses those reasons.

There is also the formulation problem to carry into this discussion. The [topical review discusses anti-wrinkle efficacy together with the difficulty of delivering GHK through the skin barrier](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11830136/). That pairing seems right to me. The formulation belongs beside the result when judging how far the finding travels.

## The gene-expression detour

The [gene-data review reports that GHK modulated approximately 31.2% of human genes at a 50%-or-greater change threshold](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6073405/). This is a gene-expression and database-analysis account, with cell-culture validation. Among the affected genes, [the review reports increased expression for 59% and suppression for 41%](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6073405/). The pattern includes changes in both directions, which is more interesting than a simple picture of turning cellular activity up.

Within the same [review's protein-quality-control account, the ubiquitin-proteasome system had 41 genes up and 1 down](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6073405/). This is the cellular machinery for protein breakdown. That uneven pattern gives the broad gene story a more specific biological subject. It is a reason to investigate the proposed mechanism, while the separate question about facial appearance still calls for a skin outcome. Gene expression concerns the activity of genes; changing that activity is several questions away from a measured change in a person's face.

The same [review distinguishes the threshold table, on the order of 2,100 genes, from the often-quoted extrapolation of about 4,000](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6073405/). That distinction is revealing. Even an apparently simple count depends on the threshold and on which part of the analysis is being described.

A broad cellular signature has an obvious attraction. It suggests many biological questions worth investigating. For a claim about facial appearance, though, I trust a measured skin outcome more. A gene-expression result can help propose a mechanism; the facial result still needs to earn its own conclusion.

## The next facial experiment

A persuasive facial experiment would connect its formulation and delivery measurements to what changed on the face. The present [topical review places reported efficacy beside unresolved delivery problems](https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11830136/), which makes that a concrete research question rather than a vague request for more evidence.

The topical findings are interesting enough to warrant that work. I favor pursuing these skin applications while staying close to the particular outcomes described here. The [collagen piece](/collagen) and the [skin-barrier investigation](/skin-barrier) fill in the physical questions that sit beneath a pleasing surface description.

---

Through published research I look closely beneath glow at Derma Glow Aesthetics; these essays are an editorial pursuit rather than an aesthetics business, with no medical advice offered here.