The “salmon-sperm facial” has all the makings of a buzzy beauty treatment. It’s got an outrageous name. And numerous celebrities – including the perma-glowy Jennifer Aniston – have endorsed it. But can it deliver on its promise to deliver more youthful looking skin?
Known more commonly as polynucleotide treatments, the main ingredient of this new “natural” alternative to filler and Botox “is small fragments of salmon sperm DNA that have been humanely extracted from farmed fish,” explains Dr Karen Doherty, who runs a clinic in London’s Stoke Newington. Already used in medicine to promote wound healing and improve scarring, they are now billed as a particularly effective non-surgical treatment for the notoriously tricky eye area, helping to boost collagen and elastin production, reducing inflammation and regenerating the area as a whole. “Polynucleotides offer a more natural approach to how we treat the eye area, as they’re a biostimulator,” says Doherty, “which means they stimulate the skin’s natural cellular processes that decline as we age.”
Polynucleotides can be delivered via two methods: cannula (a long thin tube with a blunt tip) or via very fine needles around the eye. They’re suitable for most people, unless you’re vegan, allergic to fish, or have a history of anaphylaxis. The majority of skin experts pair them with other treatments, such as NeoGen Plasma, a resurfacing and tightening energy-based technology that uses nitrogen plasma to regenerate skin. Most protocols involve three treatments spaced two to three weeks apart, with results peaking at around 16 weeks after your first appointment. Downtime is relatively short: though thre’s a higher risk that bruising and swelling can occur if one opts for needles (most treatments will be undertaken with the use of numbing cream), patients should typically be able to resume activities within 24 to 48 hours. A series of treatments will cost between £450 to £2,000 depending on the clinic; the results are said to last between six to nine months.
Facialist and HTSI columnist Adeela Crown, who works between Los Angeles, London and New York, says that polynucleotide treatments have become incredibly popular among her clients. “With injectables like filler and Botox,” says Crown, “you don’t teach the skin to produce collagen (the glue that strengthens the skin’s structure).” By contrast, polynucleotides can prove particularly effective at preserving and restoring that youthful glow. Adds Crown: “It’s a slower process, but biostimulators like polynucleotides get the skin cells working to produce and support these building blocks of good skin.”
The global polynucleotides injectable market is expected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of nearly 10 per cent to more than £179mn in the next five years. Granted, this is no competition for the dermal filler category, nor will it overtake the eye cream market, which are set to be worth £7.9bn and £6.3bn respectively by 2032. But, as a relatively new innovation (it originated in South Korea in around 2015) in a consumer market that is seeing rising demand for non-surgical aesthetic treatments, it’s still an impressive start.
Make-up artist Isamaya Ffrench, a skincare fanatic, says that polynucleotides are “the most restorative and regenerative treatment I’ve ever tried. My skin looks plumper, firmer and significantly more hydrated.” The Paris-based French aesthetic doctor Dr Antoni Calmon says: “Polynucleotides enhance the skin’s natural beauty, without altering the facial features.”
The London-based oculoplastic surgeon Dr Elizabeth Hawkes is a specialist in the eye area. “I’ve been doing polynucleotides for about two and a half years, and they have transformed my practice,” she says. “Before, we were quite limited in options for rejuvenating the under-eye area from a non-surgical point of view. With polynucleotides, you don’t have to worry about puffiness and clogging up the eye area’s unique lymphatic system, which is why it’s such a great option.”
The treatment is not without its detractors. In the US, the FDA has yet to approve polynucleotides, citing a lack of studies (it has stringent requirements for drug approvals and aesthetic treatments). “While there have been a lot of different studies on polynucleotides, none of them is particularly high-quality,” notes dermatologist Dr Emma Craythorne. “It’s an exciting area, and there’s definitely a role for them, but for doctors to offer them as judiciously as things like Botox and filler (which are both very well researched) we need more solid evidence.” And, as Dr Calmon cautions: “Don’t expect a miracle result like they pretend on social media. They offer a subtle improvement over time.”