What polynucleotides are
Polynucleotides are chains of nucleotides, the building blocks of DNA, purified and fragmented to a controlled molecular weight. The material used in aesthetic products is typically extracted from the gonadal tissue of salmon or trout, chosen because the DNA is highly purified, well tolerated and structurally similar enough to human DNA to avoid an immune response.
That origin causes understandable confusion. Patients frequently believe they are receiving something derived from their own tissue, as with platelet-rich plasma. They are not. Polynucleotides are an off-the-shelf injectable product.
The proposed mechanism
Two effects are proposed, and they operate on different timescales.
The immediate effect is physical. Polynucleotide gels are hydrophilic and bind water in the dermis, producing a modest improvement in skin hydration and light reflectance within days.
The longer-term effect is the interesting claim. Laboratory work suggests polynucleotide fragments stimulate fibroblast proliferation and modulate the local inflammatory environment, in part through adenosine receptor activity. The proposed downstream consequence is increased collagen production and improved extracellular matrix quality over weeks to months.
This is biologically plausible and supported by in-vitro work. The gap, as so often in aesthetics, is between plausible mechanism and demonstrated clinical outcome in humans.
What the evidence supports
Published human studies are growing but remain modest in scale. What can reasonably be claimed:
- Improvement in skin elasticity and hydration measures, reported consistently across several small trials
- Improvement in periorbital skin quality, one of the better-documented indications
- A favourable safety profile, with adverse events largely limited to injection-site reactions
- Some supportive data in wound healing and scar quality, from outside aesthetics
What cannot yet be claimed with confidence:
- Durable structural change persisting beyond twelve months
- Superiority over well-established alternatives in head-to-head comparison
- Meaningful improvement in established deep wrinkles or significant laxity
- The "skin regeneration" framing in the strong sense the marketing implies
Plausible mechanism is not clinical proof. The gap between the two is where most aesthetic marketing lives.
Anyone assessing claims in this category should apply the same scepticism they would to any device or injectable marketed as regenerative: ask for the study, check the sample size, and check who funded it.
How they differ from filler and skin boosters
| Polynucleotides | Skin booster (HA) | Dermal filler | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Primary action | Biostimulation and hydration | Hydration | Volume and structure |
| Adds volume | Minimal | Minimal | Yes |
| Reversible | No, but resorbs | Yes, with hyaluronidase | Yes, if HA-based |
| Typical course | 3 sessions, 2 to 4 weeks apart | 2 to 3 sessions | Single treatment |
| Result onset | Weeks to months | Days | Immediate |
They are complementary rather than competing. A patient with volume loss needs filler; polynucleotides will not address it. A patient whose complaint is dull, crepey or thin skin is a far better candidate.
Protocols and cost
Standard protocols involve a course of three treatments spaced two to four weeks apart, followed by maintenance every six to twelve months. Injection is typically by multiple small dermal deposits or a fanning technique, depending on the area.
A full initial course therefore runs from roughly £750 to £1,350. That places it in direct competition with a course of microneedling, a laser treatment, or a well-formulated topical regimen supported by the British Association of Dermatologists, all of which have their own evidence bases.
The realistic verdict
Polynucleotides are among the more interesting additions to the injectable market in a decade, and the early data is genuinely encouraging rather than merely promotional. They also arrived into a sector with a strong incentive to overstate, and the language around them has run considerably ahead of the evidence.
The reasonable position for a patient: worth considering if your concern is skin quality rather than volume or laxity, if you accept that the effect is gradual and cumulative, and if the practitioner describing it to you is willing to say where the evidence stops. That last condition eliminates a surprising number of clinics.
