DNA nanobot 'starves' tumors(nanotechweb.org)
nanotechweb.org
DNA nanobot 'starves' tumors
http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/71161
7 comments
Thanks! I figured it must have been that tumors express nucleolin on the surface rather than normally inside of the nucleolus.
Seems promising, though false positives for “looks like a tumor” might be problematic. I’m hopeful for something less barbaric than chemo and radiation. We’re truly in the Stone Ages around cancer treatments.
Lots of medical fields are in the stone age. Look at mental disorders, gut disorders (IBS), diabetes, autoimmune disorders, dentistry, ...
I agree, though sitting and talking with breast cancer patients waiting on the radiation machine or infusion room...it's so clearly physically barbaric. Especially those at the "months in" mark that are emaciated, bald, and mostly without fingernails and toenails.
There's nothing else I can think of that compares. Being a "technical person", I struggle with some embarrassment talking to them. The "seriously...this is best science can do???" overtones are there.
There's nothing else I can think of that compares. Being a "technical person", I struggle with some embarrassment talking to them. The "seriously...this is best science can do???" overtones are there.
> The "seriously...this is best science can do???" overtones are there.
Drug companies have billions of dollars for research, they have a legal framework where any advancement can be patented for decades and exploited in an almost limitless market for a cancer drug.
So the incentives seem to be there, the answer is one of two things: either this is the best science can do at this time, or something is fundamentally fucked up in the way we approach science and apply it to real life problems.
Drug companies have billions of dollars for research, they have a legal framework where any advancement can be patented for decades and exploited in an almost limitless market for a cancer drug.
So the incentives seem to be there, the answer is one of two things: either this is the best science can do at this time, or something is fundamentally fucked up in the way we approach science and apply it to real life problems.
It's progress. The techniques may seem barbaric, but the reality is that many people are cured by them. The future will be better, but the present could be a lot worse.
We’re in the Stone Age in simply preventing many diseases, not just curing them.
Yeah...nucleolin is pretty ubiquitously expressed in most cells. How specific is their aptamer (antibody?) ?
Additionally, this is a similar idea to chemo embolization procedures (something I know is done in the US for some liver metastasis, but is being investigated for other solid tumors), where a catheter delivers a massive dose of chemotherapy at an artery supplying the tumor, and then closes that artery off.
Additionally, this is a similar idea to chemo embolization procedures (something I know is done in the US for some liver metastasis, but is being investigated for other solid tumors), where a catheter delivers a massive dose of chemotherapy at an artery supplying the tumor, and then closes that artery off.
Maybe something like glucose consumption? PET scans are pretty good, though still subject to false positives, for tumors. Especially around cells like you find in the mouth.
It's interesting that this nano-compound is made using self-assembly. What limits this process from producing other molecules? Could this be the beginning of the so-called "grey goo"? (http://amzn.to/2oG6mHR)
Self-assembly here doesn't imply reproduction.
They compose a two dimensional structure (or more) that, given the proper conditions, build itself in the desired three dimensional shape (1).
(1)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_origami
They compose a two dimensional structure (or more) that, given the proper conditions, build itself in the desired three dimensional shape (1).
(1)- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_origami
Ah ... so it's "self-folding". Thanks for the clarification!
Is this the same technique described in this old TED video?
https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_rothemund_details_dna_folding
Yes, you're right. The self-assembly of the nanorobot is done using the same technique as in the video you linked. In fact, the speaker in the video, Paul Rothemund, is the person who first engineered this self-assembly technique called DNA origami. In his cover article in Nature (2006), where it was first published, you can get a sense of how intricate the folding technique is just by looking at the cover picture of the smiley face he made using DNA (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7082/index.html, the diameter of the smiley face shown here is roughly 100 nm wide).
I wonder how much thrombin you need in order to overcome the negative feedback loop before you get the positive feedback loop of the blood clotting cascade?
Like other nano robots, does this use outside source to control it ? like magnetic signals when they pass the tumor.
Not sure which other nano robots you're referring to, but this is more like a custom-built protein that falls apart when it's near specific types of molecules.
No, there is no way to control it externally, nor does it have a mechanism for active movement. The DNA nanorobots move passively along with the blood flow and latches onto the tumors through their apatmer binding sites.
When will people be able to buy these?
Major things that are interesting just from the abstract: 1) their targeting dna aptamer binds to nucleolin (how this isn't binding to the nucleolin in normal cells is beyond my knowledge, but my guess is that the protein is expressed somewhere other than the nucleolus of the tumor cell). 2) Doesn't seem to affect mice without tumors, so a good thing?