DNA Nanorobot Halts Growth of Cancer Cells 74
ananyo writes "DNA origami, a technique for making structures from DNA, has been used to build devices that can seek out and potentially destroy cancer cells. The nanorobots use a similar system to cells in the immune system to engage with receptors on the outside of cells. The barrel-shaped devices, each about 35 nanometers in diameter, contain 12 sites on the inside for attaching payload molecules and two positions on the outside for attaching aptamers, short nucleotide strands with special sequences for recognizing molecules on the target cell (abstract). The aptamers act as clasps: once both have found their target, they spring open the device to release the payload. The researchers tested six combinations of aptamer locks, each of which were designed to target different types of cancer cells in culture. Those designed to hit a leukemia cell could pick that cell out of a mixture of cell types, then release their payload — in this case, an antibody — to stop the cells from growing. The researchers designed the structure of the nanorobots using open-source software, called Cadnano."
But, but, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:But, but, but... (Score:5, Funny)
Too soon?
Re: (Score:3)
Steve Jobs said open source *causes* cancer.
That's the point, isn't it? This is a microscopic amount of Open Source being injected into the patient, clearly a homeopathic treatment.
Re: (Score:2)
Fact check, not that it matters: It was Ballmer who likened Linux in particular to a cancer.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, it was in reference to the way the GPL "spreads" through code. What Microsoft likes are licenses such as BSD, where you can take an open codebase, change it, package it, and sell it--all without ever having to share your modified source with anyone. Microsoft didn't like the GPL because it meant to use GPL'd code they would have to share any changes they made to it, and when's the last time you saw Microsoft giving useful code away?
MS doesn't seem to much mind giving away binaries, but source code is s
Re: (Score:2)
Note marketeers (Score:3, Funny)
Origami has shown up twice on slashdot recently and could be a good buzzword candidate.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but you need to use it with another buzzword. How about "meta origami"?
Re: (Score:3)
We'll handle this question in the origami cloud.
Re:Note marketeers (Score:5, Funny)
We'll handle this question in the origami cloud.
Great! I can't wait to see what unfolds
Re: (Score:2)
A cloud made of those [cnet.com] would probably run very, very slowly.
Re: (Score:2)
Asteroids video game? (Score:2)
Sounds like it plays asteroids with cancer cells. I hope there are no UFOs to mess things up and it doesn't attack anything else.
Killer apps? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Killer apps? (Score:5, Funny)
You have to wonder about the other applications of this technology - targeting specific genetic groups with a vaccine or even a weapon for example.
this is why we can't have nice things.
Re: (Score:1)
Ethnic cleansing tools.
Re:Killer apps? (Score:4, Informative)
It is possible - yes. But it would be, by no means, a "scalpel". There will be many in the ethnic group who lack the appropriately formed receptor, and many in the other groups that have it.
Probably more for the GP, but even so, many tools can be used for malevolent purposes, does that mean we shouldn't have them around for the good purposes? Do you think that just because someone came up with it for a benevolent purpose, if they hadn't nobody would have come up with it for a malevolent purpose later.
Re: (Score:2)
Not at all, but it's important to be aware of the malevolent purposes. It's important to consider all the implications of new technologies.
Old gag:
Q: What do you get if you cross an octopus with a monkey?
A: An immediate cessation of funding and a stern rebuke from the ethics committee.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it actually?
As technology improves, things only get easier and enter more hands. Every technology has evil uses. You can't realistically ever stop them from being used in any given way. Even if you keep your knowledge secret, anything you can invent, someone else can too. As each new layer of invention piles on the next, the idea that we can ever prevent evil is the most ridiculous pipe dream.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a lag between the bad applications of a technology and the widespread knowledge of that technology nullifying it's usage. For example, if vaccines had been covered up then they'd have made a great weapon, just vaccinate your soldiers and send them in with carriers of whatever bug you've chosen. However, as soon as vaccines are widely available this stops working.
[/wild theorising]
Given the current debates about publishing weaponisable biotechnology this would suggest that ALL
Re: (Score:2)
Have you read Lawrence Lessig's "Insanely Destructive Devices": http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.04/view.html?pg=5 [wired.com]
I think the article, and student who proposed it, hit the nail right on the head:
Re: (Score:2)
The book "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert already has something similar to this. Scientist sees his family killed by an IRA bomb in Ireland, goes nuts and creates a plague that targets only Irish women. Spreads and kills most females worldwide. Kind of a scary book.
Re: (Score:1)
You have to wonder about the other applications of this technology - targeting specific genetic groups with a vaccine or even a weapon for example.
Deus Ex, anyone?
Re: (Score:2)
"Written in blood" by Chris Lawson, in Asimov's (1999), "Centaurus: Best Australian Science Fiction", and volume 5 of the excellent "Year's Beat SF" edited by David G Hartwell.
Nobots? (Score:3)
Wow. I am continually impressed with the advance in various technologies, especially medical tech. In 1966 McCoy's displays in sick bay were far-out future fantasy, today they look primitive.
When we have nano-robots that can build more nano-robots, I think the time will come when a 3D printer will seem not only quaint, but as primitive as McCoy's sick bay.
Are these devices really "robots," though?
Re: (Score:2)
The rate feels slower today than when I was a kid.
And why did the previous generations always get the cool people. What happened to all the von Neumanns, Turings, and Freeman Dysons?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They didn't have the right bullet points for HR and didn't fit well enough in the corporate mold, so they're digging ditches and hauling your garbage away.
Re: (Score:3)
Turing, specifically, was killed by his own government for a crime that most people wouldn't even consider a matter for concern now, just a half dozen decades later. We see him as a "cool people": then he was was an unusually bright man who did some interesting research; but was tragically social maladjusted. This is true to a greater or lesser extent of all the "cool people" from the past. Einstein was a minor celebrity, but then so are Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings. Most of the "cool people" of our
Re: (Score:1)
He could be a flash in the pan like the BSB, develop into a musician with real staying power like the Beatles... He could even change the music world one day. 50 years from now people could talk about him like they do Bach, or never know who he was.
Oh God I fucking hope not!
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know. He seems like a nice kid. I don't like his music, but that doesn't mean I can never like any of his future music. I'm no huge fan of Lady Gaga, but after being essentially forced to watch her Thanksgiving special I have to admit the woman can, in fact, sing. Seeing her do Jazz standards in fairly normal clothing made me realize that there's a lot more to her than loud noises and obnoxious stunts. If she could be convinced to do more stuff like that, I could be convinced to buy some of her m
Re: (Score:2)
Regression Testing (Score:4, Insightful)
I am not a biologist or a roboticist, but as a programmer I suspect regression testing on altered proteins is going to be a bitch.
Re: (Score:3)
Taking bets (Score:1)
Science has shown that the cure for cancer WILL cause a zombie apocalypse, place your bets as to when it will start, where ground zero will be and how long it will take for the annihilation of the human race.
Re: (Score:2)
Test in humans (Score:2)
Why this cannot be tested in humans right now?
Re:Test in humans (Score:5, Informative)
If you read the linked article, it says that human defense mechanisms quickly destroy and remove the DNA nanobots (liver filters them out and nucleases, enzymes chew up stray bits of DNA, breaks them up).
Re:Test in humans (Score:5, Funny)
That's easy. Just remove all the cancer cells from the patient, put them in a petri dish, and unleash the nanobots on them there. When finished, put the dead cancer cells back into the patient.
Easy peasy, no?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
It's because he is staying Anonymous.
Re: (Score:2)
Either that or develop nanobot hunter-killer hunter-killers (let's call them "snakebots") and when those start to overrun the place, apply nanobot hunter-killer hunter-killer hunter-killers ("gorillabots" perhaps?) and when wintertime rolls around they simply freeze to death
A few queries (Score:3, Interesting)
A few things I didn't see in the article that may be of concern. The immune system itself tends to see loose (extracellular) DNA as foreign and attacks it. Have they tested this to see how the natural immune system responds to this delivery system? Does the DNA structure they used possibly have segments that could be used in transcription, should the nanobot become damaged and broken off loose DNA somehow makes it way into a cell? I only have a bachelor's in biochemistry so I'm sure these guys have considered such things but I'm curious to know.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah-ha, finally! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I for one welcome our meme-pandering overlords. There, happy?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
My sub of this (yesterday) was re: Singularity (Score:2)
I guess the editors didn't like my flights of fancy.
wisebabo writes
"The Singularity I've thought will be achieved when we get two things 1) true atomic level control over matter as demonstrated by human designed robots that can replicate themselves from the lego blocks of nature, atoms, and 2) when we have supra-human intelligence that can take over the difficult process of thinking. (Of course having #2 will make it a lot easier to achieve #1 but that's another topic).
Well it looks like we're getting close
Wow, now THAT was quick o_O (Score:3)
earlier today [slashdot.org]:
*trollface*
Re: (Score:2)
and what, pray tell, would be the sinister benefit of withholding a cure for cancer? I know our evil overlords are dumb, but that dumb?
Analog Magazine in the 80's (Score:2)
How I love my old issues of Analog Magazine, they somehow have predicted the future more than once.
this was covered back in the day and I have been wondering when it was going to come about.
If the pattern keeps up, in 12 years we will see the trial runs of this, and cancer reduction across the entire
world population. it would seem that it viable, just a lot of testing needs to be done.
Analog gave (me) hope to the future, a future where knowledge and being a good DIY can advance the world.
Onepoint
Great news, but when (Score:2)
We always hear these same cool stories that they have come out with the next n of x field and will be able to do zyx with it.
I think it is very cool that they found a way of doing this, but it would also be very cool to actually see/hear when the fully
operational model available to the public will be done.
These Aren't the Driods Your Looking For (Score:2)
Oh Good! (Score:1)
Thats ONE less thing to worry about!