10 ms·

Nanorobots That Can Travel Down the Bloodstream and Precisely Target Tumors

204 points by azazqadir 10y ago

hashkb 10y ago
This is the cancer treatment of my childhood dreams.
- nutheracc 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage
khoury 10y ago
Interesting comments regarding this on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientists_have_created_nanorobots_that_can/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientis...
- ajmurmann 10y ago
  Yes, like linking to the original: https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-nanorobots-target-cancerous-tumours-precision-262058 https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-nanorob...
astazangasta 10y ago
By 'nanorobot' they mean bacteria. >We show that when MC-1 cells bearing covalently bound drug-containing nanoliposomes were injected near the tumour in severe combined immunodeficient beige mice and magnetically guided, up to 55% of MC-1 cells penetrated into hypoxic regions of HCT116 colorectal xenografts. Approximately 70 drug-loaded nanoliposomes were attached to each MC-1 cell. Our results suggest that harnessing swarms of microorganisms exhibiting magneto-aerotactic behaviour can significantly improve the therapeutic index of various nanocarriers in tumour hypoxic regions. So they load these little guys up with drug and use magnets to guide them into the tumor, which kind of works in SCID mice, although you'll note they make no claims about ability to actually kill or shrink tumors. This news piece is awful, incidentally, but what else is new.
- chewymouse 10y ago
  Unfortunately, the original article is inaccessible both from a paywall standpoint ($32 at http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano...) and also from a technical standpoint.
  - iak8god 10y ago
    It is available on sci-hub http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137 http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137
- jcoffland 10y ago
  The criteria for calling something a robot is apparently very broad. Poor journalism indeed. How can pop-sci be reigned in?
  - astazangasta 10y ago
    Good question: (1) open access so people can read the original research, (2) better writing therein so people will actually understand what they read, will surely help.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  > By 'nanorobot' they mean bacteria. Yea, I think this is a little like calling a horse-drawn carriage an automobile.
cm3 10y ago
Anytime we get practical implementations of ideas of the past by scientists and engineers working on it despite cutbacks in funding, I wonder where humanity would be if we at least halved the money spent on state-funded violence and similar counterproductive activities. Flying cars, deep sea habitats, space habitats, clean energy, hair style robots, fully coordinated jam-free personal traffic.
- JoeAltmaier 10y ago
  Offset by the advances made during state-funded research?
  - cm3 10y ago
    I'm not sure I follow, can you expand?
    - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
      I think they're saying the state-funded violence and whatnot often leads to advancements that spill out into the broader scientific world, e.g., many DARPA projects.
      - cm3 10y ago
        Right, and I'm saying that if the funding changes, then hopefully more of it will be on topics that are useful for civilians' problems too. That means, more research on, say, cyber warfare would inevitably trickle down to the civilian world as technological improvements. Also, if more of the battles are in the cyber realm, then even if the same amount is spent, at least the chances of collateral damage will likely be lower.
        ytjohn 10y ago
        Till we have to deal with self-replicating, protein destroying, nanobots.
uklenny 10y ago
There's an interesting Tedex with a similar outcome but different nanobot cancer approach - http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_the_fight_against_cancer?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_...
amenghra 10y ago
Science catching up with sci-fi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage
- ptaipale 10y ago
  That was exactly my first thought as well. It was a movie that definitely carved itself to my memory (though I saw it only on TV some time in early 1970's, no movie theatres around my place)
- Noseshine 10y ago
  It has nothing to do with that. It's still a mass-release into the blood stream, just like you would do with the molecules in a drug. It gets distributed everywhere. It can't go to a specific target, there are not road signs in arteries and capillaries and there is no active propulsion. What makes it "targeted" is that only those nano-containers release the drug that happen to find specific conditions of the targeted tissue. Normal targeting with small molecules (of drugs) is done by "3D pattern matching" - the molecules of the drug fit into or onto target molecules. Doesn't work if you don't have specific target molecules. So in this case instead of targeting molecules they target something else, which you can't do with a normal drug since then the only targeting you have is the 3D shape of the drug molecule. Here is a visualization of a small molecule binding to a protein (also a small one here, they often are much larger and incredibly complex - but predictablly so, since their chemical structure detemines how they fold): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Zj23pipuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Zj23pipuY It's not a drug molecule but the exact same principle. Here is an animation for a drug encapsulated in a nano shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEua2eJp1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEua2eJp1U The problem of normal drugs is that their shape and structure cannot be solely determined by the function they have to perform at the target. As a drug designer you have to design them that a) They are delivered at all, which includes a lot of difficulties on its own, like oral drugs having to pass through the very active liver, or that it has to be hydrophilic to be transported in blood but hydrophobic to get through cell membranes into cells. b) Since you cannot control where they end up they get everywhere, and they meet a zillion molecules on their way. If they bind anywhere else but in their target site, which is likely given that drugs are small molecules and the number of potential binding sites is huge, it's what you get to hear about as "side effects" of the drug. So by putting the drug molecule into a container you now have the advantage that you separate transport and target selection from the drug action, and the drug designer can concentrate on the effect on the target without having to worry about how it gets there and undesirable interactions everywhere else. The nano containers are still distributed throughout the whole body though, they just won't open at non-target sites. Source: I took "Medicinal Chemistry: The Molecular Basis of Drug Discovery" when it was first offered on edX. I highly recommend it, the teacher, Prof. Erland Stevens, is great! Course: https://www.edx.org/course/medicinal-chemistry-molecular-basis-drug-davidsonx-d001x-1 https://www.edx.org/course/medicinal-chemistry-molecular-bas...
yomly 10y ago
This is pretty cool research, from what I can recall hypoxic tissue is hard to treat for three reasons: 1. It is hard to detect 2. Hypoxic tissue is hard to access as there is little blood supply 3. Hypoxic tissue is hard and physically robust So according to this release, the work done here should help to address the issues of hypoxic tissue. Is anyone with deeper subject knowledge able to discuss the viability of this research: how much is hype? Are there any risks or weaknesses to this method? How commercially viable is it to mass produce this?
- Aelinsaar 10y ago
  Not an expert, but #2 you bring up is pretty valid. Aside from directly administering a drug or agent, there is a reliance on the circulatory system to carry drugs to their targets. As for risks, any time you introduce a bunch of little things into the blood, that are likely (or possibly might) gather together, you have a potential risk of a stroke.
wuliwong 10y ago
Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? Any idea of the increase in the effectiveness of cancer treatments using this technology? I read the article and skimmed the paper but didn't get an idea of whether or not this technology is on a clear path to being a medical option for cancer patients.
- valarauca1 10y ago
  The paper: http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano... Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? At the earliest a decade. Effectiveness of the treatment wasn't evaluated. Just the delivery mechanism. This things are kind of a toss up, because this isn't a drug per say, but a delivery method. It's pretty cutting edge tech. But if the right $$$ is behind it potentially see us in 5-10 years. But this would cost a load, and require a lot more researches be involved. This is before we even get to human trials. Generally a drug/therapy isn't going to make it to market until the research teams spins off, or joins a bio-med startup. Then its 3-5 years away. Bio-med startups normally front the huge testing costs, then simply sell the patent+FDA approved drug to a large phrama firm for a HUGE pay off.
CommanderData 10y ago
Haven't we already had this for a long time? Targeted drug delivery using Nano technology? A lesser complicated version and less of the sci fi but the technology has been here and proven for a long time with some FDA approved drugs already. Most of the drugs are still in trial but targeted drug delivery looks promising.
Aaronontheweb 10y ago
I remember reading Prey by Michael Crichton as a teenager and wondering if the nanobots he described there could be used to "eat" a tumor, like leaf-cutter ants gradually moving bits of material in a pipeline from one place to another. Glad to see that kind of idea realized in my lifetime.
Gatsky 10y ago
I wish these articles wouldn't turn up here. Although this sounds cool, the chance of having an impact on actual patient care is miniscule. This is a very complcated delivery system at the end of the day. We have enough trouble giving one drug and managing toxicity successfully, let alone this controlled nano infection cocktail. Also hypoxia isn't as tumour specific as you think, off target toxicity is a problem. I don't think anyone will be cured by this and it will no doubt cost an absolute fortune.
- Trill-I-Am 10y ago
  What about in 30 years?
scottlocklin 10y ago
I love how they're calling bacteria "nanorobots." Why not call them bacteria?
Snesker 10y ago
More like Nanorobots That Can Travel Down the Bloodstream and Precisely Target Undesired Opinions.
zubairq 10y ago
Is this real? I hope so

204 points by azazqadir 10y ago

hashkb 10y ago

This is the cancer treatment of my childhood dreams.

nutheracc 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage

khoury 10y ago

Interesting comments regarding this on reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientists_have_created_nanorobots_that_can/ https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/4xz4nv/scientis...

ajmurmann 10y ago
Yes, like linking to the original: https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-nanorobots-target-cancerous-tumours-precision-262058 https://www.mcgill.ca/newsroom/channels/news/legions-nanorob...

astazangasta 10y ago

By 'nanorobot' they mean bacteria. >We show that when MC-1 cells bearing covalently bound drug-containing nanoliposomes were injected near the tumour in severe combined immunodeficient beige mice and magnetically guided, up to 55% of MC-1 cells penetrated into hypoxic regions of HCT116 colorectal xenografts. Approximately 70 drug-loaded nanoliposomes were attached to each MC-1 cell. Our results suggest that harnessing swarms of microorganisms exhibiting magneto-aerotactic behaviour can significantly improve the therapeutic index of various nanocarriers in tumour hypoxic regions. So they load these little guys up with drug and use magnets to guide them into the tumor, which kind of works in SCID mice, although you'll note they make no claims about ability to actually kill or shrink tumors. This news piece is awful, incidentally, but what else is new.

chewymouse 10y ago
Unfortunately, the original article is inaccessible both from a paywall standpoint ($32 at http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano...) and also from a technical standpoint.
- iak8god 10y ago
  It is available on sci-hub http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137 http://sci-hub.bz/10.1038/nnano.2016.137
jcoffland 10y ago
The criteria for calling something a robot is apparently very broad. Poor journalism indeed. How can pop-sci be reigned in?
- astazangasta 10y ago
  Good question: (1) open access so people can read the original research, (2) better writing therein so people will actually understand what they read, will surely help.
jessriedel 10y ago
> By 'nanorobot' they mean bacteria. Yea, I think this is a little like calling a horse-drawn carriage an automobile.

cm3 10y ago

Anytime we get practical implementations of ideas of the past by scientists and engineers working on it despite cutbacks in funding, I wonder where humanity would be if we at least halved the money spent on state-funded violence and similar counterproductive activities. Flying cars, deep sea habitats, space habitats, clean energy, hair style robots, fully coordinated jam-free personal traffic.

JoeAltmaier 10y ago
Offset by the advances made during state-funded research?
- cm3 10y ago
  I'm not sure I follow, can you expand?
  - Tenhundfeld 10y ago
    I think they're saying the state-funded violence and whatnot often leads to advancements that spill out into the broader scientific world, e.g., many DARPA projects.
    - cm3 10y ago
      Right, and I'm saying that if the funding changes, then hopefully more of it will be on topics that are useful for civilians' problems too. That means, more research on, say, cyber warfare would inevitably trickle down to the civilian world as technological improvements. Also, if more of the battles are in the cyber realm, then even if the same amount is spent, at least the chances of collateral damage will likely be lower.
      - ytjohn 10y ago
        Till we have to deal with self-replicating, protein destroying, nanobots.

uklenny 10y ago

There's an interesting Tedex with a similar outcome but different nanobot cancer approach - http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_the_fight_against_cancer?language=en http://www.ted.com/talks/paula_hammond_a_new_superweapon_in_...

amenghra 10y ago

Science catching up with sci-fi? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantastic_Voyage

ptaipale 10y ago
That was exactly my first thought as well. It was a movie that definitely carved itself to my memory (though I saw it only on TV some time in early 1970's, no movie theatres around my place)
Noseshine 10y ago
It has nothing to do with that. It's still a mass-release into the blood stream, just like you would do with the molecules in a drug. It gets distributed everywhere. It can't go to a specific target, there are not road signs in arteries and capillaries and there is no active propulsion. What makes it "targeted" is that only those nano-containers release the drug that happen to find specific conditions of the targeted tissue. Normal targeting with small molecules (of drugs) is done by "3D pattern matching" - the molecules of the drug fit into or onto target molecules. Doesn't work if you don't have specific target molecules. So in this case instead of targeting molecules they target something else, which you can't do with a normal drug since then the only targeting you have is the 3D shape of the drug molecule. Here is a visualization of a small molecule binding to a protein (also a small one here, they often are much larger and incredibly complex - but predictablly so, since their chemical structure detemines how they fold): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Zj23pipuY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2Zj23pipuY It's not a drug molecule but the exact same principle. Here is an animation for a drug encapsulated in a nano shell: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEua2eJp1U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emEua2eJp1U The problem of normal drugs is that their shape and structure cannot be solely determined by the function they have to perform at the target. As a drug designer you have to design them that a) They are delivered at all, which includes a lot of difficulties on its own, like oral drugs having to pass through the very active liver, or that it has to be hydrophilic to be transported in blood but hydrophobic to get through cell membranes into cells. b) Since you cannot control where they end up they get everywhere, and they meet a zillion molecules on their way. If they bind anywhere else but in their target site, which is likely given that drugs are small molecules and the number of potential binding sites is huge, it's what you get to hear about as "side effects" of the drug. So by putting the drug molecule into a container you now have the advantage that you separate transport and target selection from the drug action, and the drug designer can concentrate on the effect on the target without having to worry about how it gets there and undesirable interactions everywhere else. The nano containers are still distributed throughout the whole body though, they just won't open at non-target sites. Source: I took "Medicinal Chemistry: The Molecular Basis of Drug Discovery" when it was first offered on edX. I highly recommend it, the teacher, Prof. Erland Stevens, is great! Course: https://www.edx.org/course/medicinal-chemistry-molecular-basis-drug-davidsonx-d001x-1 https://www.edx.org/course/medicinal-chemistry-molecular-bas...

yomly 10y ago

This is pretty cool research, from what I can recall hypoxic tissue is hard to treat for three reasons: 1. It is hard to detect 2. Hypoxic tissue is hard to access as there is little blood supply 3. Hypoxic tissue is hard and physically robust So according to this release, the work done here should help to address the issues of hypoxic tissue. Is anyone with deeper subject knowledge able to discuss the viability of this research: how much is hype? Are there any risks or weaknesses to this method? How commercially viable is it to mass produce this?

Aelinsaar 10y ago
Not an expert, but #2 you bring up is pretty valid. Aside from directly administering a drug or agent, there is a reliance on the circulatory system to carry drugs to their targets. As for risks, any time you introduce a bunch of little things into the blood, that are likely (or possibly might) gather together, you have a potential risk of a stroke.

wuliwong 10y ago

Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? Any idea of the increase in the effectiveness of cancer treatments using this technology? I read the article and skimmed the paper but didn't get an idea of whether or not this technology is on a clear path to being a medical option for cancer patients.

valarauca1 10y ago
The paper: http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano.2016.137.html http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nnano... Anybody know when/if this type of treatment could be used? At the earliest a decade. Effectiveness of the treatment wasn't evaluated. Just the delivery mechanism. This things are kind of a toss up, because this isn't a drug per say, but a delivery method. It's pretty cutting edge tech. But if the right $$$ is behind it potentially see us in 5-10 years. But this would cost a load, and require a lot more researches be involved. This is before we even get to human trials. Generally a drug/therapy isn't going to make it to market until the research teams spins off, or joins a bio-med startup. Then its 3-5 years away. Bio-med startups normally front the huge testing costs, then simply sell the patent+FDA approved drug to a large phrama firm for a HUGE pay off.

CommanderData 10y ago

Haven't we already had this for a long time? Targeted drug delivery using Nano technology? A lesser complicated version and less of the sci fi but the technology has been here and proven for a long time with some FDA approved drugs already. Most of the drugs are still in trial but targeted drug delivery looks promising.

Aaronontheweb 10y ago

I remember reading Prey by Michael Crichton as a teenager and wondering if the nanobots he described there could be used to "eat" a tumor, like leaf-cutter ants gradually moving bits of material in a pipeline from one place to another. Glad to see that kind of idea realized in my lifetime.

Gatsky 10y ago

I wish these articles wouldn't turn up here. Although this sounds cool, the chance of having an impact on actual patient care is miniscule. This is a very complcated delivery system at the end of the day. We have enough trouble giving one drug and managing toxicity successfully, let alone this controlled nano infection cocktail. Also hypoxia isn't as tumour specific as you think, off target toxicity is a problem. I don't think anyone will be cured by this and it will no doubt cost an absolute fortune.

Trill-I-Am 10y ago
What about in 30 years?

scottlocklin 10y ago

I love how they're calling bacteria "nanorobots." Why not call them bacteria?

Snesker 10y ago

More like Nanorobots That Can Travel Down the Bloodstream and Precisely Target Undesired Opinions.

zubairq 10y ago

Is this real? I hope so