4 ms·
I’m no expert in this field, so my question might be completely nonsensical. If this surface treatment is physically destructive to bacteria, is it also damagi
by noodlesUK 3y ago
I’m no expert in this field, so my question might be completely nonsensical.
If this surface treatment is physically destructive to bacteria, is it also damaging to the human cells it is trying to sit next to after implantation?
- fit2rule 3y ago[dead]
- simbolit 3y agoI am wondering the same. The spikes on the dragonfly wings are on the outside, this is (at least in his article) promoted as being used for implants. One of the main qualities of implant materials is low bio-reactivity. I don't know if this fits the proper definition, but at least loosely speaking, tearing cells apart sounds like quite a bit of bio-reactivity. I am especially wondering because implants are always encapsulated by fibrous tissue (similar to scars), in order to protect the body from the "foreign object".
- simbolit 3y agotokai above says human cells are orders of magnitude larger than the cell in question. So that might be the answer.
- helpfulContrib 3y agoThis material would be most usefully applied in a hospital environment, where extremophiles are capable of adapting to the hostility they normally encounter, and is rather a leap beyond the existing strategies for containment. I don't think it has direct application to the human biome; more as a protective measure to stop the superbugs.
- tokai 3y agoAll types of human cells are much larger than Candida, up to several orders of magnitude. If the effect that destroys the cell is indeed some kind of stretching, it would make sense if the titanium surface doesn't have an effect on humans cells.
- formvoltron 3y agounless they tear through the walls of our cells. nanoplastics have been found inside human cells. this stuff is pretty scary to be creating. Stick to biochemistry for dealing with biology.
- chasil 3y agoThe article explains that dragonfly wings have naturally developed this kind of destructive surface for killing various types of bacteria.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoHuman (and other animal) cells do not have cell walls.
- etrautmann 3y agoWhat?
- Turing_Machine 3y agoAnimal cells do not have cell walls, but rather flexible cell membranes. Other living creatures generally do have rigid cell walls (sometimes with a flexible membrane inside the wall, I believe). https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-cells/hs-plant-vs-animal-cells/a/hs-plant-vs-animal-cells-review https://www.khanacademy.org/science/high-school-biology/hs-c... "Animal cells simply have a cell membrane, but no cell wall." A web search will turn up many other citations for this.
- kurthr 3y agoI think the point is that they don't have "cell walls", animal cells have "cell membranes". I'm not sure it's that relevant here since cell size seems more important to tolerating the spikes, but hopefully this helps explain the comment. I'd really only considered plants as having "cell walls" prior to this.
- Turing_Machine 3y agoI'm not an expert, either, but I believe that animal cells are different from most other living things (plants, fungi and fungus-like/bacteria and bacteria-like organisms) in that they do not have cell walls, just a flexible, self-healing membrane. Organisms with cell walls often have internal pressure, which makes any punctures much more serious than for animal cells. Perhaps something like that is in play. I do know that a common mechanism of action for many common antibiotics is interfering with the formation of cell walls. That's what lets them be effective against bacteria without causing (much) harm to the surrounding animal cells.