5 ms·

One Scientist’s Bid to Build Cancer-Killing Nanorobots

67 points by Libertatea 13y ago

riggins 13y ago
Does anyone have any suggestions on resources to learn more about this field?
- toufka 13y ago
  It's pretty much the very edge of modern synthetic biology. Repurposing biological materials and tools to entirely designed uses. A much more realistic approach to atomic-resolution engineering than shrinking our metallic macro world.
- toufka 13y ago
  It's pretty much the very edge of modern synthetic biology. Repurposing biological materials and tools to entirely designed uses. A much more realistic approach to atomic-resolution engineering than shrinking our metallic macro world.
- martythemaniak 13y ago
  I highly recommend Regenesis by George M. Church: http://www.regenesisthebook.com/ http://www.regenesisthebook.com/ He's one of the leaders of this field and the book is a great intro to what's happening, future developments, pitfalls, etc.
- cge 13y ago
  What parts would you like to learn more about? Shawn's construction is a pretty straightforward (and brilliant) combination of 3D DNA origami and DNA aptamers. The paper can be found at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/22344439.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/223... ; the best way to learn about something like this is often to look at the paper, and then work backwards for the references. If you don't have journal access, lab websites usually have copies of their papers on them; I know our lab (dna.caltech.edu) has our papers there, including Paul's original DNA origami papers. This paper is actually a bit annoying in its focus and tone regarding the field. DNA origami is actually surprising simple; the design is not at all "as complicated as it sounds." Short, synthesized strands of DNA that are complementary to various bits of a long scaffold strand of DNA (often single-stranded plasmid DNA, like M13mp18) in a manner similar to the way one pushes different faces of paper together with paper origami. Details of design can be tricky, but it really is something that can be done by hand. CADnano is great from a convenience level, not from some fundamental necessity level. And the major challenges facing this particular technology really aren't, in my opinion, the cost of synthetic DNA. Instead, as many people have pointed out since this was first presented several years ago, the major problem with in vivo use is that nucleases are everywhere, and it's really expected that things like this will get entirely ripped apart in, for example, mammals. Even if it isn't ripped apart, it needs to not end up with stuff stuck around to it to the extent that it won't operate. Without some way of protecting the structure, it's not going to work well. Still, this has long been the example I've used of an application of our field.
  - riggins 13y ago
    What parts would you like to learn more about? I just need a good introduction. Its a field I'm interested in but know very little about.
sadfaceunread 13y ago
A nanorobot is a lot different from what you might think of as a macroscale robot. Most of these systems have perhaps two or three functional states, like an enzyme that can switch more than one active configuration. These are still much much less complicated than even the simplest of viruses.
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Precisely this formulation of "nanorobot" is mentioned in one of the Venus Prime books. Basically, they're very complex enzymes that can be regulated by chemicals and each other, mediated by the protagonist solving systems of differential equations with a supercomputer she screws on the end of the kitchen faucet. (So it can dissipate heat by producing gobs of steam.)
exratione 13y ago
There is a lot of experimentation going on now that cells can be manipulated readily and cheaply. It's still the very early days, but much can be done. The sort of work described in the article overlaps with that of efforts to enhance cells with additional machinery, such as additional organelles [1] or programmable surface chemistry [2], and the equally interesting approach of creating entirely artificial cell-like entities, designed machinery [3] wrapped in a membrane. [4] We will have microrobotics in our medicine before nanorobotics, I think, and those microrobots will look a lot like cells. There will eventually be a blurring at the boundary between engineered cells - such as those used in trials of some immune therapies and stem cell treatments - and things that are not natural cells but look very much like them. The discovery and development of the moving parts is very similar to that of raw nanomedicine and rudimentary medical nanorobotics, but riding on the back of all the existing cellular machinery enables more to be done sooner and with less. [1]: http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA67B66F72&show_long=1 http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA... [2]: http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/building-smart-cell-based-therapies.html http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/... [3]: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.ht... [4]: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.ht...
qwerty_asdf 13y ago
...or perhaps just killer nanorobots? What happens if they malfunction, and don't just kill cancer cells?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- clarky07 13y ago
  then we are at our current solution, chemo.
  - qwerty_asdf 13y ago
    Are you sure about that? Killer nanites could pose a far more urgent and terrible threat to a human being than any old neoplasm. On the slow side, maybe they're as destructive as a nasty dose of prions. On the fast side, maybe they're as destructive as a blister agent like mustard gas.
meepmorp 13y ago
I think we've already got such robots and they're components of our immune system. What we need is a means of programming/issuing commands to them more effectively.
- danieltillett 13y ago
  We already have this - they are called bispecific monoclonal antibodies [0]. If you gave me the job of curing Cancer (and the resource to do it) then this is what I would spend your money on. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody
- ihodes 13y ago
  That turns out to be the focus of a lot of research right now[1][2]. The computational aspect of that has a lot to do with 1. faster, more accurate analysis of genetic code 2. faster, more accurate simulation of interactions between candidate peptides, binding sites on cancers, and the cells of the immune system [1]: "Designing immunogenic peptides" Darren R Flower [2]: "Cancer immunotherapy comes of age" Ira Mellman et al
tzamora 13y ago
but the weed?!
- tzamora 13y ago
  hey why the two points less!! the biochemistry that takes place in our cells is kind of a hack no? So if we invest more in the cannabis investigation maybe we could check why the CDB in the sativa strains helps in the apoptosis process which in turns destroys the bad cells. This is more natural and cheap than a lot of robots inside ourselves. or I'm wrong?
than 13y ago
One Mad Scientist’s Bid to Build Cancer-Causing Nanorobots

67 points by Libertatea 13y ago

riggins 13y ago

Does anyone have any suggestions on resources to learn more about this field?

toufka 13y ago
It's pretty much the very edge of modern synthetic biology. Repurposing biological materials and tools to entirely designed uses. A much more realistic approach to atomic-resolution engineering than shrinking our metallic macro world.
toufka 13y ago
It's pretty much the very edge of modern synthetic biology. Repurposing biological materials and tools to entirely designed uses. A much more realistic approach to atomic-resolution engineering than shrinking our metallic macro world.
martythemaniak 13y ago
I highly recommend Regenesis by George M. Church: http://www.regenesisthebook.com/ http://www.regenesisthebook.com/ He's one of the leaders of this field and the book is a great intro to what's happening, future developments, pitfalls, etc.
cge 13y ago
What parts would you like to learn more about? Shawn's construction is a pretty straightforward (and brilliant) combination of 3D DNA origami and DNA aptamers. The paper can be found at https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/22344439.pdf https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/223... ; the best way to learn about something like this is often to look at the paper, and then work backwards for the references. If you don't have journal access, lab websites usually have copies of their papers on them; I know our lab (dna.caltech.edu) has our papers there, including Paul's original DNA origami papers. This paper is actually a bit annoying in its focus and tone regarding the field. DNA origami is actually surprising simple; the design is not at all "as complicated as it sounds." Short, synthesized strands of DNA that are complementary to various bits of a long scaffold strand of DNA (often single-stranded plasmid DNA, like M13mp18) in a manner similar to the way one pushes different faces of paper together with paper origami. Details of design can be tricky, but it really is something that can be done by hand. CADnano is great from a convenience level, not from some fundamental necessity level. And the major challenges facing this particular technology really aren't, in my opinion, the cost of synthetic DNA. Instead, as many people have pointed out since this was first presented several years ago, the major problem with in vivo use is that nucleases are everywhere, and it's really expected that things like this will get entirely ripped apart in, for example, mammals. Even if it isn't ripped apart, it needs to not end up with stuff stuck around to it to the extent that it won't operate. Without some way of protecting the structure, it's not going to work well. Still, this has long been the example I've used of an application of our field.
- riggins 13y ago
  What parts would you like to learn more about? I just need a good introduction. Its a field I'm interested in but know very little about.

sadfaceunread 13y ago

A nanorobot is a lot different from what you might think of as a macroscale robot. Most of these systems have perhaps two or three functional states, like an enzyme that can switch more than one active configuration. These are still much much less complicated than even the simplest of viruses.

stcredzero 13y ago
Precisely this formulation of "nanorobot" is mentioned in one of the Venus Prime books. Basically, they're very complex enzymes that can be regulated by chemicals and each other, mediated by the protagonist solving systems of differential equations with a supercomputer she screws on the end of the kitchen faucet. (So it can dissipate heat by producing gobs of steam.)

exratione 13y ago

There is a lot of experimentation going on now that cells can be manipulated readily and cheaply. It's still the very early days, but much can be done. The sort of work described in the article overlaps with that of efforts to enhance cells with additional machinery, such as additional organelles [1] or programmable surface chemistry [2], and the equally interesting approach of creating entirely artificial cell-like entities, designed machinery [3] wrapped in a membrane. [4] We will have microrobotics in our medicine before nanorobotics, I think, and those microrobots will look a lot like cells. There will eventually be a blurring at the boundary between engineered cells - such as those used in trials of some immune therapies and stem cell treatments - and things that are not natural cells but look very much like them. The discovery and development of the moving parts is very similar to that of raw nanomedicine and rudimentary medical nanorobotics, but riding on the back of all the existing cellular machinery enables more to be done sooner and with less. [1]: http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA67B66F72&show_long=1 http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA... [2]: http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/building-smart-cell-based-therapies.html http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/... [3]: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.ht... [4]: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.ht...

qwerty_asdf 13y ago

...or perhaps just killer nanorobots? What happens if they malfunction, and don't just kill cancer cells?

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
clarky07 13y ago
then we are at our current solution, chemo.
- qwerty_asdf 13y ago
  Are you sure about that? Killer nanites could pose a far more urgent and terrible threat to a human being than any old neoplasm. On the slow side, maybe they're as destructive as a nasty dose of prions. On the fast side, maybe they're as destructive as a blister agent like mustard gas.

meepmorp 13y ago

I think we've already got such robots and they're components of our immune system. What we need is a means of programming/issuing commands to them more effectively.

danieltillett 13y ago
We already have this - they are called bispecific monoclonal antibodies [0]. If you gave me the job of curing Cancer (and the resource to do it) then this is what I would spend your money on. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody
ihodes 13y ago
That turns out to be the focus of a lot of research right now[1][2]. The computational aspect of that has a lot to do with 1. faster, more accurate analysis of genetic code 2. faster, more accurate simulation of interactions between candidate peptides, binding sites on cancers, and the cells of the immune system [1]: "Designing immunogenic peptides" Darren R Flower [2]: "Cancer immunotherapy comes of age" Ira Mellman et al

tzamora 13y ago

but the weed?!

tzamora 13y ago
hey why the two points less!! the biochemistry that takes place in our cells is kind of a hack no? So if we invest more in the cannabis investigation maybe we could check why the CDB in the sativa strains helps in the apoptosis process which in turns destroys the bad cells. This is more natural and cheap than a lot of robots inside ourselves. or I'm wrong?

than 13y ago

One Mad Scientist’s Bid to Build Cancer-Causing Nanorobots