Motorized molecules driven by light have been used to drill holes in the membranes of individual cells and show promise for either bringing therapeutic agents into the cells or directly inducing the cells to die.
Above-Motorized molecules that target diseased cells may deliver drugs or kill the cells by drilling into the cell membranes. The illustration shows a motorized molecule sitting atop a cell membrane (left) and molecules activated by ultraviolet light drilling into the bilayer membrane (right).
Researchers at Rice, Durham and North Carolina State universities demonstrated in lab tests how rotors in single-molecule nanomachines can be activated by ultraviolet light to spin at 2 to 3 million rotations per second and open membranes in cells.
The researchers used motors based on work by Nobel laureate Bernard Feringa, who won the prize for chemistry in 2016. The motor itself is a paddle-like chain of atoms that can be prompted to move in a single direction when supplied with energy. Properly mounted as part of the cell-targeting molecule, the motor can be made to spin when activated by a light source.
They are experimenting on micro-organisms and small fish before moving on to rodents. Clinical trials in humans are expected to follow and it is hoped that the results may have the potential to save millions of lives.
Nature – Molecular machines open cell membranes
Abstract –
Beyond the more common chemical delivery strategies, several physical techniques are used to open the lipid bilayers of cellular membranes. These include using electric and magnetic fields, temperature, ultrasound or light to introduce compounds into cells, to release molecular species from cells or to selectively induce programmed cell death (apoptosis) or uncontrolled cell death (necrosis). More recently, molecular motors and switches that can change their conformation in a controlled manner in response to external stimuli have been used to produce mechanical actions on tissue for biomedical applications. Here we show that molecular machines can drill through cellular bilayers using their molecular-scale actuation, specifically nanomechanical action. Upon physical adsorption of the molecular motors onto lipid bilayers and subsequent activation of the motors using ultraviolet light, holes are drilled in the cell membranes. We designed molecular motors and complementary experimental protocols that use nanomechanical action to induce the diffusion of chemical species out of synthetic vesicles, to enhance the diffusion of traceable molecular machines into and within live cells, to induce necrosis and to introduce chemical species into live cells. We also show that, by using molecular machines that bear short peptide addends, nanomechanical action can selectively target specific cell-surface recognition sites. Beyond the in vitro applications demonstrated here, we expect that molecular machines could also be used in vivo, especially as their design progresses to allow two-photon, near-infrared and radio-frequency activation
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
b ollocks. stop eating like a p i g and finding excuses for it.
b ollocks. stop eating like a p i g and finding excuses for it.
Like so many others, you confuse ‘cure’ with ‘immunity.’Heads up: A ‘cured’ person can still get cancer again.Antibiotics cure infections (so far, but that’s another story), but money is still made producing them, because nothing says it’ll be your last infection. (STD clinics have plenty of repeat customers.)You imply an improbable world-wide power to suppress, on the part of ‘AMA and oncologists.’ We already know that people will travel, even for for questionable treatments, they’ll fall all over each other to get to a place that has treatments that are proven to be effective. (And then there’s the inevitable gray and black markets, as with ED drugs. Often counterfeit, but it’s a counterfeit of something you know *does* work…)Once it finally happens, you can’t hide it.And even where immunity *can* be had (vaccines), there will always be a new generation needing it.There will still be money in it.
Like so many others, you confuse ‘cure’ with ‘immunity.’
Heads up: A ‘cured’ person can still get cancer again.
Antibiotics cure infections (so far, but that’s another story), but money is still made producing them, because nothing says it’ll be your last infection. (STD clinics have plenty of repeat customers.)
You imply an improbable world-wide power to suppress, on the part of ‘AMA and oncologists.’ We already know that people will travel, even for for questionable treatments, they’ll fall all over each other to get to a place that has treatments that are proven to be effective. (And then there’s the inevitable gray and black markets, as with ED drugs. Often counterfeit, but it’s a counterfeit of something you know *does* work…)
Once it finally happens, you can’t hide it.
And even where immunity *can* be had (vaccines), there will always be a new generation needing it.
There will still be money in it.
In part that’s because it’s “common” for cancers to have distinctive surface features, but “common” isn’t the same as “guaranteed”.
Two photon is best, ideally if you can do two photons of different frequencies. That lets you activate only at the intersection of two beams, but not in either beam at all. You can scan and create voxels of tissue death, without harming normal tissue.Yes, it doesn’t identify the tumors. That’s always been the problem with cancer: If the cancer cells were identifiably different from your normal cells, your immune system would have already dealt with them. So cancer cells are, almost by definition, difficult to identify. Most cancer treatments simply target any rapidly reproducing cell population, which explains the side effects such as your hair falling out, and wounds not healing.
If they use tissue-specific markers, the nanobots would preferentially aggregate in tumor tissue. Then they can:a) Activate them less selectively.b) Add some remotely detectable marker to the nanobots (magnetic, fluorescent, etc) to find where the tumors are.c) The bots can be designed to activate autonomously in response to particular markers.
Immunotherapy doesn’t just hope to work. There’s been remarkable success with such treatments in recent years. But it’s not equally effective for everyone AFAIK.
What doctorpat said. Cancers (as most/all other cell types) have unique markers that can be targeted selectively. That’s how immunotherapy works. It’s also at the basis of various other experimental cancer treatments.
Shigg, I bet you can get a tinfoil hat from your doc.
In part that’s because it’s “common” for cancers to have distinctive surface features, but “common” isn’t the same as “guaranteed”.
Two photon is best, ideally if you can do two photons of different frequencies. That lets you activate only at the intersection of two beams, but not in either beam at all. You can scan and create voxels of tissue death, without harming normal tissue.
Yes, it doesn’t identify the tumors. That’s always been the problem with cancer: If the cancer cells were identifiably different from your normal cells, your immune system would have already dealt with them. So cancer cells are, almost by definition, difficult to identify. Most cancer treatments simply target any rapidly reproducing cell population, which explains the side effects such as your hair falling out, and wounds not healing.
If they use tissue-specific markers, the nanobots would preferentially aggregate in tumor tissue. Then they can:
a) Activate them less selectively.
b) Add some remotely detectable marker to the nanobots (magnetic, fluorescent, etc) to find where the tumors are.
c) The bots can be designed to activate autonomously in response to particular markers.
Immunotherapy doesn’t just hope to work. There’s been remarkable success with such treatments in recent years. But it’s not equally effective for everyone AFAIK.
What doctorpat said. Cancers (as most/all other cell types) have unique markers that can be targeted selectively. That’s how immunotherapy works. It’s also at the basis of various other experimental cancer treatments.
It is very common for cancers to have distinctive surface features.That’s how these immune system based cancer treatments hope to work.
The issue of putting UV light into your brain or liver springs to mind as you read the article, but at the end they mention “as their design progresses to allow two-photon, near-infrared and radio-frequency activation”So the general idea is 1. Inject the drug so it spreads throughout the body2. Target the tumors with IR or RF radiation that will penetrate into the body and light up the tumors.3. That activates the nanobots and they kill the cells at that location.Note however that you need to know where the tumors are. It doesn’t work for hidden cancers that haven’t been detected.
You’ve never actually met a doctor have you?
Shigg, I bet you can get a tinfoil hat from your doc.
You assume that cancers have these sites and that normal cells don’t.
OK, let’s clarify something about obesity: Humans have weight and body composition “setpoints”; Your body actively engages in homeostatic control to maintain them. This is why people’s weights don’t vary all over the place from year to year according to how much food they happen to have eaten, but instead only change very gradually unless they make a deliberate effort to lose or (Much less common.) gain weight. If your weight drops a little bit below the setpoint, you get hungry, you avoid burning calories. A bit above it, food stops being appealing, and you get a bit hyper.Obesity is not, fundamentally, a problem of just eating too much, and exercising too little. It’s a problem of *your body mass setpoint creeping up as time goes by.* Take me as an example. I’m about 50 lbs overweight. It took me 40 years to put this weight on. Do you think that was a result of sloth? That represents a 12 calorie a day imbalance between eating and exercise. Under 1% of my daily calorie intake.Do you think I measure my food precisely, and then just sneak an extra cracker every day?No, what has happened is that, for some reason, my body’s setpoint has drifted up over the years, and now my body “wants” to be overweight. Forcing my weight below the setpoint requires a continual exertion of self control, exercising more than my body wants me too, being hungry all the time. I do that, because I need to for my health, but people who are skinny aren’t skinny because they’re vituous.They’re skinny because that’s where their setpoint is set.In fact, there’s an obesity epidemic even among laboratory animals on controlled diets. (Search for “Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics”) Some researchers think it’s due to hormone mimicking chemicals in the environment, or gut bacteria changing, but even lab mice on controlled diets have gotten fatter.Something is messing with setpoints across the animal kingdom, in and out of civilization. I doubt it’s TV and Twinkies.
You wouldn’t be killing the fat cells, you’d be converting some small fraction of them to “brown” fat, which burns the fat, instead of storing it.
I think it’s more of a proof of concept at this point. If it goes as far as actual application, they’ll find some other way to power it.
It is very common for cancers to have distinctive surface features.
That’s how these immune system based cancer treatments hope to work.
The issue of putting UV light into your brain or liver springs to mind as you read the article, but at the end they mention “as their design progresses to allow two-photon, near-infrared and radio-frequency activation”
So the general idea is
1. Inject the drug so it spreads throughout the body
2. Target the tumors with IR or RF radiation that will penetrate into the body and light up the tumors.
3. That activates the nanobots and they kill the cells at that location.
Note however that you need to know where the tumors are. It doesn’t work for hidden cancers that haven’t been detected.
You’ve never actually met a doctor have you?
The AMA and oncologists don’t want this to happen, they don’t want a cure for cancer.How else would they be able to charge for 100k+ surgeries and 30k+ chemo therapy treatments?
You assume that cancers have these sites and that normal cells don’t.
Since it’s powered by ultraviolet light, wouldn’t this restrict their use to skin cells? Or do they have another way to power them in the works?
The cure for obesity is well known and freely available to all, the cure for cancer is not.
OK, let’s clarify something about obesity: Humans have weight and body composition “setpoints”; Your body actively engages in homeostatic control to maintain them. This is why people’s weights don’t vary all over the place from year to year according to how much food they happen to have eaten, but instead only change very gradually unless they make a deliberate effort to lose or (Much less common.) gain weight. If your weight drops a little bit below the setpoint, you get hungry, you avoid burning calories. A bit above it, food stops being appealing, and you get a bit hyper.
Obesity is not, fundamentally, a problem of just eating too much, and exercising too little. It’s a problem of *your body mass setpoint creeping up as time goes by.*
Take me as an example. I’m about 50 lbs overweight. It took me 40 years to put this weight on. Do you think that was a result of sloth? That represents a 12 calorie a day imbalance between eating and exercise. Under 1% of my daily calorie intake.
Do you think I measure my food precisely, and then just sneak an extra cracker every day?
No, what has happened is that, for some reason, my body’s setpoint has drifted up over the years, and now my body “wants” to be overweight. Forcing my weight below the setpoint requires a continual exertion of self control, exercising more than my body wants me too, being hungry all the time. I do that, because I need to for my health, but people who are skinny aren’t skinny because they’re vituous.
They’re skinny because that’s where their setpoint is set.
In fact, there’s an obesity epidemic even among laboratory animals on controlled diets. (Search for “Canaries in the coal mine: a cross-species analysis of the plurality of obesity epidemics”) Some researchers think it’s due to hormone mimicking chemicals in the environment, or gut bacteria changing, but even lab mice on controlled diets have gotten fatter.
Something is messing with setpoints across the animal kingdom, in and out of civilization. I doubt it’s TV and Twinkies.
Targeting tumors is all that’s needed at this point. The body is usually capable of destroying individual cancer cells, unless it’s stressed beyond that ability to self regulate.
You wouldn’t be killing the fat cells, you’d be converting some small fraction of them to “brown” fat, which burns the fat, instead of storing it.
I think it’s more of a proof of concept at this point. If it goes as far as actual application, they’ll find some other way to power it.
And even if it could not YET selectively target a specific type of cell, that would be the next fairly easy next step.Thinking about this, society greatest problem is obesity not cancer.What if they could target a specific type of fat cell in a VERY controlled way. PS You can’t kill cells in the human body to fast because the accumulation of dead cells will cause people will get very sick.
From their abstract: “We also show that, by using molecular machines that bear short peptide addends, nanomechanical action can selectively target specific cell-surface recognition sites.”
All well and good, but this technique seems more like a cluster bomb than a sniper rifle. What’s lacking is precise targeting. If these nanobots can somehow identify that they are latched onto a cancer cell then this could morph into the proverbial magic bullet against cancer but otherwise it’s liable to be fairly marginal at best (I could see tumors being painted with light to enable targeted attacks but this is a far cry from hunting down and destroying individual caner cells.)
The AMA and oncologists don’t want this to happen, they don’t want a cure for cancer.
How else would they be able to charge for 100k+ surgeries and 30k+ chemo therapy treatments?
Since it’s powered by ultraviolet light, wouldn’t this restrict their use to skin cells? Or do they have another way to power them in the works?
And even if it could not YET selectively target a specific type of cell, that would be the next fairly easy next step.
Thinking about this, society greatest problem is obesity not cancer.
What if they could target a specific type of fat cell in a VERY controlled way.
PS You can’t kill cells in the human body to fast because the accumulation of dead cells will cause people will get very sick.
From their abstract: “We also show that, by using molecular machines that bear short peptide addends, nanomechanical action can selectively target specific cell-surface recognition sites.”
All well and good, but this technique seems more like a cluster bomb than a sniper rifle. What’s lacking is precise targeting. If these nanobots can somehow identify that they are latched onto a cancer cell then this could morph into the proverbial magic bullet against cancer but otherwise it’s liable to be fairly marginal at best (I could see tumors being painted with light to enable targeted attacks but this is a far cry from hunting down and destroying individual caner cells.)