Cancer-Fighting Nanorobots Programmed to Seek and Destroy Tumors

R

rgMekanic

[H]ard|News
Joined
May 13, 2013
Messages
6,943
It is being reported by ScienceDaily that scientists at Arizona State University, in collaboration with researchers from the National Center for Nanoscience and Technology (NCNST), of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, have successfully programmed nanorobots to shrink tumors by cutting off their blood supply. Each nanorobot is made from a flat, rectangular DNA origami sheet, 90 nanometers by 60 nanometers in size. A key blood-clotting enzyme, called thrombin, is attached to the surface.

This is absolutely outstanding. The article states that the programming to make sure the nanobots only attack a cancer cell, comes in the form of a "DNA apatamer" which specifically targets a protein called "nucleolin" which is only found on the surface of tumor cells, and not on healthy cells. This can't become a viable treatment fast enough in my opinion.

"I think we are much closer to real, practical medical applications of the technology," said Yan. "Combinations of different rationally designed nanorobots carrying various agents may help to accomplish the ultimate goal of cancer research: the eradication of solid tumors and vascularized metastases. Furthermore, the current strategy may be developed as a drug delivery platform for the treatment of other diseases by modification of the geometry of the nanostructures, the targeting groups and the loaded cargoes."
 
The big trick on any nanoscale technology is finding a way to mass produce it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulP
like this
Dafuq.. Metal Gear Solid said we'd have nanomachines in our bodies in 2005. This took way too long.

Now it's only a matter of time before someone creates a FoxDie virus to take out VIPs!
 
Last edited:
And they didn't have to extract them from Seven of Nine. So interesting to watch science fiction become fact.
 
Just wait until the FDA labels it unsafe for humans after a large campaign donation to several lawmakers by the health care industry...
 
:cautious: Sure, the robots will lure us into them by promising to cure cancer, just to kill us all while they are inside our blood stream. Not today, robots. Not today. :cautious: /s
 
If you can program nanobots to attack cancer cells, what else can you program them to attack? Ethnic genetic markers? Then, can you get them airborne? Hmm...
 
I hope it works like they say it will. However anytime someone says nano anything my mind instantly thinks of the Borg, hopefully resistance is futile for cancer.
 
and then they sit dormant until skynet activates and they tear their way out and go on a rampage...
 
rgMekanic said:
You know what else is not safe for humans?


Cancer.
Click to expand...

No shit? I didnt know that. Well damn.

My point was its more profitable to treat the disease ergo lobbyists will quietly push to keep this off market. Dont believe me? Then ask yourself why we dont have a human vaccine available for Lyme disease? Why? Its simply not profitable.
 
As birth defects and diseases continue to rise(pick a reason, any reason, there's plenty to choose from) I believe the model of treating the cause rather than the symptom will transfer to using tech like this instead of the opposite. The model of the client paying for a cure rather than any kind of preventative measures by external entities(governments or industries) is far more cost effective and profitable. Plus there can always be new limitations on effectiveness and price tiers.

All in all, I'm pretty excited about this and other similar biological approaches. Science fiction has written about these concepts for the better part of 30-60 years so it's nice to see some steps being achieved in reality.
 
I wont get my hopes up to much it probably wont ever be available, usually in clinical testing there's a horrible problem with the treatment that makes it unusable.
 
If the tech only targets a protein in cancer, and is built to survive indefinately or at least a long time, in a biological system without self replication, this could become the next tetanus shot. Every 10 years you need a booster.

Sounds profitable to me.
 
spaceman said:
Cures don't pay for the shareholders multiple yachts though.
Click to expand...

Bullshit.

You think dead patients do? nothing burns my ass more than someone making an ignorant statement like this. How much would you pay to not die? Stage IV cancers that this could treat, are a death sentence. 5 year survival rates for the most common Stage IV metastatic cancers are less than 5%.

Besides the obvious benefit of not dying, bringing this to market is a literal goldmine for the company that perfects the technology.
 
kju1 said:
No shit? I didnt know that. Well damn.

My point was its more profitable to treat the disease ergo lobbyists will quietly push to keep this off market. Dont believe me? Then ask yourself why we dont have a human vaccine available for Lyme disease? Why? Its simply not profitable.
Click to expand...

This IS treating the disease. How many families have lost someone to cancer, basically, ALL of them. you want to write a blank check for a company and make it rich beyond the dreams of Avarice, find a fucking cure for cancer.
 
Private_Ops said:
Are you in the top 1% of humanity by wealth? Cause if not, don't expect much.
Click to expand...

I hate it when people make ignorant claims like this. Most of the time, people who accuse others of such things are people who would do the same type of thing in their place, which is why they would believe it of others.

In reality, most people who work hard and build big businesses like the ones that make most of our medicine are not the types to do this. They can't be. Why? Because money alone is not enough of a driving force to push people to such things. (The heirs to fortunes built this way are another matter.) They don't do things like this for money. They do it for something worth FAR more than money: the satisfaction of defeating a problem that few others could, the pride of building something that few others could, and/or the feeling of building something that is creating a great deal of good in the world. Money alone can't do that. Sure, those people wind up making a lot of money, but that is a side effect. I've known people who do this, and I know for certain they are not the evil so many jealous people claim they are.

Most people tend to believe that good people could never prosper in such a way, and that they'd give it all away if they got it, and that for someone to get that much they have to be selfish and evil. In fact, the selfish, evil people could not attain such things on their own. They'd destroy themselves in the process. Only good people could ever prosper in such a way, because they are the ones who would actually work for it.

So many people don't see that they could have all the same within their grasp, if only they'd work for it. I'm not talking keep digging ditches 60 hours a week for 20 years, but ACTUALLY work for it. Just doing physical labor is lazy. It's not work. Actually identifying a problem that other people have, working at different things to find a solution to that problem, and going through the effort to sell them the solution to that problem is FAR more work than just serving tables or digging ditches. It takes FAR more effort, FAR more strength, and FAR more belief in the solution than any physical labor.

So many people that just go through the motions and do all their "hard work" every day not even putting anything into actually using their brains to make a difference, and get jealous of others who do. They get so jealous seeing someone else put forward that kind of effort and build a great thing, and get rewarded for it. They've labeled such things as "evil" and "selfish" when it is FAR from it, and does FAR more good than anything the jealous ones could do with their lives.

I know this directly. I am trying to get Bulletproof Home Networks (www.bulletproofhomenetworks.com) going. I know people are having trouble with insecure home routers, and I have a solution to that problem, if only people would listen to me. I do aim for upscale and business clients specifically because they are wise enough to actually listen, and spend the money necessary to protect what they've worked so hard to build, and they know that hackers and identity thieves would cost them far more than what it would take to shield themselves against it.

Do you think that my expertise and work is not worth compensation? If not, then you must realize that that is EXACTLY what capitalism IS. It's not evil. It's not selfish. It is seeking fair compensation for services rendered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top