Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Nano-Probes Stay Inside a Cell's Nucleus for Days

Posted by samzenpus on Thu Mar 31, 2005 06:01 AM
from the from-the-inside-out dept.
Biotech News
Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) have developed fluorescent and stable nano-probes which can stay inside a cell's nucleus for hours or even days. According to this LBL news release, this will help biologists to better understand nuclear processes that evolve slowly, such as DNA replication, genomic alterations, and cell cycle control. This research was partially based on previous investigations about quantum dots. Now, the researchers want to tailor their quantum dots, which emit different colors depending on their sizes, to check specific chemical reactions inside nuclei, such as how proteins help repair DNA after irradiation. Read more for other details and references and to see how a nano-sized probe is entering a cell's nucleus."
+ -
unknown
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Nano-Probes Stay Inside a Cell's Nucleus for Days 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Resistance is futile (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:04AM (#12098559)
    One step closer to Borg technology. Awesome.
    • Still a long way to go... It's one thing to get the machines we make into cells, it's quite another to understand what the hell's going on.

      Just look at proteinsl; they provide structure, enzymes, channels (for transport of molecules through cell walls) and other rolls. Yet, we still can't deal with more than the smallest ones.

      The benefits of this advancement lay in the little things, like now being able to put a "camera" of sorts in cells in vito!

      I'm thinking more "inner space" than "borg".

  • Pah! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:06AM (#12098565)
    That's not news. My girlfriend been telling me I've a nano-sized probe for years, now.

  • Only care . . . (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    . . . if they show me how mitochondria replicate.
      • If I recall correctly from my biology, mitochondria manufacture ATP from ADP, which powers our cells. They are remnants of prokaryotic cells which entered into a symbiosis with their eukaryotic hosts. Mitochondria have their own RNA, which is passed from female to child in sexually-reproducing prokaryotes (and, despite the childish comments, includes Slashdotters).

        I hope this clarifies why a mitochondrion is important.
          • No, mitochondria use sugar to manufacture ATP from ADP, and other parts of the cell use the ATP to power their processes and thereby convert it back to ADP.

            Also, only eukaryotes have mitochondria.

            • Re:Offtopic? (Score:4, Insightful)

              by StateOfTheUnion (762194) on Thursday March 31 2005, @09:59AM (#12099758) Homepage
              No, mitochondria use sugar to manufacture ATP from ADP, and other parts of the cell use the ATP to power their processes and thereby convert it back to ADP.


              Uhhh . . . in a word, no. Sounds like the complexity and accuracy a high school biology lecture . . .


              Mitochodria oxidize Pyruvic acid in a series of steps to convert NAD+ to NADH. This produces CO2 and Acetyl CoA. Acetyl CoA is further oxidized in the Citric Acid Cycle producing more NADH and CO2.
              What you may be thinking about is glycolysis . . . which is the breakdown of sugar (typically glucose) into pyruvic acid. This happens in the cytosol OUTSIDE the mitochodria. It is important to note that almost any carbon based molecule in the body can be converted into pyruvate and oxidized in the mitochodria (fatty acids, sugars, amino acids, some nucleic acids, etc.)


              NADH is then converted into NAD+ through a mitochodria membrane to convert Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP) to Adenosine triphosphate (ATP) along an inner membrane of the mitochodria.


              A more accurate restatement of your post might be:


              Mitochodria oxidize pyruvate derived from sugar, fatty acids, amino acids, and other sources to produce NADH. Mitochodria also use NADH to convert ADP to ATP.

  • Uh... (Score:3, Funny)

    by sp3tt (856121) <<sp3tt> <at> <sp3tt.se>> on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:08AM (#12098570)
    "such as DNA replication"
    Genetic pr0n? Sure tells us a lot about the minds of scientists.

  • Alarmist (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ossington (853347) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:08AM (#12098572)
    Am I the only one who's scared that they've managed to create nanobots that can stay inside of us?
    • I think you misread "bots" for "dots"... if indeed you even RTFA ;)

    • Re:Alarmist (Score:5, Informative)

      by Evil W1zard (832703) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:20AM (#12098606) Journal
      These really aren't nanobots. The definition of nanotechnology comprises any technological developments on the nanometer scale, usually 0.1 to 100 nm. In my opinion I believe that when you say the word "nanotechnology" most people today would think of super tiny robots (thanks to tv and movies). With that said these are not tiny little robots, they are crystals. So there is no reason to be alarmed because the the nano-sized attack robots have not yet been made.

  • One word.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by The Jon (605125) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:09AM (#12098574)
    ..medichlorians.
  • Put freakin' laser-beams on the heads of those nano-probes and have them kill cancer?

  • "Nanoprobe" (Score:5, Funny)

    by jokestress (837997) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:29AM (#12098621)
    That's my nickname for my ex-boyfriend! /here all week //try the veal

  • Observe without interfering? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amanox (862297) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:41AM (#12098654)
    I'm just curious : how can they observer without interfering the process they observe? I'm no biologist, but I'm pretty sure the nucleus must have some kind of reaction to a foreign body entering it. Not to mention the recation coused by the illuminating the nucleus: these probes seem to emit some kind of light. This must have at least some effect on the readings they get from these probes.

    • Re:Observe without interfering? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by janek78 (861508) on Thursday March 31 2005, @07:07AM (#12098729) Homepage
      It's been a long time since my biology classes, but I can't think of any reaction to foreign body inside a cell (at least not in the usual way). A cell hasn't got an immune system of it's own. Of course it has systems capable of expelling foreign/toxic chemicals out of the cell (exocytosis, pinocytosis), but it is altogether different from say your body's reaction to a foreign body. So these microcrystals will probably in some way interfere with the inner working of the cell (it trying to expell it) but they do not neccessarily need to interfere with the actual working of the nucleus.
      • A cell does have a defense system of its own. How else would some bacteria have resistance to virii?

        One of the ways that molecular biologists knock out genes that they wish to study is by a proccess called RNA inteference. They do this by inserting a peice of DNA with the complementary sequence of the targeted gene. The cell then transcribes both the gene and the opposite gene into mRNA, these two mRNA fragments hybridize forming double stranded RNA. A typical cell never has stranded RNA (virii do caus
      • Just a note. Pinoctytosis is for bringing forein materials in and exocytosis is for sending proteins out of the cell via the golgi aperatus, neither are really for spitting out foreign/toxic chemicals.
    • You can actually stick all kinds of stuff into a cell without causing problems (unless you react with the contents chemically, or disrupt the cell membrane). You can even add functionality to the cell, for example by injecting additional DNA, and it will treat the new material as part of itself. This is how viruses work, and the only defense is to eradicate the virus before it infects the cell, or destroy the infected cell completely.

      As to the light produced, I doubt this will have a negative effect unless

    • Re:Observe without interfering? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      fluorescent dyes are used in all kinds of molecular biology experiments; generally they don't interfere with biological processes although in some cases they do (some of the larger dyes do cause spatial hinderences). quantum dots are sooo much smaller than current dyes that they're virtually guaranteed to not interfere. and the light they emit is extremely limited; the cool thing with quantum dots (and their detectors) is that you can detect single or at least handful of photons.. that's not going to illumi
      • The word 'quantum' in 'quantum dot' is misleading. The dimensions of a quantum dot are typically between a few nanometeres (billionths of a meter) to a few microns. Smaller ones, down to a single electron, can be made, and at that size they would definitely be subject to the laws of quantum of physics-- but at the more typical sizes, they're too big to worry about wave functions, and behave more like the everyday materials with which we're familiar-- except for those properties such as hue and reflectivit

        • Smaller ones, down to a single electron, can be made, and at that size they would definitely be subject to the laws of quantum of physics-- but at the more typical sizes, they're too big to worry about wave functions, and behave more like the everyday materials with which we're familiar-- except for those properties such as hue and reflectivity that are tailored during fabrication.

          Well, I will admit that quantum dots don't have dual wave-particle like electrons, but it is utterly wrong to say that they'

  • fluorescent (Score:4, Funny)

    by hovercraftSpareWheel (731518) on Thursday March 31 2005, @07:05AM (#12098724)
    ...fluorescent and stable nano-probes which can stay inside a cell's nucleus for hours or even days.

    Now we can mod our heads to match our PC cases!

  • Yet another Ronald Piquepaille article (Score:5, Informative)

    by nyri (132206) on Thursday March 31 2005, @07:20AM (#12098771)
    I will give him a little credit as he links sometimes to intresting articles. But I must say that his blog sucks big time. He has scored a slashdot.org article 13 times this year. From Ronalds account page [slashdot.org]:
    Robotic Nanotech Swarms on Mars... in 2034 [slashdot.org] 14:54 Wednesday 30 March 2005
    Nano-Probes Stay Inside a Cell's Nucleus for Days [slashdot.org] 19:42 Tuesday 29 March 2005
    The Rise of Smart Buildings [slashdot.org] 22:19 Saturday 19 March 2005
    3D Virtualization Edges Toward the Mainstream [slashdot.org] 21:57 Sunday 13 March 2005
    Taking Care of Mobile Patients [slashdot.org] 20:20 Saturday 26 February 2005
    Smart Holograms Used as Biosensors [slashdot.org] 20:22 Sunday 20 February 2005
    Wearable PC with an Artificial-Reality Helmet [slashdot.org] 20:20 Saturday 19 February 2005
    Transgenic Mustard Cleans Up Soils [slashdot.org] 22:38 Tuesday 15 February 2005
    Elektro, the Oldest U.S. Robot [slashdot.org] 16:35 Thursday 10 February 2005
    Open-Source Streaming Translations in Porto Alegre [slashdot.org] 15:33 Monday 31 January 2005
    RFID-Equipped Robots Used as Guide Dogs [slashdot.org] 19:35 Saturday 29 January 2005
    Streaming a Database in Real Time [slashdot.org] 23:58 Friday 21 January 2005
    Morse Code Used by Human Cells? [slashdot.org] 20:05 Wednesday 12 January 2005
    Engineered Enhancers Closer Than You Think [slashdot.org] 20:54 Friday 31 December 2004
    Transparent Transistors Are Coming [slashdot.org] 22:20 Wednesday 29 December 2004
    DURL, a Search Tool for del.icio.us [slashdot.org] 14:47 Monday 27 December 2004
    IBM Prepares 100-Terabyte Tape Drives [slashdot.org] 15:19 Sunday 26 December 2004
    With Linux Clusters, Seeing Is Believing [slashdot.org] 16:47 Monday 13 December 2004
    Self-Adapting Traffic Lights [slashdot.org] 19:07 Sunday 05 December 2004
    Robotic Science Network Watches Our Oceans [slashdot.org] 23:32 Friday 03 December 2004

    I think I speak for most readers here when I yell: SLASHDOT EDITORS, PLEASE, NO MORE LINKS TO RONALDS NO-GOOD BLOG.

  • A real hit on the club scene! (Score:3, Funny)

    by Muad'Dave (255648) on Thursday March 31 2005, @07:55AM (#12098863) Homepage

    Imagine getting some that fluoresce under 'black light' and putting those suckers in your epidermal/dermal cells! You'd be the hit of the club scene changing colors and glowing!


      • Funny you should say that - I'll pass on the tentacles, but I've wanted chromataphores since I was a kid. How cool would that be? My wife would know my mood without either of us having to say a thing. On second thought, that might not be good...

  • How is this significantly different from the fluorescent marking techniques used for ages in conventional microscopy? It lasts longer? Big deal. Do calling things "nano" attract more funds/media attention? Sure! http://www.hardydiagnostics.com/Glossary-F.html [hardydiagnostics.com]
    • in theory, the qdots ar more stable (less photobleaching) a recognized problem with std labels, and they have narrower emission spectra, so multiplexing is easier (eg std labels like fluorescein and rhodamine have wide emission spectra that overlap)(altho the lanthanide chelates have 10 nm fwhm)
      potentially, you can tune the excitation and emission spectra to match your laser lines, so if someone develops a real cheap stable diode laser, you can tune the dot to that line
      on the other hand, the qdots are big e

      • in theory, the qdots ar more stable (less photobleaching) a recognized problem with std labels, and they have narrower emission spectra, so multiplexing is easier (eg std labels like fluorescein and rhodamine have wide emission spectra that overlap)(altho the lanthanide chelates have 10 nm fwhm)

        You obviously have never heard of BODIPY [invitrogen.com] fluorophores, although I admit the admission spectrum is not quite as narrow as you describe. Multiplexing is easier with quantum dots, but you excite all of them at the

  • So, if you could tag all the cancer cells with something that emits a beacon, then does that mean you could home in on them with a gamma knife and elimite them in any delicate part of the body with perfect accuracy?
    • So, if you could tag all the cancer cells with something that emits a beacon

      There's a company that's working on an enzyme dye using jellyfish flourescence to do just that. This would work in theory even after it has metastized.

      then does that mean you could home in on them with a gamma knife and elimite them in any delicate part of the body with perfect accuracy?

      Forget gamma knife. Proton treatment [llu.edu] is where it's at. Get radiation treatment for your prostate cancer in the morning, play tennis in the afternoon. Basically they create a 3D model of the tumor and modulate the proton beam's energy and shape (using a series of masks) so that the protons deposit most of their energy inside the tumor. There's a small amount that gets deposited ahead of it and none behind. Much cleaner/better than other radiation treatments. I've heard that with early diagnosis they're getting phenomenal success rates. And its outpatient.
    • Researchers have been tagging cancer cells with antibodies since the at least the late 80's. The holy grail of antibody therapy is to attach chemotherapeutic agents or radioactive isotopes to antibodies. The antibodies would insure that the majority of the therapeutic agent is deposited on the surface of tumor cells. This would be especially effective for small metasticized tumors that can't be detected by conventional means.

  • I think this is old stuff (Score:3, Insightful)

    by cinnamon colbert (732724) on Thursday March 31 2005, @10:04AM (#12099814) Journal
    See, for instance, the quantum dot company (www.qdot.com). What is new is using a bio tag to direct the dot into the nucleus; such tags ("nuclear localiztion signals") are well known in theliteratrue for proteins, so what is new is that they took qdots and coated them with one of these signals. So, this is an addittion to the large catalog of optical probes that biologiest have.
  • I'm sorry, I read the headline as "Nano-pubes".
  • I work in this field in graduate school and this technology is both old and new. The major problems right now are the toxicity on the cell. The actual probes can be modified or coated to exist within a cell without any major problems but when they breakdown, your body doesn't agree with some of the heavy metals that are released. As far as the word quantum goes, that only refers to the way that the electrons are confined withing the quantum dot. It is what gives the signal that you see. Safer particles

  • of why nanotech will accelerate science in various areas.

    And why people who denigrate the probability of massive changes in human biology as a result of nanotech are ignoring the synergistic effects. Nanotech will speed up scientific research in many areas, allowing much faster technology development than most specialists think is likely in their particular field of endeavor.

    Drexler predicted this effect in "Engines of Creation" and it is still consistently ignored by most "pundits".

    • Re:Dear god, not another one. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by CdBee (742846) on Thursday March 31 2005, @06:16AM (#12098595)
      That's probably not helpful. Posting it as an AC, even less so.

      Question to the mature Slashdot community. I'm aware that Piquepaille runs a site called Technology Trends which at a brief examination seems to be a reasonably typical tech site written from an insider's PoV, so he's well qualified to submit at Slashdot.. but how does he do it so often?

      This isn't just sour grapes - I had a story accepted once and I rarely submit - but this guy's so prolific it makes me wonder what he's doing right.
      • this guy's so prolific it makes me wonder what he's doing right.

        Kickbacks, perhaps?

        • If Slashdot editors really can be bribed to take a story, don't you think we'd see a lot more favourable coverage of SCO's lawsuits on here :-p

          I may be wrong, but I doubt it's that simple.

        • I would've posted as myself, except i'm still working hard to get up to a normal karma level again :P

          ... I've got a few points to spare ... so let me help out ...

          I'm thinking a bunch of fairly recent moderators would mark it troll immediately.. and the only time i want a post marked as Troll is when it's at +5 :P

          ... hopefully, the newer moderators will follow the linky below and see that there's more than initially meets the eye ...
          linky [thedarkcitadel.com]

          Ah, well, it's only karma after all.

    • To look at a cell using a microscope you have to take it out of the living thing it belonged to.
      • neither the parent nor the first reponse are correct
        if you look at single cell organisms, which "normally" live in, say pond water, you can examine them in pretty close to thier normal env. Or say, a sperm cell - that exists outside the body. And every scientist is painfully aware that many cells are not normal outside the body; there are whole books on this
        Also, it is well established that you need a tag to look at, say cell surface proteins; this is done everyday. Not sure how nanoprobes help map a protei

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.