Human Cells Naturally 'Eat' Silicon Nanowires (ieee.org) 42
the_newsbeagle writes: By showing that human cells naturally engulf minuscule silicon nanowires, a material scientist from the University of Chicago has opened the way to intracellular electronics. Applications could include very specialized drug delivery, electrically stimulating the organelles inside the cell, or recording the signals that pass between those internal structures. From IEEE Spectrum: "Using both an electron microscope and a specialized optical imaging tool designed by the team, the group recorded the eating of the nanowires in detail. It appears that the cell's outer membrane folds itself like a pocket, grabs the nanowire, and envelops it in a membrane-lined bubble. The process is called phagocytosis; it's the same method used by immune cells to grab a bit of bacteria and swallow it up. Once the nanowire is inside, the cell's machinery then shuttles it through its system with sudden bursts of speed -- up to 99.4 nanometers per second -- and deposits it just outside the cell's nucleus. Tian's group made a video of the process (complete with melodramatic accompaniment)."
That's yuuuge! (Score:1)
the cell's machinery then shuttles it through its system with sudden bursts of speed -- up to 99.4 nanometers per second
Don't let the Street Outlaw 405 gang know about this, they'll be absolutely green with jealousy!
Really IEEE !?!? (Score:1)
god IEEE... ALL KINDS of security warnings...
No wonder the ACM is better (>_>)
Re:Third, actually. But Also, (Score:3, Informative)
what good is it to control a couple of cells?
Being able to get a nanowire to 'terminate' inside a cell is a big step forward for biological to electronic interfaces. In particular it helps open the door to being able to directly wire an implant to brain cells, as opposed to the rather crude methods currently being experimented with (which are basically just a spike right through the tissue). Next is to try to be able to do it on a larger scale.
But as usual, the summary is absolute shit. The cells are NOT "eating" nanowires, that would indicate they ar
Re: (Score:1)
Ummm, I thought one of the reasons that asbestos is so dangerous is that it readily pierce cells and allows materials to move through the membranes
I'm not claiming that this nano-wire thing is as dangerous as asbestos, just that some modicum of restrain should be exercised
Re: Third, actually. But Also, (Score:2)
Well, I don't see either how they want to connect something to such fibres, didn't read the article though
Re: First. But also, (Score:2)
I, for one, welcome our silicon nanowire overlords.
Re: (Score:3)
I, for one, welcome our silicon nanowire overlords.
Wouldn't that be "innerlords"?
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Obligatory (Score:1)
XKCD https://xkcd.com/644/
What could possibly go wrong?!? (Score:3)
I seem to once remember hearing another example of nanostructures finding their way into cells easily, and it didn't go well for the cell, in the longer run. I certainly hope they're doing extended life testing with this.
Re:What could possibly go wrong?!? (Score:5, Interesting)
I seem to once remember hearing another example of nanostructures finding their way into cells easily, and it didn't go well for the cell, in the longer run. I certainly hope they're doing extended life testing with this.
Most nano-particles don't transfect into cells (go actively into the cytoplasm itself). Generally, if there is cellular uptake, the nano-particles end up "in jail," trapped inside endosomes, and not actively in the cell's guts proper.
There are some materials that make for nice, rounded and non-cytotoxic nano-particles that can be functionalized and transfected into the cytoplasm. Such materials are the "Holy Grails" of drug delivery, cancer treatment, and diagnostics. I work on one of them...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Probably because it has a good chance of causing cancer. The mechanism sounds awfully like what happens with asbestos fibers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Please, disappoint me (Score:5, Informative)
How do you intend to use this to fight cancer? Yes, you might be able to use it as a delivery mechanism, but there's no easy way to differentiate cancer cells from regular cells. Nothing here jumps out as doing something different that's relevant. Most things we use on cancer (radiation, and chemo) work by differentiating between regular cells and cancer cells, generally using the fact that cancer cells are always reproducing. No aspect of this process has anything to do with cell reproduction.
One of your premises is wrong. Radiation therapy works because it kills more cancer cells than normal cells. due to the self-repair process being inhibited for cancer cells, likely because they spend the energy on reproducing. But we don't need to know which ones are which. We bathe the general area in radiation, which causes DNA damage, which the healthy cells repair much more than cancer cells do.
Any other treatment that could produce genetic damage to cells can similarly be used, with the dosage controlled to damage healthy cells no more than can be repaired.
Would this open for such a treatment? Possibly - possibly not. But it should not be dismissed summarily without further investigation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good expansion of how it works; how does it disagree with anything I said?
Treatments don't need to differentiate between cancer cells and healthy cells, which it looked like you used as a premise.
Re: (Score:2)
Mundane finding (Score:3)
Slashdot readers are technical people but are usually trained in the computer and engineering sciences. I'm a biochemist and I've been here since the beginning but I certainly do not come here for biological quality.
I perused the paper. It is in a good journal and it looks like some good work.
Single application question: how does phagocytosis of silicon nanowires differ in any significant way from good old run of the mill asbestos?
Answer: for those dreaming of a bioelectric interface I put forward that thes
Re: (Score:3)
Slashdot readers are technical people but are usually trained in the computer and engineering sciences. I'm a biochemist and I've been here since the beginning but I certainly do not come here for biological quality.
I perused the paper. It is in a good journal and it looks like some good work.
Single application question: how does phagocytosis of silicon nanowires differ in any significant way from good old run of the mill asbestos?
Answer: for those dreaming of a bioelectric interface I put forward that these silicon nanowires will cause cancer.
The authors do not address this and do not provide any experiment that would overcome this hurdle.
More specifically, you mean Mesothelioma and its relatives. Most cases are caused by asbestos, but only because we used it industrially and in our homes so widely. Broadly speaking, any sub-micron particles that (1) are anisotropic (sharp), and (2) that lack bio-solubility, will cause mesothelioma. The nano-particles act like little daggers that stay in your body forever, cutting back-and-forth as you move. Scar tissue builds up around them. Breathe, or in-take enough by other means, and it will happen
Wired reflexes? (Score:2)
Really? (Score:2)
Just like fish and sea mammals and birds eat 'naturally' the tiny pieces of plastic in the ocean.
Problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
They swallow them, but they don't break them down, which means that when the cell dies (which it will), the material goes on a second journey and so on.
Re: (Score:3)
They swallow them, but they don't break them down, which means that when the cell dies (which it will), the material goes on a second journey and so on.
Maybe, and maybe not. Dead cells' guts leave the body through the lymph system, among other routes. I don't think that the lymph ducts have an activee endothelial layer that will lead to up-take of rods from an apoptosed cell.
It is a good question to ask, and to consider. (Any biochemists out there that can shed some light on this?)
Interesting, but (Score:3)
Human cells also gobble up asbestos fibres, if I remember correctly. I would be interested in knowing what studies are being made to check out potential negative consequences - as well as, of course, what this research promisis.