Artificial Leaf Produces First Drugs Using Sunlight (newatlas.com) 34
An anonymous reader quotes a report from New Atlas: Making artificial versions of the humble leaf has been an ongoing area of research for decades and in a new breakthrough, researchers from the Eindhoven University of Technology (TUE) have fine-tuned their artificial leaf design and used it to produce drugs for the first time. Natural leaves are clever little machines. They collect sunlight, and that energy is then used by chlorophyll molecules to power a chemical reaction that turns CO2 and water into glucose. The plant uses this glucose for energy, and expels oxygen as a waste product. Artificial leaves are designed to mimic this process. They're made of translucent materials that allow sunlight in and direct it towards tiny microfluidic channels running through the material like veins. A certain liquid is flowing through these channels, and the idea is that the energy from the sunlight triggers a chemical reaction in that liquid, turning it into something useful like a drug or fuel.
The new artificial leaf design from TUE builds on the team's previous prototype, presented in 2016. Back then, the device was made of silicon rubber, but in the new version that's been replaced with Plexiglas for several reasons. [The material is cheaper and easier to manufacturer in larger quantities, has a higher refractive index, and can contain more types of light-sensitive molecules.] The leaf has started to earn its keep, too. The team put it to the test and found that it was able to successfully produce two different drugs: artimensinin, which is effective against malaria, and ascaridole, which is used against certain parasitic worms. Given its small size and scalability, the team says that the artificial leaf could eventually be used to produce drugs and other molecules right where they're needed. The research was published in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
The new artificial leaf design from TUE builds on the team's previous prototype, presented in 2016. Back then, the device was made of silicon rubber, but in the new version that's been replaced with Plexiglas for several reasons. [The material is cheaper and easier to manufacturer in larger quantities, has a higher refractive index, and can contain more types of light-sensitive molecules.] The leaf has started to earn its keep, too. The team put it to the test and found that it was able to successfully produce two different drugs: artimensinin, which is effective against malaria, and ascaridole, which is used against certain parasitic worms. Given its small size and scalability, the team says that the artificial leaf could eventually be used to produce drugs and other molecules right where they're needed. The research was published in the journal Angewandte Chemie.
Love that phrasing (Score:2)
A Certain Liquid, huh? A... Certain... Liquid ?
Glad they cleared that up for us.
Technological salvation has repeatedly worked (Score:2, Insightful)
technological salvation is a faith based proposition... not gonna out do Nature...
Our repeated avoidance of malthusian disasters through science and engineering proves you mistaken.
Nature may often be more efficient with respect to the means of production but science and engineering are often better at producing the items that satisfy our needs and wants.
Re:Technological salvation has repeatedly worked (Score:4, Insightful)
technological salvation is a faith based proposition... not gonna out do Nature...
Our repeated avoidance of malthusian disasters through science and engineering proves you mistaken.
I've never been hit by a baseball, therefore that proves I will never be hit by a baseball. Amazing how many people spout this same old same old. Malthus was wrong, therefore Malthus will always be wrong.
Malthus was wrong about the impact of technology.
You and the other deniers are wrong about the idea that the earth can support infinite numbers of people because Malthus was wrong in his calculations. You can only repeat the technology advances so many times.
Caveat - one way to prove him almost forever wrong will be to convert humans to energy and directly harvest their needs from stars. Filling the universe with our beings.
But as Homer Simpson once said "In this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!"
Re: (Score:2)
Survival comes first, truth, understanding, and science later... In other words, you do not need science to survive (we’ve done it for several hundred million years) , but you need to survive to do science. [medium.com]
And yet, almost all creatures that ever existed have gone extinct.
We're pretty smart, but I would never claim that humanity will beat those odds.
My own analysis tells me we'll probably gleefully kill ourselves off. Even then, between altering our environment in a fatal way, or our own meteoric impact demise, or just accidentally break a Malthusian limit where our technology proves insufficient.
We ain't immortal, folks
- A. Lincoln, Vampire Hunter
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, almost all creatures that ever existed have gone extinct.
The big extinction events were probably caused by some extraterrestrial cataclysms
Very possibly. Those issues have not disappeared.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet, almost all creatures that ever existed have gone extinct. We're pretty smart, but I would never claim that humanity will beat those odds.
Which of those creatures learned how to venture into space and access resources beyond earth? Zero.
Only one species has that emerging capability and that will radically changes the odds.
My own analysis tells me we'll probably gleefully kill ourselves off. Even then, between altering our environment in a fatal way, ...
Science and engineering is too often only associated with one side of that topic. Yes it has caused the current climate change problem but it also may offer solutions. Not just the technology of renewable and green power sources but carbon extraction and sequestration or climate engineering to cool the earth.
... or our own meteoric impact demise, ...>
This assumes
Re: (Score:2)
My own analysis tells me we'll probably gleefully kill ourselves off. Even then, between altering our environment in a fatal way, ...
Science and engineering is too often only associated with one side of that topic. Yes it has caused the current climate change problem but it also may offer solutions. Not just the technology of renewable and green power sources but carbon extraction and sequestration or climate engineering to cool the earth.
Science is great. I'm really pro science to what some consider a fault. My main concerns are with humans themselves. There are periods of time when it seems that our limbic systems are in control of large swaths of humanity.
It's an old expression, but science is neither good nor evil. It just is . The moral aspects of science are solely what people do with it.
And yet, almost all creatures that ever existed have gone extinct. We're pretty smart, but I would never claim that humanity will beat those odds.
Only one species has that emerging capability and that will radically changes the odds.
Your optimism is actually pretty cool. But it seems to be trying to push me into some weird "anti-you" statements.
The concept of Humanity no longer
Re: (Score:2)
Only one species has that emerging capability and that will radically changes the odds.
Your optimism is actually pretty cool. But it seems to be trying to push me into some weird "anti-you" statements.
No. I am just debunking the notion that Malthus merely got the timeframe wrong, that humanity is doomed because we will eventually exceed the earth's capacity. We now have an accessible external source of resources, new territory to expand into, etc. That Malthus' argument is becoming obsolete because the conditions he predicated his logic upon have changed. It has little to nothing to do with the nature of humanity. It has to do with new access to resources and territory.
The concept of Humanity no longer needing earth
No. Not "no longer needing earth",
Re: (Score:2)
Only one species has that emerging capability and that will radically changes the odds.
Your optimism is actually pretty cool. But it seems to be trying to push me into some weird "anti-you" statements.
No. I am just debunking the notion that Malthus merely got the timeframe wrong, that humanity is doomed because we will eventually exceed the earth's capacity. We now have an accessible external source of resources, new territory to expand into, etc. That Malthus' argument is becoming obsolete because the conditions he predicated his logic upon have changed. It has little to nothing to do with the nature of humanity. It has to do with new access to resources and territory.
Can I get a statement from you that Malthus' theorum is wrong, and will always be wrong?
Re: (Score:2)
No. I am just debunking the notion that Malthus merely got the timeframe wrong, that humanity is doomed because we will eventually exceed the earth's capacity. We now have an accessible external source of resources, new territory to expand into, etc. That Malthus' argument is becoming obsolete because the conditions he predicated his logic upon have changed. It has little to nothing to do with the nature of humanity. It has to do with new access to resources and territory.
Can I get a statement from you that Malthus' theorum is wrong, and will always be wrong?
Its more that the conditions upon which Mathus' theorem is based no longer hold. He did not anticipate an external source of resources nor territory. A quite reasonable assumption of his era but nonetheless a serious flaw. Science and technology undid the predictions based upon his logic. Science and technology have undone the underlying assumptions of his logic. He of course could not predict such technological developments but his logic in nonetheless restricted to an era we are now in the process of leav
Re: (Score:2)
Another way of saying this is that his logic is correct for the model he used for the system. But this underlying model was incorrect and renders the resulting logic flawed.
It's pretty obvious that you put the chances of humanity spreading to the stars at 100 percent.
Okay - I have no applicable argument for that, because the universe is a pretty big place, and the goalposts are infinitely moveable.
Let's just say that I do not place 100 percent certainty in homo astrum. I mean maybe, but your level of certainty isn't remotely scientific, it's more like faith.
Re: (Score:2)
Another way of saying this is that his logic is correct for the model he used for the system. But this underlying model was incorrect and renders the resulting logic flawed.
It's pretty obvious that you put the chances of humanity spreading to the stars at 100 percent.
Not the stars, that requires too much speculation regarding future technology. Rather to the solar system where the technology is currently emerging. Again, humans continuously in orbit since 2000. Robotic probes on the moon and mars (and venus but that's a bit off-topic). Exploratory flights past all the other planets. Roboitic probes landing on asteroids. Missions planned to "prospect" asteroids for mineral content and commercialization. Lunar exploration to locate ice (i.e. air, water, and fuel). Space 2
Malthus can be perpetually wrong ... (Score:2)
technological salvation is a faith based proposition... not gonna out do Nature...
Our repeated avoidance of malthusian disasters through science and engineering proves you mistaken.
I've never been hit by a baseball, therefore that proves I will never be hit by a baseball.
Interesting moving of the goalpost. If your analogy were true to the GP it would have said you can't dodge the baseball that *is* heading straight towards you. My point is such pessimism is provably mistaken. Furthermore the notion that you can not dodge is much more an article of faith than it is possible to dodge.
Amazing how many people spout this same old same old. Malthus was wrong, therefore Malthus will always be wrong.
That's a misrepresentation of what those many people actually claim, quite a distortion of their position actually. What those many people claim is that science and engineering are powerful tools
Why? (Score:2)
Since many plants already produce with genetic engineering we can modify natural plants to produce other chemistry, why would we waste the energy and resources to support an artificial ecosystem? Insulin was produced from e. coili to get control of a critical chemical and to produce precisely the same protein as human insulin, but it's proven vastly more expensive and of no notable medical benefit. What, precisely, is the motivation except perhaps extraordinarily expensive patents? Is it to get better contr
Re: (Score:2)
The first cars were steam driven. They were labor intensive, expensive and went slower than walking speed.
Should we have stopped developing cars at that point, because walking was easier, cheaper and faster?
Re: (Score:2)
The first cars were steam driven. They were labor intensive, expensive and went slower than walking speed. Should we have stopped developing cars at that point, because walking was easier, cheaper and faster?
I dunno about you, but I'm sure glad technology moved us past woodburning computers.
Your point is valid - I just couldn't resist being a smartass.
Re: (Score:2)
We could have done well without the internal combustion engine, by evolving steam engines further.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
While genetic research has its merits, this research has its merits as well. With genetic engineering, you basically take an existing organism and tweak it. This may work, but may not be the best solution. With this in-depth research to the working of photosynthesis, it might be possible to overcome more restrictions posed by the host organism that would have been used in genetic engineering. Also, all organisms die, but a system like this might be maintained and kept productive for a longer time.
In short, I think this research is really interesting.
Re: (Score:2)
While genetic research has its merits, this research has its merits as well. With genetic engineering, you basically take an existing organism and tweak it. This may work, but may not be the best solution. With this in-depth research to the working of photosynthesis, it might be possible to overcome more restrictions posed by the host organism that would have been used in genetic engineering. Also, all organisms die, but a system like this might be maintained and kept productive for a longer time.
In short, I think this research is really interesting.
Orbiting synthetic "leaves"? Oxygen and energy production for spacecraft? Doggone straight it's interesting!
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Since many plants already produce with genetic engineering we can modify natural plants to produce other chemistry
This could do with a little editing...
... why would we waste the energy and resources to support an artificial ecosystem?
Simplification of production, extraction and purification are just three reasons I can immediately think of off the top of my head.
Insulin was produced from e. coili to get control of a critical chemical and to produce precisely the same protein as human insulin, but it's proven vastly more expensive and of no notable medical benefit.
Insulin is being produced commercially, in yeast and bacteria, to this day. Not only is it considerably cheaper than sourcing it from animals, such as cows, it is also more convenient for industrial scales of production, easier to purify, and so on. It is also medically safer, as there's virtually no risk of an allergic reaction to it. Where exactly do you get your misinformation from?
What, precisely, is the motivation except perhaps extraordinarily expensive patents?
Patents expire. The method, not to mention the thrill of discovering something new, is eternal...
Is it to get better control of chemistry that will avoid current legislation as sports performance boosters or new, more easily pre-engineered intoxicants? Because I'm afraid I don't see the market for ordinary medical pharmacology, the prices will be multiplied by the new patents.
Better control of chemistry is a goal in itself, independent of the uses to which the method is eventually put. Dismissing research in a field you apparently know little about because you can't see a reason for it, or can't see the financial returns, doesn't really diminish the value of the research, I'm afraid to say. Perhaps you might be better served trying to regain your sense of wonder, rather than raging at a changing world...
Re: (Score:2)
My first line did need editing.
"human" insulin is, at the ver best prices, 3 times the cost of animal harvested produced insulin and has no medical benefit.It is typically closer to 10 times the cost, at roughly $300/bottle. That bottle lasts a Type 1 diabetic less than a month.
> it is also more convenient for industrial scales of production
This is complete nonsense. Insulin was harvested, wholesale, at the slaughterhouse, not particularly cultured. the ludicrous of its culturing with E. Coli means that
Re: (Score:2)
"human" insulin is, at the ver best prices, 3 times the cost of animal harvested produced insulin and has no medical benefit.It is typically closer to 10 times the cost, at roughly $300/bottle. That bottle lasts a Type 1 diabetic less than a month.
Perhaps you might like to take a look at this article [thetimes.co.uk] or the first reply to this question [diabetes.co.uk] before making statements about costs like that. The fact you 'might' have to pay that much has little to nothing to do with the cost of production. I'll also point out that Walmart sells a bottle of insulin for $25. By your own figures, if $300 / bottle is 10 times the cost of animal insulin then Walmart's 'unbranded' synthetic is even cheaper still.
I will also reiterate that animal derived insulin does, albeit in admi
Artificial Dutch "Leaf" (Score:2)
Maybe these leaves can produce THC . . . ? What a breakthrough! Leaves that yield THC!
The next time I visit Holland I will trot on into a "leaf" shop and ask, "Hey y'all . . . ya' got any Artificial Dutch "Leaf". . . ?"
Bullshit summary (Score:5, Interesting)
These artificial leaves did *NOT* "produce" drugs. It was just shown that they can perform a *single* photooxidation step on a complex, externally synthesized and provided precursor molecule. They can execute a *single* reaction from the sequence of dozens needed to build the drug molecule from simple starting materials. And the standard versions of the in-leaf reactions can be executed in technical photoreactors in a much more controlled and scalable fashion. This is just a proof of concept, certainly interesting technology, but decades away from a possible production application.
Actually... it's even less. And a lot more. (Score:2)
Whoever came up with that leaf marketing scheme to push some possible pharma and fragrance industry funding towards the research should be either flailed or praised.
On one hand it completely overhypes the actual research...
On the other it is obviously a very eyeball-catchy-brain-graspy for people who know fuckall about chemistry, photocatalysis or Luminescent Solar Concentrators. [wikipedia.org]
But kinda know how photosynthesis works... in a "I remember that from elementary school" kinda way.
In actuality... it is a study o
Re: (Score:2)
Can we add this onto solar panels? (Score:2)
Plexiglas sucks (Score:2)
Plexiglas is acrylic, and acrylic plastic is lousy. It's fairly brittle even when it's brand new. These days we use denser polycarbonates like Lexan. Acrylic is supposed to be more UV resistant than polycarbonates, but we can make UV resistant PCs.
Unless you need UV you should probably just use glass, though.
And hey, you know what other kinds of trees produce drugs? Actual trees. Just plant a fucking tree.