Nanotech Living-Cell Treatment Medicine Tested In Rats

Brian Wang writes: "Precursors of the nanotech medical cures are being tested in rats. Mem capsules with 7 nm holes let out insulin from cells inside the capsule. The holes allow nutrients in to keep the cells alive but keep out the immune system cells to keep the cells alive. Since the cells and the capsules last basically the lifetime of the person, they are effectively a cure. They will take some years to go through long term small animal trials and then to monkey and finally to human trials. The technique can be applied to other diseases. Parkisons, hemophilia etc ..."

Comments

Money

[Man of E]

The article doesn't say anything about this, but I imagine this technology could mean fantastic savings for diabetics. A lifetime supply of Insulin is incredibly expensive, and this cure is bound to be cheaper, and more convenient.
Not to mention how great it is for Parkinson's and hemophilia, and anything else it might be applicable to.

This isn't a nanotech cure

[drinkypoo]

This is a nanotech package (As someone else pointed out, it's more like nano armor.) A nanotech cure would be using an actual nanomachine (not just a nano-structure) to either manufacture insulin, or repair the body to the point where it would do the job itself.

If you could make them either release or not release material on some sort of cue, they would make a dandy way to regulate brain chemistry. You'd need a sensing system and control unit, though.

Might be a good cure for viruses and bacteria

[Amon CMB]

I can imagine how future nanomachines would work. It wouldn't matter how much the viruses and bacteria evolved to avoid traditional antibiotics. Get a sample of the offending invader, program its profile into the nanomachines, send them on seek-and-destroy missions.

Wow... just curious...

[meridoc]

The researcher sounds like she's hit upon a great idea. I understand how usng small pores allows the escape of insulin, but how do small pores keep antibodies out? I thought antibodies had to use receptors to "recognize" cells. I suppose if there are no receptors on the nanoparticle's surface, it wouldn't be recognized.

Rats are a good first step, but larger animals will be much more difficult. I assume that since there's effectively no human control over the rate insulin is secreted, it remains at a constant level. What happens when the insulin runs out? Do you get another injection/infusion of capsules? What happens to the old capsules? What about fluctuating diets, which make blood sugar levels rise and fall?

Re:Wow... just curious...

[Man of E]

The diameter of the pores in these capsules is about 7nm. Insulin molecules are about 5nm, whereas antibodies are larger, more complicated proteins (10-30nm, usually). Antibodies can't recognize the foreign cells inside the nanoparticle because they can't get through the membrane shielding it from the outside.

Concerning your second question, I think the way blood sugar levels are naturally monitored is in the pancreas, by this same kind of cells. So I assume the cells inside the nanoparticle would maintain insulin levels at a constant rate, adjusting for fluctuating diets, just like a nondiabetic's pancreas. You wouldn't run out of insulin, because it's produced inside those cells; that is, once injected, you're cured for life.

Biocapsules safety not yet studied?

[Wills]

One issue that really stands out is the potential for these super-tough biocapsules to act as safe harbours for a dangerous infectious agent like a virus or prion. The hole diameter in these biocapsules is 7nm. Deadly prion particles capable of causing BSE (mad cow disease) readily slip through 7nm holes. Once a biocapsule is hosting a virus or prion the body's immune system is useless against the invader because it can't reach inside the biocapsule ("It's a challenging tightrope act because if the nanopores are too small, they can't let nutrients in, like sugars and oxygen, to keep the cells alive. But if they're too big, the antibodies can get in and kill the insulin cells", Desai said.)

No sane researcher would risk a bet against virii below the biocapsule's hole size (7nm) being found; years ago the smallest known virus was Hep.B (35nm), a few years ago it was Parvovirus (25nm), now it's Gemini (15nm).

The safety issues need thorough research. Academic research does not have to address safety issues, although most researchers do it as a matter of good practice at the pre-commercial stage which gives more time for potential problems to be identified and debated in the academic community. However Desai does not discuss safety issues in any of her three published papers on biocapsules. This omission is quite surprising because following the gene therapy tragedy at U.Pennsylvania universities have toughened the faculty guidelines and policies on a wide range of safety issues in medical research. Responsible publications have similarly tightened their refereeing policy. Like most referees I'd normally expect authors to address relevant safety issues in submitted papers, otherwise I'd recommend rejection.

Apparently Desai has a patent on biocapsules and is developing it into a therapy with a company called iMEDD in Columbus, Ohio. Obviously the FDA will ensure the technology goes thru safety testing (Phase 2 trials etc) to comply with FDA licensing requirements, but I hope the company actively encourages Desai to follow up and make good her omission of detailed safety research with publications in the academic literature (including safety-related work under NDAs).