Slashdot Mirror
Combining Nanotech and Radiology
Twilight1 writes "According to this article at CNN, researchers are testing a microscopic "smart bomb" to target, attack, and kill cancer cells. It's quite fascinating that they are using radioactive by-products from the production of nuclear power and weapons as the effective payload."
I saw this last night on @Discovery.ca, and it reminded me when I saw this on some TV show, this must of been my grade 6 (7 years ago).
I'm glad to see they finally have this in practical use.
I'm a big retard who forgot to log out of Slashdot on Mike's computer! LOOK AT ME.
Perhaps a biologist can answer a question I've had about this, which is also related I suppose to Chemotherapy.
What is the difference between a cancer cell and a "normal" cell? Why would radiation therapy tend to kill cancer cells faster than normal cells? The article mentions that they are concerned that normal cells might be affected, but they don't explain why it would favor cancer cells in the first place.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
Seriously, we just found the answer to storing some of our Nuclear Waste. We'll store it in our bodies. Nevermind it stays in the body -- even after it has done its job, and there is no way to insure that the right cell will be targeted!
I think I will stick to the other methods like Kemo and seed impants if I ever get cancer.
At the next eco-hypocrisy-meeting, count the private jets used to get to the meeting. Should be interesting to see that
i wonder if the fact the mice were glowing made sleep difficult?
I think that this is a very interesting venue in the treatment of cancer. Even though the radioactive atom "eventually becomes harmless and remains in the body," I still think it highly possible that this treatment may be nullified by the radiation emitted by the nanogenerators. Hopefully this is not the case, and we will have found an effective and non-harmful (minimally so, at least) treatment for cancer.
Just like how a certain percentage of people don't respond at all to Chemotherapy, it would be interesting to see what percentage of people respond positively to this once it becomes available.
Of course, the first problem with cancer is that in a large majority of cases, by the time the cancer is discovered, it has spread throughout the body far too much to be effectively treated. Even with this promising technique, early detection is still the best hope for many people.
How does it know the difference between cancer cells and normal cells?
Finally they found something to do with all that nuclear waste besides burying it like cats in a giant sandbox.
Vote early. Vote often. Vote CowboyNeal.
I've been wondering this for some time. Cancer cells are cells which multiply indefinatly, as opposed to normal cells, which only multiply for a specified amoutn of time, and then die off (with the exception of stem cells). Correct? Ok. Well' if I am right so far, can someone tell me why more research isn't going into controlling cancer, rather than destroying it? Like, I would think, if you could start and stop the cancer effect at will, you could live forever. Am I totally off base?
They are held together in the same way that magnets can stick together -- the isotope has a positive charge and the molecular cage has a negative charge.
Magnets do not stick together because one has a positive charge and the other has a negative charge. I learned this in third grade science.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
Ooops, my nanorobot is malfunctioning and killing me from the inside out. Could you send a tech out? What? Monday is the earliest? I *GUESS* I could wait....
Each cage is linked to an antibody. Antibodies are raised against a particular molecule, such as some section of protein in a pollen coat. Most likely, the antibody linked to the cage binds some molecule that is expressed by cancer cells much more than normal cells.
There are two reasons this particular therapy favors cancer cells over "normal cells"
First: the caged actinium-225 is attached to a monoclonal antibody. The antibody (or, in their case, 4 antibodies) binds very nicely to a specific receptor/molecule. Ideally, this receptor/molecule is ONLY found on cancer cells, and not on healthy cells. In practice, this isn't ever the case - but there are a number of receptors which are more prevalent on cancer cells than normal cells. There are a couple of FDA approved anti-cancer treatments which make use of monoclonal antibodies (such as Mylotarg and Herceptin).
Second: Why does radiation kill cancer cells faster than normal cells? Well - 'radiation' does bad things to DNA - it can cause strand breaks, or base-pair dimer formation. These sorts of things happen all the time in cells, and they have a number of repair mechanisms to take care of just these sorts of problems, if they have enough time (and the damage isn't too severe). In cancer, cells are typically dividing as fast as they possibly can, since the normal regulatory checkpoints which govern cell division are often missing or damaged. Often, cancerous cells will even have problems with their DNA repair mechanisms. So - the repair mechanisms don't have time to fix the damage before the cell replicates its DNA or divides. The result of faulty or incomplete DNA synthesis is unpredictable, but often bad - in other words, the cell dies.
By the way, the journal article can be found here.
Using unconcentrated radiation to kill cancer cells makes about as much sense as using a firecracker for a candle.
Cheers,
Bowie J. Poag
id hate to have one of those things eat me from the inside......
,
faeryman
Thaer has to be something to this radiation therapy. Mr Burns is like 150 years old and never had cancer.
The idea of finding cancer cells with custom protiens which would bind only/mostly with matching site protiens on the cancer cell is not new. Does anyone know if this approach has had significanly better success than previous attempts to stick 'stuff' near the cancer?
Is it just me, or are these biologists a terribly orderly bunch?
Alpha emitters are great for this kind of work, because alpha particles have a high interaction cross section once they're inside the body. That concentrates their damage in a small space. (You can handle blocks of alpha-decay material without hazard, because the alpha particles plough into your epidermis and stop there, wreaking terrible damage on ... tissue that's already dead.)
I bopped on over to one of the online charts of the nuclides to check out the decay chain of Ac-225. Indeed, the next two daughters are alpha-emitters, but the first one, Fr-221, has a 5-minute half-life. That ought to give it plenty of time to get ducted around into your bloodstream and into the rest of your body before emitting the next two alphas and a couple of beta particles, eventually transmuting to stable Bismuth.
So the developers aren't being quite candid when they say that the daugter alpha particles could inflict additional damage on the tumor. Sure, they could -- but (with the antibody bonds long since broken by the recoil from the initial decay) that atom could end up anywhere in your body before decaying again.
This stuff is interesting -- I used to make radioactive saline at the Reed Reactor Facility for medical uses, so I poked around the chart of the nuclides to see how one would make Ac-225. Ideally, you want to start with a nice, stable (or at least long-lived) element, kick a neutron into it (by lowering the ore into a nuclear reactor), and let it turn into what you want via a series of rapid decays. (That's one way to make the Americium 241 in smoke detectors; I'll leave the source element as an exercise for the reader). But Ac-225 doesn't seem to have any such nice precursor decay paths with short half-lives. The half-life is short enough that you wouldn't want to get it from spent fuel (too `hot' until after the Ac-225 is gone!), so I'm not entirely sure how you'd make it.
Just as an aside:
Chemotherapeutics (at least, some anthracyclines) not only muck around with DNA, but can lead to free radical generation & can damage cellular membrane components.
They're nasty, nasty molecules.
I work at the National Cancer Institute and figured I'd give my personal scientific view (not official, since I'd get flayed for doing that).
While the research *is* interesting there are a lot of caveats. The article specified that this technique has been successful in treating a broad range of cancers. In culture. This means there's cells in a flask with medium and they add the agent to the medium. This means the cancers are definitely coming in contact. In a human system, this may not be the case. An intravenous injection may not service tumors embedded in tissues. Especially brain tumors because of the blood-brain barrier.
Another caveat. Nearly every system of targetted therapeutics involving antibodies has failed in humans, despite any remarkable results in mice. Several other wildly successful therapeutics in mice (angiogenesis inhibitors for example) are only modestly successful in humans.
Models, be they mouse or cell culture, do not carry over terrifically well to 'in the wild' cancers in humans. Entirely possible that these treatments will have some benefit for certain cases. On the whole, this isn't the "smart bomb" or "cure for cancer" the media portrays. Unfortunately, the AP doesn't report the caveats. Also, as of yesterday, I wasn't able to find any reference to this study in medical literature. I suspect that the moment the journal it was submitted to accepted the paper, a publicist was on the phone with the press. Accordingly, the media story is in the hands of the public before the peer reviewed article is.
Just another case of wait and see. I hope for the best, but don't expect it (sorry guys).
Ciao, C.Sc.
For those who didn't read the article, the deal is a chemical cage binding actinium-225, keyed to a certain protein. Deliver to cells, cage unlocked by matching protein strain, single actinium atom decays shooting off aplha particles, killing the offending cell and maybe a couple of its neighbors. If the "collateral damage" is managable, this may actually be a cure. A CURE for cancer. This is awesome. Its been tested both in mice, with against mousy cancer cells, and against human cancer cells in mice. There's no reason to expect that it wouldn't work in humans. This is very good news.
Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
"The ring holds the atom in the center like a hula hoop containing a basketball," said Scheinberg.
Have you ever seen Micheal Jordan do that trick were he spins a basketball around inside of a hula hoop?
No? That's because it's damn hard!
Actually, this sounds like a nifty application of technology. Even if the device has targetting capabilities to rival the US missles that blew up the hospitals in Afghanistan (wink), it'll probably do less damage to normal cells than chemo.
If nanomachines are built that would actually go into the bloodstream or whatever, seek and destroy cancer cells, that would be one of the most amazing advances in human technology that will simultaneously benefit modern medicine and just about every field on Earth.
Maybe one day, they'll invent machines that go into your body, swim around and kill things like the flu. Or perhaps drill through plaque in peoples' arteries to prevent heart attacks. Or who knows what else.
Of course, then the military will start experimenting with nanomachines that wreak havoc on someone's body, and then it'll probably get copied by some other country, and as a result, our military will build nanomachines that seek out and destroy other nanomachines, and so will the other folks, and next thing you know, there are nanowars going on inside peoples' bodies.
Well, what can I say? There's an advantage and disadvantage to everything. Oh well.
It seems like a lot of the harmful side effects come from using actinium-225, which self-decays, not necessarily waiting until it has accumulated in it's targeted host. I wonder if they could use boron instead, which is fairly inert, and a beam of neutrons to accomplish the same task.
Back in my college co-op days, I worked at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory in Reactor Design. Down the hall they were doing brain tumor studies on rats treated with a technique called BNCT: Boron Neutron Capture Therapy. The theory was to inject a water soluble boron compound into the body. Water soluble molecules do not pass well through the "blood-brain barrier", therefore, will not easily pass into healthy nerve cells. They do, however, accumulate in cancer tissues. Boron is nice because it is fairly inert until it interacts with neutrons and breaks down into alpha particles and non-threatening elements. So the theory was that the Boron would accumulate in the tumors and they could then bombard the tumor with neutrons, producing an explosion of alpha radiation... no more tumor. I didn't work on this project, and I'm not sure what became of it.... I think this technique may be used in other countries.
I think the nice thing about the current technique is the ability to target specific proteins. I wonder if a boron/neutron might have an additional advantage - unlike actinium which would decay over time (like the oven on "warm", the boron approach would be more immediate. Think "broil".
You idiots.
You totally missed the point.
The element in use is actinium. The particular isotope decays rapidly, and leaves no left over damaging radiation, so this whole 'polluting our bodies with nuclear waste' crap is out of line.
As far as it not know which cells are the right cells, wrong again. Ever heard of monoclonal antibodies? Did you read the article and do a little research before you responded? no. So shut the hell up.
The buckyball-like cage prevents radiation from harming cells that don't exactly match the monoclonal attachment, i.e. normal cells aren't targeted.
I do not respond to cowards. Especially anonymous ones.
It think it is slightly premature to hail this as the cure for cancer. The problem is without a subscrition we can't even get to the Science magazine website. I'd love to peruse the article but i think it needs registration, and the free version seems to only give abstracts. We don't have proper figures on their tests so there's no way we can individually verify what the article is saying.
The treatment may work on mice but its no guarantee it will work on humans - major clinical trials (which take a long time) would need to be done before the public could get to a treatment. The CNN article is a bit sketchy on details, but it did point out this fact. Thalidomide is an example of treatment which worked in lab experiments but went on to cause chaos with mothers who used it (their babies were born deformed).
Another issue is how it targets cells - it's no good if it targets healthy cells as well. However chemotherapy and radiotherapy also have this side effect so if it kills less cells and is succesful in killing the cancer cells it should be used. But as i said more information (i.e. free access to the original article) would be nice so we could make a more informed opinion on this article.
If you get overexposed to radiation, you can form cancer. If the isotope did target the wrong cell, could it cause cancer in it, worsening the problem?
Just a small quibble:
First: the article was published in Science and is available here.
And you're very right in pointing out that of the vast number of antibody-directed cancer therapies mentioned in the literature, almost all have failed in people. However, there are a few successes - Mylotarg, Ontak, Herceptin, and Rituxan spring to mind. In fact, the Herceptin antibody was one of the antibodies used in this study - which increases the odds of clinical relevance.
Hasta.
Radiology is sad people in dark rooms looking at Xrays.
Radiotherapy is shining rays at sad people with cancer.
Please mod up the parent.
I looked at the articles and this message has probably the best information of any post so far.
Do you think we could refrain from using the nano prefix, especially when it doesn't even apply. I am so tired of hearing about nano-technology. Am I the only one that noticed that "Combining Nanotech and Radiology" and "microscopic smart bomb" are a slight contradiction? Only three orders of magnitude! But, I guess when you are addicted to throwing around the "nano" buzzword you might as well ignore reality. Arrrgggg.. Sorry, but 'nano' just gets under my skin.
The idea of weapon usage for this just went through my head, so I decided to post a little 'mini-article' about it (notice it is now 4 am...)
;)
Notice this does not mean I object to this technology, just thinking of putting in something new for discussion:
First of all, you ask, how can this be a weapon? I am reffering to the nanotechnology robot combined with the cancer-cell-seeking-molecule. These can be built in different ways to be offensive.
This first and interesting way would be to make the molecule act only in response to some other molecule (hormone or other) or DNA strand (although that probably won't be effective as DNA strands are not common outside the cell, and the thing doesn't enter the cell unless the binding molecule is active). This would allow this technology to be used as an ethnic weapon: discover a protein built only by 'colored people', and target it. Distribute the composure around (I think even bin Laden doesn't have enough money to make effective doses of this) and vwalla: colored people get cancer (or maybe the robot should emit cyanide molecules?)
Advantages on this part?
I'm not sure how well this nanotechnology is built, but it might prove a poison better-built than normal chemical poisons, and which the attacker has perfect anti-dote to.
Why would this be used? (for crying out loud?)
1. Weapon research in shape of 'regular' research: an underdeveloped country could get millions on millions of dollars to cure breast cancer among it's population, and use nanotechnology facilites built for it to develop weapons.
2. To target certain targets: ethnic weapons, as said above, created by insane but powerful people to promote some twisted philosophy
3. By mistake: normal nanotechnology 'cure' gone a bit awry attacking wrong cells, or other.
Major points as to wether or not this is feasible:
1. Targeting - can this 'weapon' be targeted properly? Or does it have to be injected straight into the 'target'?
2. Power - can something like this be a real killer? how much of a 'killer droid' would be a lethal dose?
3. Feasible as distribution: can it infiltrate the body from water? food? air/touch? can it survive days/weeks/years in operating condition? Can it exit an attacked body and attack another? (man having cells killed extracting cells with the weapon to sewage, where they go attacking again)
4. Unavoidable - can such an 'infestation' be dealt with easily? by heating/cooling/treating with chemical/building antidote/suing the company who made them
To conclude, this technology looks great. I sincerely believe there is a 'fast-cure' for cancer (as the problem seems simple, enginerringly speaking.). This solution seems excelent.
The discussion about using this as weapon technology existed long before this post or this usage for nanotechnology - it existed since nanotechnology and biology were combined.
I believe in building this technology. I just wondered what others think about the possibility of this turning into a weapon
"If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck but takes a cab instead of walking like a duck, it's simply a snobby duck. shoot it"
My other
"...researchers are testing a microscopic "smart bomb" to target, attack, and kill cancer cells."
I just hope they can tell the difference between my organs and say a Chinese Embassy, or Red Cross Center.
Getting diabetes AND salmonella would be a bad weekend.
I have been an X-ray mechanic for 12 years, and I would like to correct the title of this article. It should read Combining Nanotech and Oncology. Oncolgy is the treatment of cancer using radiation, and Radiology is the use of Radiation for diagnostic purposes such as cat scanners and nuclear medicine. I actually don't work on machines any more and spend most of my time working with diagnostic imaging networks. There is alot of cool stuff going on these days.
Slashdot rules !!
Pacman
is that radiation at one level is used to kill cancer, but at another level is able to create cancer. Just felt like saying that. Thank you.
I know I've got a sig around here somewhere...
Nanogenerators?? good grief. The scientists involved seem to be taking quite a bit of license to make it appealing to the general public. The radioactive atom doesn't 'power' anything.
Radiation therapy (along with chemotherapy) is really a brute force method for dealing with cancer. You use radiation or chemicals to kill cells. It just happens that the cancer cells get killed off faster than normal cells.
The principle of radioimmunotherapy (tagging antibodies with radiactive elements) has been around for quite some time now. The only new and revolutionary part of this particular project seems to be that the radioactivity is encased in a buckyball which is tagged to the antibody. I suspect this is to help keep the activity attached to the antibody. One of the major problems with existing tags is that the radioactive decay breaks the bonds attaching the atoms to the antibody so you end up with a bunch of free radioactivity floating around the body instead of attached to the antibody.
"For I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and Long Words Bother Me"
There are additional reasons (besides targeting of radiation and susceptability of dividing cells to DNA damage due to activation of otherwise-idle genes) for cancer cells to be more susceptable to radiaion damage.
Because cancer cells are dividing all the time, they tend to be less robust than other cells. Many therapies (including some of the earlier chemotherapy regimens) take advantage of this by poisoning cells ALMOST to the point of death - which pushes cancer cells over the edge. (An exception to this rule is Melanoma, which gets extra energy as a side-effect of making the brown pigment Melanin. This makes it STRONGER than the typical cell.)
Radiation therapy can provoke some of the further-damaged cancer cells into triggering an immune reaction against both themselves and their still-undamaged-but-cancerous neighbors.
========
It's nice to see that the monoclonal-antibody-attached-to-local-poison approach is getting into the field. But I'd like to know what happened to:
- Monoclonal antibodies plus radio-iodine for Melanoma. (Sounds like this is the same stunt further tuned, with a different radioactive element for more localized effect.)
- Monoclonal antibodies plus a catalytic poison from a bacterial toxin. (I don't recall the exact toxin used. But it worked by destroying all the copies of one of the enzymes that attached a particular amino-acid to its T-RNA, shutting down protein synthesys. One molecule, one dead cell. And the molecule ended up inside the cell when the cell recycled the part of the surface with the antibody attached. Perhaps that had a variable effectiveness depending on what the antibody targeted. Radiation works from OUTSIDE too, even if you need a lot more copies of it.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
So you'll get somebody with WAY to much adrenal function, or some pituitary hormone going berzerk. Most cancers don't work this way, but specific types do.
Hardware, software, and blinking lights!
A nice, inexpensive piece of equipment running an OS that looks like PalmOS but doesn't actually run Palm apps...
I'm a big fan of Linux, but why would I want this instead of kicking a few bucks extra and actually getting a Palm device?
I'm serious here; my Visor does what I want it to, does this solve some problem that existing PDAs don't? It seems like sort of a tough sell, especially when the device has only 15 apps.