Slashdot Mirror
DNA Computer Detects, Treats Disease
Arthur Dent '99 writes "According to this article at Reuters, Israeli scientists at the Weizmann Institute have developed a DNA computer which can automatically detect and treat prostate cancer and a form of lung cancer in laboratory experiments. Theoretically, a person could be injected with this computer, and it would detect and treat any diseased cells at the earliest stages of development, perhaps preventing the disease altogether."
...what happens if the computer gets a virus?
Would be a bit hard to swallow. I hope it's at least one of those small form factor [i.e. shuttle PC] designs.
But wouldn't this make the concept of a computer virus horrifying?
Thats quite a step up from "Hello World!"
Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
...developed a DNA computer which can automatically detect and treat prostate cancer
That computer had damn well be running a stable version of Linux if it is operating on/near/in my colon!
Somehow knowing that a Windows machine could give me the "brown screen of death" doesn't sit easy with me!
Is Dennis Quaid driving it?
---
There's a fine line between courage and foolishness. Too bad it's not a fence.
"That DNA computer you gave me got a virus."
Doctor says, "How do you know?"
"Because I have this obsession to mail everybody I know a vile spit... Here's a letter."
Sure it sounds great now to inject someone with the self correcting units, but what happens when they start to replicate out of control? introduce tiny snakes to eat them?
What it sounds like they've done is invented a very, very simplified cell. It doesn't have the ability to reproduce, and will probably get cleaned up by the immune system in short order.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
shove his finger up my ass
I'd hope they wouldn't put
the reset button there
i for one, welcome our new closed source gene modifying software overlords
By Patricia Reaney
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists have come a step closer to creating a minuscule DNA computer that may one day be able to spot diseases like cancer from inside the body and release a drug to treat it.
Professor Ehud Shapiro and researchers at Israel's Weizmann Institute constructed the world's smallest biomolecular computer a few years ago.
Now they have programmed it to analyse biological information to detect and treat prostate cancer and a form of lung cancer in laboratory experiments.
"We've taken our earlier molecular computer and augmented it with an input and output module. Together the computer can diagnose a disease and in response produce a drug for the disease in a test tube," Shapiro told Reuters.
The microscopic computer is so minuscule a trillion could fit in a drop of water. Its input, output and software are made up of DNA molecules -- which store and process encoded information about living organisms.
"Our work represents the first actual proof of concept and the first actual demonstration of a possible real-life application for this kind of computer," Shapiro added.
DIAGNOSING CANCER WITHIN THE CELL
The findings, which are published online by the science journal Nature and were presented at a symposium in Brussels, Belgium, could transform how diseases like cancer are treated in the future.
Instead of biopsies to remove cancerous tissue, which then must be analysed in the laboratory. The DNA computer could potentially diagnose the disease within the tissue in the body.
"Our medical computer might one day be administered as a drug, and be distributed throughout the body by the bloodstream to detect disease markers autonomously and independently in every cell," said Shapiro.
It could enable doctors to treat cancer in its earliest stages before tumours have formed and to deliver drugs to hard-to-reach cells if the disease has spread to other parts of the body.
Different inputs could be used to detect other diseases.
"It could work for any illness for which there is a particular pattern of over-expression or under-expression of genes which is characteristic for the disease," according to Shapiro.
He readily admits that a DNA computer roaming around the body spotting and treating disease is still a long way away.
"There are many, many hurdles. It could take decades," Shapiro said, adding that he and his colleagues had not expected to accomplish this step so quickly.
The double helix molecule of DNA that contains human genes stores data on four chemical bases -- known by the letters A, T, C and G -- giving it massive memory capability.
Shapiro's DNA computer is a molecular model of one of the simplest computing machines -- the automaton, which can answer certain yes or no questions.
It uses enzymes, which manipulate DNA, as the computer's hardware. The computer is preprogrammed with medical information and detects markers, or concentrations of certain molecules of RNA (a cousin of DNA) which are overproduced or underproduced to detect the cancer.
If the markers signify a disease, the output releases a molecule similar to an anti-cancer drug to destroy the cancerous cells.
Leonard Adleman, of the University of Southern California, pioneered the field of DNA computers a decade ago by using DNA in a test tube to solve a mathematical problem.
Man (shudders), what would the injection DEVICE look like.
Bend over, here comes big daddy computer. ack.
No it isn't, but since you're having trouble:
LONDON (Reuters) - Scientists have come a step closer to creating a minuscule DNA computer that may one day be able to spot diseases like cancer from inside the body and release a drug to treat it.
Professor Ehud Shapiro and researchers at Israel's Weizmann Institute constructed the world's smallest biomolecular computer a few years ago.
Now they have programmed it to analyse biological information to detect and treat prostate cancer and a form of lung cancer in laboratory experiments.
"We've taken our earlier molecular computer and augmented it with an input and output module. Together the computer can diagnose a disease and in response produce a drug for the disease in a test tube," Shapiro told Reuters.
The microscopic computer is so minuscule a trillion could fit in a drop of water. Its input, output and software are made up of DNA molecules -- which store and process encoded information about living organisms.
"Our work represents the first actual proof of concept and the first actual demonstration of a possible real-life application for this kind of computer," Shapiro added.
DIAGNOSING CANCER WITHIN THE CELL
The findings, which are published online by the science journal Nature and were presented at a symposium in Brussels, Belgium, could transform how diseases like cancer are treated in the future.
Instead of biopsies to remove cancerous tissue, which then must be analysed in the laboratory. The DNA computer could potentially diagnose the disease within the tissue in the body.
"Our medical computer might one day be administered as a drug, and be distributed throughout the body by the bloodstream to detect disease markers autonomously and independently in every cell," said Shapiro.
It could enable doctors to treat cancer in its earliest stages before tumours have formed and to deliver drugs to hard-to-reach cells if the disease has spread to other parts of the body.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
Just because he doesn't have to doesn't mean he won't. :-)
My Movies
Would it release some kind of drug that damages regular cells?
I know it's not supposed to happen, but cancer isn't supposed to happen in the first place either...
AT&ROFLMAO
Thank god they didn't invent this earlier! Injecting computers... shit, computers used to be huge! Now they'd just be sticking a midi-tower into your stomach...
Oh wait, that's going to explain the size of the average geek; they've been onto this for years!
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
"Hal, please open my bladder sphincter."
"Sorry, Dave, I can't do that."
*pop!* *splotsh!*
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Yes,its a great invention.But when will it be practically usable?
A great amount of euphoria was generated over the cracking of human genetic code by scientists last year...claiming it was the key to curing ALL Diseases ,Break through..etc
But when will these inventions become really of use to the public?Looks like its gonna take ages to me
Why does yahoo do this
Imagine a time-release implant that would be as effective as normal birth control but have none of the side-effects. Or just an effective way to have male birth control.
No risk of that with these things. As I understand it, they'll inject a bunch of these into you, and the computers will circulate for a while, cleaning up cancer cells, until the computers get destroyed by your immune system. No reproduction, and no risk beyond a bad immune reaction.
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
While your prostate is in the general neighborhood of your colon, you might want to be more concerned about certain other organs and glands that are more directly connected to it. I'd be less worried about a colonic BSOD, than with an inability to boot, or a poorly-timed abnormal termination.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
It sounds like people are confusing prostate cancer with colo-rectal cancer. The prostate is a gland that is part of a man's sex organs and surrounds the tube called the urethra, located just below the bladder.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
"Theoretically, a person could be injected with this computer, and it would detect and treat any diseased cells at the earliest stages of development..."
Oh great, so keeping up with the latest virus defs will finally be a literal pain in the ass too....
Bearing in mind, of course, that many diseases, even fatal ones, amount to little more than a bad immune reaction.
The body has a distressing tendency to commit suicide in a panic over having done seed a germ.
KFG
Calling it a computer is a bit of a misnomer. It's a molecule that recognizes the presences of a specific signal to release a payload. That's it. It is of course a clever trick, but the word "computer" is just a device used by the science journalists to make it sound more interesting.
One day, in line at the company cafeteria, Jack says to Mike behind him, "My elbow hurts like hell. I guess I better see a doctor. " "Listen, don't waste time," Mike replies. "There's a diagnostic computer down at Asda. Just give it a urine sample and the computer'll tell you what's wrong and what to do about it. It takes ten seconds and costs five pounds. . . a lot quicker and better than a doctor. " So Jack deposits a urine sample in a small jar and takes it to Asda.
He deposits five pounds, and the computer lights up and asks for the urine sample. He pours the sample into the slot and waits.
Ten seconds later, the computer ejects a printout: "You have tennis elbow. Soak your arm in warm water and avoid heavy activity. It will improve in two weeks"
That evening while thinking how amazing this new technology was, Jack began wondering if the computer could be fooled. He mixed some tap water, a stool sample from his dog, urine samples from his wife and daughter, and masturbated into the mixture for good measure. Jack hurries back to Asda, eager to check the results. He deposits five pounds, pours in his concoction, and awaits the results. The computer prints the following:
1. Your tap water is too hard. Get a water softener.
2. Your dog has ringworm. Bathe him with anti-fungal shampoo.
3. Your daughter has a cocaine habit. Get her into rehab.
4. Your wife is pregnant. Twins. They aren't yours. Get a lawyer.
5. If you don't stop playing with yourself, your elbow will never get better. and thank you for shopping at Asda.
Instead of reading a vague description of their results try the following two links:
Summary from Nature's website
Original Aritcle in Nature
Bill
If this story is true, then these researchers may have unlocked a "secret" that is incredible in scope: They have learned (in a limited manner) how to code in DNA - they have hacked nature's UTM.
Such a discovery and the applications of its use would lead to incredible things - both for good and ill! Incredible "cures" and horrific weapons all at once! Instant death and neverending life at our fingertips! In some ways - I think this may have come too soon, and will end up killing off life on this planet - we can't even agree to disagree on our religion (never mind the fact that religion is nothing more than mythology and fantasy for grown adults), instead choosing to kill ourselves over which invisible man in the sky is better!
DNA (and the attendent processes for its replication - heliocase, RNA primase, DNA polymerase, etc) is nothing more than a long UTM program "tape", where the GATC are the symbols for the program - and this "tape" controls the rest of the processes in the cell (ok, if you have followed this long - you can see I am *not* a biologist by any means - I likely have some things very incorrect).
I don't know - I may be wrong - but this just seems incredible (if true)...
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
Theoretically, a person could be injected with this computer, and it would detect and treat any diseased cells at the earliest stages of development, perhaps preventing the disease altogether.
I wonder if this exact or sort of treatment could be used to treat nerve damage? This could range from tinnitus, ALS, or even paralytic debilitation of the type suffered by Christopher Reeves. Also, the story makes reference to treatment in the "earliest stages of the disease". I also would wonder about the eventual possibility of it helping those in the advanced stages of such diseases.
Quod scripsi, scripsi.
Nature Magazine has an article about Biological Nanocomputers that was linked off of NPR's All Things Considered, which discussed this issue and is worth a listen (RA AND WM9). This story was followed by the audio freezer story previously, all in all a good day for NPR news.
What would stop someone from creating a self-perpetuating super-disease?
Sorry to sound abrupt, but evolving? Evolving my arse.
Cancer isn't an organism, it's a fairly well defined malfunction in various types of cell in your body - which don't tend to evolve at all these days, due to the lack of selection pressure.
Only a few cancers can be characterised by excess RNA or by specific marker proteins at present - that's why they have concentrated on prostrate cancer and a form of lung cancer for their proof-of-concept. As more markers are identified, this method will become more generally applicable, and you'll eventually be able to have an annual 'anti-cancer shot' that will be much the same from year to year, except for having additional cancers added to it.
oh brave new world, that has such people in it!
I apologize for the back-to-back posting.. but I figured I'd throw in a bit of my pharmacy background.
I'm sure by your text-book definition of cancer, you're correct. However, I've seen may patients on Tamoxifen. I've been with them througout their battle(s) with cancer. Tamoxifen doesn't work for every type of breast cancer, obviously. It does work for some types, however, cancer cells do adapt (despite what you say) to conditions within the body. Suddenly, the Tamoxifen may no longer work. It's not that the body has built a tolerance to the drug, it's that the cancer cells have adapted and... evolved beyond the affects of the medicine - in order to survive.
This of course won't be passed from person to person, though, I have my theory on cancer/genetics.. but that's another matter. However, I do think that if the trait for cancer (likelihood.. if you don't like the word trait) is passed down, would the cell's adaptation be passed too? Guess that's kind of a rhetorical question, I don't claim to know the answer.
There are many types of cancer that DO evolve, exactly in the sense of an organism as well. TGCT is a perfect example of this.
Anyway...
Full Text of the Nature article (without the ridiculous Nature subscription price)
Links to associated material here
-zAmboni
Team Ars Technica Lamb Chop
just wondering... is DNA ressearch illegal under DMCA? it's sort of decompiling the genetic source code in a certain way
Oh, come on, fellows...
Every time somebody comes out with a sentence containing 'DNA' and 'computer', it is immediately believed. This article is clearly very, very specualtive. Yes, somebody has created something that looks a computer when seen from a certain angle and in not too strong light. Anything that even approaches a first, simple practical application for this kind of thing is probably decades away, if indeed it ever happens. Beginning to talk about releasing a 'DNA computer' into somebody and actually attacking cancer cells is pure science fiction. The hurdles that must be overcome are staggering; before we can even contemplate something like that, we need to thoroughly understand how life works in all details - considering the speed with which research progresses now and the fact that we have only just begun to scratch the surface, I would say this is at least a couple of centuries away.
I don't think people in general appreciate just how complex the chemical processes that support life are. Believe you me, we're not talking about simple things, like eg. memorising the exact position of all grains of sand in the Sahara.
I am not surprised to find this kind of article in Nature; they have often published dubious results - they are after all a popular magazine rather than a scientific journal. Also, I think in recent years there have been a number of highly doubtful 'results' that seem to originate in Israel; this, by the way, is simply an observation, not an expression of any 'anti-semitism', in case you wondered.
This is the direction that DNA and gene research need to be focusing on. True genetic therapy must be targeted. Just throwing a gene into a virus and having it deposited in cells all over the body is a wrong approach. Its treating us as if every cell is the ultimate stem cell. That's not at all true because our cells have differentiated. True genetic therapy has to be able to fix the DNA in very specific cells so that the protein byproducts are properly placed per where they are needed and where the body's regulation mechanisms are present to control them.
My interest in this area is actually selfish. I have two children who would be perfect candidates for early generations of technology like this. They have a severe form of Myotonic Muscular Dystrophy. MMD has been traced to being the result of a simple unstable sequence in one of the chromosomes. When replicated, this sequence tends to stretch. So, CTGCTG becomes CTGCTGCTGCTGCTG. The severity of the disease is at least partially indicated by the number of repeats. Theirs is in the 1000s. This repeated sequence in the middle of the chromosome, though apparently not on an active gene, apparently interferes with the proper operation of its neighbors. The interesting thing to me is the simplicity and uniqueness of the pattern. This pattern is apparently a flawed and unstable one that can be taken out wherever it exists without causing problems. i.e. it should never exist in DNA. So, if a compound could be designed that "recognizes" this pattern and no others, snips it out, and mates the broken DNA back together without this piece in the middle, you'd have a cure for the genetic flaw. So, this is one of the simplest DNA problems that could be pursued with technology like this.