Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanotechnology Used To Kill Cancer

Posted by michael on from the collateral-damage dept.

to_kallon writes "A company called Kereos is developing a pair of nanotechnologies to identify tumors that measure just 1 mm in diameter, then kill them with a tiny but precise amount of a chemotherapy drug."

37 comments

  1. WOAH! by Twirlip+of+the+Mists · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Come on, y'all. We all know that Slashdot isn't a news site, but you guys please at least pretend to be occasionally? How's this for a suggestion:

    Nanotechnology may someday be used to fight cancer

    How's that?

    --

    I write in my journal
    1. Re:WOAH! by demachina · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe you're just a ridiculous nit picker.

      The submission didn't say its being using to fight cancer "in humans".

      James Baker, at the University of Michigan, has done something similar and has dramatically improved targeting of chemotherapy (30X improvement) in animal studies. Another link:

      http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/2004 /0 1/29/cz_jw_0129soapbox.html

      The article doesn't spell it out but if Kereos is starting human trials in 2005 they must be doing animal trials with some success at this point too. If they are killing cancer in animals with the technique then the wording in the submission is completely acceptable. If Kereos isn't showing success in animals with the technique then I'd be inclined to say the whole story is more than a little premature, but you can turn to Baker's work instead and he is fighting cancer, in animals, using nanotechnology.

      --
      @de_machina
    2. Re:WOAH! by Sgt+York · · Score: 4, Informative
      If they are killing cancer in animals with the technique then the wording in the submission is completely acceptable

      The only problem is that we've been able to cure cancer in mice for over a decade. There aren't many cancers (except the wacky ones we give by knockout/transgenic technology) that we can't cure in mice. The trouble is that when you do the same thing in humans, people either balk at it (viral delivery) or develop serious comlications when you try it (most cytokine therapies) or simply don't work (p53 adenosviral selection therapies, so far). This could be great, but it may just be another way to cure cancer.....in mice.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    3. Re:WOAH! by cornjchob · · Score: 1

      Come on, y'all. We all know that Slashdot isn't a news site, but you guys please at least pretend to be occasionally? How's this for a suggestion:

      Nanotechnology may someday be used to fight cancer

      How's that?

      I'm pretty sure that the editors aren't the ones picking the headlines--it's the people who submit the stories as far as I know. So basically, I think you want to bitch at whomever submits things with wordings you don't immediately agree with rather than just try to make blanket statements about the staff to get more karma.

      --
      We now have confirmed reports from an informed Orange County minister that Ethel is still an active communist.
    4. Re:WOAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Maybe you're just a ridiculous nit picker.

      His post isn't 'nit picking' - it's just wrong because, as you say, he assumed it was assuming it was 'in humans'.

      Perhaps he is a nit picker too, as perhaps I am, but it is not important - his post wasn't nit picking and that's what counts.

    5. Re:WOAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nanotech used to kill cancer?

      Why can't it do so these days? Why did it stop? What's it up to instead? What's going to happen to my +1 Happy citizen per city?

  2. Imagine the other potential uses.. by davidsyes · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Could this technology be abused to seek out certain cells associated with memory, pleasure, pain, etc.

    Imagine if these nanotech bots could lie dormant, awaiting activation by an authority or a torturer. People could be abducted, injected, released, and then tortured into complying with all sorts of illegal requests (get us a copy of that .025 millimeter fab/chip; give us the secret sauce recipe...)

    Alternatively, this could be used to somehow little by little nudge the lifespan of cells upward a few percentage points...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    1. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by bersl2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The real secret of life is both preventing cells from dying and preventing cells from dividing. Each parent cell has a limited number of times its children cells can undergo mitosis. Cancer is mitosis out of control. So finding out exactly under what conditions cells begin replication is the key.

    2. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 1

      A wonderfull way to protect against that would be to end the idea of closed source entirely. Why fight the symptom when you can destroy the disease?

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    3. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by davidsyes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What could be scarier is "accelerated mitosis" that looks natural however bizarre. This could be a new type of bio-weapon, or genocidal tool, too.

      Could the nano bots linger dormant for months? These might make effective "prisoner control" mechanisms. The mere THOUGHT of rioting could cause nausea, dizziness, constipation, diarrhea, loss of sexual appetite, tension, or with whatever "capabilities" the makers want to endow the bots with.

      Maybe totally docile societies could be engineered ro retrofitted. Borgification (less the weapons and deflector shields) might be in store for vast segments of humanity in under 50 years...

      The future may become more interesting...and terrifying.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    4. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by RevAaron · · Score: 1

      Or, they could just use the drugs we have now. A lot cheaper. And they'd be a lot easier to get a hold of- simple drugs vs rare, expensive, hi-tech nanos. And just as effective, at least as far as stimulating pain, pleasure, etc.

      The lifespan thing would be a use, although you don't say how. Killing random cells would nudge their lifespan up? Or where do you get this idea?

      --

      Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
    5. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't get it, we are the borg.

    6. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Memory is stored holographically so it could not seek out memory without doing massive damage, probably killing you.

      Both Plain and Pleasure cells would be difficult to hurt/remove, but easy to "activate" (Release cocaine molecule on top of receptor upon command).

      But it would be FAR easier to remove dormant nano-bots than it would be to put them in.

      And a nano-infected person under control should be easily detectable by human judgment (They would look like a drugged out man or an epileptic.)

      Far easeier to use standard drugs to blackmail/control people.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    7. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Hi gurps_npc,

      A couple of things (maybe more than a couple) come to mind. I numbered them in the order that you presented two which piqued my curiosity:

      2. "But it would be FAR easier to remove dormant nano-bots than it would be to put them in."

      Well, what if the subject also had been injected with some quasi-metal polymer that is activate by the bot? Sure, these comments easily can fall into the realm of "sci-fi", but most sci-fi and reality tend to merge. SO, if a polymer is near the nano-bots, and the bots are designed to self-destruct when tampered with, then part of their reaction could be to (depending on the value of or the need to destroy that subject) activate the polymer such that it and the polymer become an irregularly-shaped mess that is far more destructive to the host/subject. (I may have "lost it", but I'll pause at this point on this paragraph...)

      1. "Memory is stored holographically so it could not seek out memory without doing massive damage, probably killing you."

      Forgive my naiive approach or analogy, especially since it's been quite some since I've studied biology or chemistry... Just *how* 'holographic' are memories? I presume that just as tears on the eyes reflect light in different ways, the tears are matter, and the light is energy, albeit, weak energy. A sufficiently strong tool could manipulate those light waves for good or bad.

      So, as for seeking out and manipulating the "energy" can't that be done destructively by some broadband-based disruption of the cells? I don't know if experiences induced and events recalled can be tracked via dyes or markers, but if so, then these things might help isolate memories and selectively enhance or suppress them. Aren't there existing drugs that do that, but cause more general loss or enhancement?

      Slight segue: It's profound and bizarre that the pharmaceutical industry is infused with so much cash to solve problems that can be resolved by our "just getting closer to basics". For instance:

      --Ovarian cancer: the pill/excess or manipulated hormones
      --Breast cancer: systematic, market-induced reduction or near complete cessation of natural, wholesome breastfeeding
      --Prostate/colo-rectal cancer (in men): too much cholesterol, fat, grease (meat)
      --Skin cancers (mainly in those of lighter pigments): TOO MUCH SUN

      If we get women off of the pills, patches, and subcutaneous time-release capsules, there would be an near-term explosion in births, but then cutting back has implications in terms of fewer tax payers, some might argue. Pharmaceuticles would flail and seethe.

      If we get more women than ever in the past 25 years to resume (umm, start, since there's a different set of women of birthing age) breast feeding, the dairy industry would probably have a cow AND cry over spilled milk.

      If men and women draMATICALLY cut back on consumption of red meat, the cattle and beef councils will have cows and have a major beef.

      If we put the fear of SUN in the lighter-pigmented or cancer-prone segments of society, the tourism and travel industries will be beaming and bristling with anger.

      Maybe this nanotechnology will blow up in our faces and FORCE us to take stock of what's relevant and what is wasting money.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    8. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      2) Basically you are putting in an auto-destruct program, even further complicating the nanobot. It should STILL be easier cure than create. Your harmful nanobots must 1) accomplish their mission, 2) fight my attackers, 3) self-destruct messily. All my Good bots need to do is accomplish their mission. If they have a 99% success rate, with a 1% self-desruct activated, the human patient should survive reasonably well.

      1) By Holographic memory I am refering to storage organization, not physical storage. When you take a piece of holographic film cut it in 1/2 and try to view it, you do NOT get 1/2 a good picture. Instead you get a whole picture that is slightly more blurry. Similarly, human memory is not stored all together in one cell, or even in a single cell, it is stored over the entire brain's memory storage area. If you remove a chunk of cells from that area, you do not remove x memories, you make ALL memories X blurrier. So you can't edit memories.

      Other stuff. You are missing the point. If we stop living entirely, we can solve all of mankinds problems.

      We need to live moderately, and also find solutions to help cure the lessened problems that moderate living cause (I personally never tan, and am forced to restrain my protein intake to prevent kidney damage.)

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    9. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Fair. Fair.

      Question. How (cost and tech) effective would it be to "blurr" a target's overall memories.

      I'm not talking wholesale brain-drain, but just render the person useless for a position. Say, making a bad or corrupt official have to be replaced. Maybe they can play with Legos, build model kits, or even run in MD charity races, or even be a taxi driver. But, if this were applied on a greater scale, could entire populaces be rendered "feckless" or "submissive".

      I suppose, OTOH, this might be a useful way to reduce the suffering of psychologically tormented (hey, leave me out of it...) individuals. But, then, probably existing drugs exist, tho some VC out there might see new patent warchest implications for funding such a project: Project Hazy Holo".

      Regards,

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    10. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by gurps_npc · · Score: 1
      Blurring over-all memory would be difficult to do without first doing EXTREME damage to their other brain functions.

      Alchol kills cells, probably better than the nanobots could.

      I bet a person under nano-bot memory attack would act similar to being drunk all the time.

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    11. Re:Imagine the other potential uses.. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Ok, hehhe, I'll quite while I'm STILL behind.

      Besides, various agencies may start to form an idea that I am out to create a weapon of mass forgetfulness.

      Best Regards,

      David Syes

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  3. Programming Error? by Alphanos · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This seems like an incredibly dangerous idea to me. Supposing that the nanotech "programmer" produces a logic error, what's to prevent the thing from simply killing every cell in your body? The distinction, after all, between cancerous and "normal" cells is pretty fine.

    --
    Alphanos
    1. Re:Programming Error? by gl4ss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      huh, I wonder what kind of cancer treatment wouldn't sound incredibly dangerous to you then.
      how about RADIATION?
      or just old style POISONS?

      the thing is, cancer cells need to be KILLED...

      there's lots of treatments that are extremely dangerous.. but they're still worth it.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    2. Re:Programming Error? by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      Built in fail-safes.

      Atleast three levels, tested, and re-checked. When triggered, the bots either begin attacking themselves, each other, or simply shut down. The third option is best, and would be the first course of action. If a bot fails to shut down, nearby bots intercept and destroy it. The problem with the seek-and-destroy bot system is you end up with cell attrition, but, then again, two or three or ten cells on that scale is a small price to pay, per 2% of the populace.

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    3. Re:Programming Error? by Sgt+York · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Not likely. The FA was kind sketchy, but I would surmise that it is antibody or ligand targeted. Either way, the process is developed once, and then fabrication begins on a large scale. The only place where the error could be introduced is in the development phase, especially if it's ligand targeted. Genetics (and therefore antibodies) have the remote potential to change, but chemistry doesn't change.

      It is possible for something like this to go rampant, but it would not kill every cell in your body; not even close.

      The whole point to this is to be able to deliver very small quantities of drug to precisely where it needs to be. The current strategy with chemotherapeutics is that you deliver drug to the whole body, trying to keep a steady-state level in the tissues that will be lethal to the tumor, but only minimally impact normal cells. You play on the increased susceptibility of cancer cells to the drug. This is often not universally effective; which is why cancer patients can be killed by the treatment, lose their hair and often develop GI problems, among other things. The point was made before, and it is accurate: Chemotherapeutics are poisons.

      With this technology, instead of just giving the drug systemically, you chemically tie it up until it gets to the right location. It then dumps the drug payload locally, increasing the concentration right on top of the cancer cell, and only on top of the cancer cell. Even if these did just bind to random cells in the body and activate, there would be a diffuse and random population of cells that died or are even affected. Effects would most likely be minimal, if even noticeable.

      Think nuke and hand grenade. Ignoring morale and morality, a few hand grenades going off in random places in a city won't do any real damage. But, it they go off in just the right place during an attack, they can do a lot of good.

      --

      There is a reason for everything. Sometimes that reason just sucks.

    4. Re:Programming Error? by recursiv · · Score: 1

      Umm, i think it would probably be tested at least once before it approved by the fda.

      --
      I used to bulls-eye womp-rats in my pants
    5. Re:Programming Error? by juhaz · · Score: 1

      The question isn't if it's dangerous, but if it's more dangerous than letting the cancer cells replicate at will or the previous cures.

      So which of these you prefer:

      a) Getting injected with a traditional chemotherapy toxin that indiscriminately kills every fast-dividing cell in your body. These include such "useless" things as cells making up immune system and bone marrow, for example.

      or b) Getting injected with same toxin in cancer-seeking nano-containers that may have very slight error margin?

      Worst-case in b) is that it becomes a), this isn't a self-replicating machine that proceeds to reduce your body and subsequently the entire world into grey sludge.

  4. Re:Tumors are living tissue too! by wscott · · Score: 1

    No tumors are varelse and we can kill them.

  5. Large Hurdle by Dizzle · · Score: 1

    Let's hope this doesn't get patented too much so that it becomes widespread.

    --
    -Dizzle
    "I most likely AM so interested in myself."
  6. Where does wired get its reporters? by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1
    gadolinium, which glows under MRI
    Obviously someone thought that having a high contrast in an MRI scan was actually the same as literally glowing.
    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  7. mod parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    stoopid phucking patents.

  8. And yet... by JasonMaggini · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...still no cure for c--

    oh, wait.

  9. Nitpicking is not a bad thing... by hung_himself · · Score: 1

    This sounds very similar to therapies that have been around for 15-20 years using radio-labelled antibodies. The idea is that antibodies to proteins expressed in tumours can be used to deliver radioactive isotopes (iodine, strontium - nasty ones..) to the tumour. Apparently it works very well in mice but in humans the antibodies are concentrated and destroyed in the liver. There was a guy who worked downstairs on this marginal research - finding people for trials that he must have known had no hope of working. Really quite sad for the people involved who have to wear lead shielding when spending their final days with their loved ones...

    Anyway back to the point, I'm not dissing the nano-idea, using a weaker poison and maybe with a better targetting mechanism is a reasonable approach and may work eventually - but just because it works in mice doesn't mean it will work in humans. As the previous poster said - the cure(s) for cancer have existed for mice for quite a while. I also think that the parent poster was rightfully skeptical and should nitpick - there are way too many stories that overstate the progress and value of different cancer therapies - which unfortunately can cost investors their money and patients their quality of life...

  10. some mice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The mice are bred to get cancer easily. It turns out that treating them is also. "Real" cancer is harder to treat; that is: cancer that arises not
    from specially inbread traits but from enviromental
    causes. Lab mice and humans are two different
    problem sets.

  11. Cancer is chromosome fuck up that goes crazy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many mitoses(sp?) may cause the DNA in
    chromosomes to become damaged and turn into
    cancer. However, not all cancers are caused
    by too much mitosis. Radiation from the sun
    can damage skin cells causing them to go cancerous.
    Viruses like hepatitis can re-arrange the DNA
    in a chromosome and cause it to go cancerous.

    There are many kinds of cancer. Even something like
    liver cancer is probably 47 different diseaseses.
    Early detection and targeting the exact disease
    is probably the key to a survivable disease.
    Dying from cancer at age 13 sucks. Dying at
    a 120 is probably a blessing at that point.

  12. Please learn how to make links. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please learn how to make links.
    <a href="http://www.forbes.com/investmentnewsletters/ 2004/01/29/cz_jw_0129soapbox.html">article</a& g t;
    (without the space put there by Slashdot and with the and "&; g t;" put there by Slashdot replaced with ">") yields: article
  13. Another technology by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is another technology, which seems to be better - nanoshells, developed in Rice, which can identify cancer cells and once enter inside it, the nanochells can convert IR light to heat. So, the nanoshells are injected inside the body, and after while a IR lasers starts to lighten the areas around the tumor. The nanoshells heaten to more than 40 Celsium and the cells with nanoshells inside - dies. The body then throws the cells outside. Something like that. Here is the news :
    ScienceDaily

  14. Nanotech - Drug Delivery to and Imaging of Cancers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vivamer has developed a range of polymer backbones that have been designed to react to environmental triggers, e.g. pH change, light or temperature. The responsive polymers act as a chemical switch, activating or releasing a payload agent in response to the environmental stimulus. The responsive polymers can be deployed in a range of polymer formats, including soluble conjugates, encapsulated nano-particles, responsive films and implants.