Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nano-Probes Stay Inside a Cell's Nucleus for Days

Posted by samzenpus on from the from-the-inside-out dept.

Roland Piquepaille writes "Researchers from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL) have developed fluorescent and stable nano-probes which can stay inside a cell's nucleus for hours or even days. According to this LBL news release, this will help biologists to better understand nuclear processes that evolve slowly, such as DNA replication, genomic alterations, and cell cycle control. This research was partially based on previous investigations about quantum dots. Now, the researchers want to tailor their quantum dots, which emit different colors depending on their sizes, to check specific chemical reactions inside nuclei, such as how proteins help repair DNA after irradiation. Read more for other details and references and to see how a nano-sized probe is entering a cell's nucleus."

9 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. 12TH POST by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    GREY GOo

  2. Re:Dear god, not another one. by johannesg · · Score: 1, Offtopic
    this guy's so prolific it makes me wonder what he's doing right.

    Kickbacks, perhaps?

  3. Re:Dear god, not another one. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A noble sacrifice of karma, my friend. However, I choose not to join you in no mod point land.

  4. Lets examine Roland the plagiarist's site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    from his last troll attempt story
    lee sums it up
    here
    -----

    What is the concern with this blog? It's the absolute dearth of original information.

    Let's look at the composition of a few recent blog entries, in characters:

    Entry Excerpts Link Wrapper Self-written
    Nanotech Swarms 2280 910 670
    Nano-Probes 2185 767 1053
    Toilets 1206 787 1006

    Note that most of the "self-written" portions are vapid statements such as "But where is nanotechnology involved in this project?"

    So, we have 52% of the text coming from plagiarism, ~ 23% of the text coming from introducing / pointing out links, and ~ %25% of the text coming from saying the obvious. That's the problem with the blog.

    The technique used on the site is barely better than the spam search engines that link to (and excerpt from) Wikipedia.

    ----

    i think that sums it up,
    shame on the editors for such obvious spam , i gues integrity is dead
    maybe we can feature articles from other spammers too ?, why write your own stuff when you can just copy and paste someone elses ?
    its pretty obvious the editors dont give a shit and are more willing to side with a spammer than their own readers, no wonder nobody subscribes to this s(h)ite and blocks the adverts, two can play at the revenue game

    so any other sites where real geeks can get their news ? because frankly im done with this spam fest

  5. Re:Dear god, not another one. by citizenr · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    but this guy's so prolific it makes me wonder what he's doing right.

    Its called money.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  6. 3 Words For Small by ImaLamer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Is it in?

    /rimshot

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  7. Re:One word.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ...These are not the nano-probes you are looking for ...

  8. I knew I'd seen this before ... by Jag · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    though it was listed as a side item: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/2 0/0149205

  9. Re:A real hit on the club scene! by 404forbidden · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    And with all the fun drugs travelling around clubs, they would probably start mutating themselves again..