Caltech Researchers Weigh Individual Molecules

karvind writes "PhysOrg reports that physicists at the California Institute of Technology have created the first nanodevices capable of weighing individual biological molecules. This technology may lead to new forms of molecular identification that are cheaper and faster than existing methods, as well as revolutionary new instruments for proteomics. The Caltech devices are 'nanoelectromechanical resonators' -- essentially tiny tuning forks about a micron in length and a hundred or so nanometers wide that have a very specific frequency at which they vibrate when excited. Slashdot covered earlier the effort by Cornell for measuring attogram objects which also employs NEMS cantilevers."

Comments

Finally!

[InternationalCow]

Now we can really measure how many angels can fit together on a pinhead! More seriously, this technology opens up interesting possibilities for high-througput easy mutation screening. Base substitutions (mutations) in a given stretch of DNA will obviously alter its weight. In this way you can easily (well, relatively speaking) detect the presence of a mutation, after which you can select the stretch of DNA that the mutation is in for sequence analysis. It'd be an interesting application for us geneticists.

Cool tech. Some issues

[Dancin_Santa]

I was under the impression that at the atomic and molecular level there were quantum phenomena that caused particles to gain and lose mass depending on how they are arranged within the atom/molecule. For example, (just making something up) a molecular bond would result in the total mass of a molecule being less than the sum of the masses of its atoms.

If working with isotopes, it seems feasible to measure the mass of any particular molecule. What were the issues that were blocking this sort of measurement before?

Re:Cool tech. Some issues

[RWerp]

You're right that the bonds make the total mass smaller. But we're talking about stable molecules here, which bonded in one specific way. If their mass were to change, they would have to decay or interact with the environment. If the molecule is stable, it's energy is very well defined. The only limiting factor is the principle of uncertainty, which basically tells here, that the longer you measure the mass, the more precise you are. So the deviation of the measurement may change, but not its expectation value. It would be very interesting, however, if we could apply this -- or other -- technique to measuring masses of unstable molecules and watch how it changes in time.

weigh station

[Lotharjade]

Who will be stuck working the nano-weigh station of the future? Sounds like a crappy job with a Small paycheck.

Nickle-and-Dime

[Renraku]

In other news, these devices are being utilized in the brand new series of gas pumps designed to pump gas throughout the next century.

"We're very excited about this new technology." says an anonymous CEO of a Fortune 500 oil company.

"No longer can the customer get a free $.009 with every purchase. They'll now be billed down to the exact molecule. Its a tough measure, but those freeloaders were really putting a strain on our budgets."

It's true, but...

[Dancin_Santa]

has there been a relatively recent boom in nanotechnology?

They are all really small breakthroughs.

Re:April 1st!!!

[Spad]

Slashdot, where the April Fools jokes get posted on the 3rd of April and again on the 4th.

Fool me once...

[gnovos]

Caltech Researchers Weigh Individual Molecules
Technology
Science
Posted by CowboyNeal on Friday April 01, @01:31AM
from the heavy-lifting dept.

Ha ha ha! I get it, I get it.
"nano" machines, "molecules" "Caltech"

You got me AGAIN! Man, CowboyNeal, you sure pulled the wool over my eyes. Ha ha ha. Whew, that was a good one.

The problem as I see it

[minginqunt]

Is that the problem with this picoscillatory nanoids is that their normal modes have a tendency to reverse the polarity of the neutron flux through the quantum mass matrix.

This has the unfortunate effect that at that point, you have little choice when determining the altoid-dense uberstate discrepancy to assume that the entire universe weighs exactly the same as Cheryl Tweedie from Girls Aloud.

Hooray for physics.

Here we go again....!

[Le_Batleur]

You know, I'm not going to believe one darned word posted today on Slashdot. If anybody has any news they want people to believe, post it tomorrow. Imagine what would happen if the BBC or CNN sprinkled six or seven fake stories into their broadcasts like Slashdot do every year....

Medical Use

[bobbuck]

Doctors and hospitals need this techology right now so they can weigh patients like Calista Flockhart.

Finally

[aussie_a]

An instrument that can now weigh my penis.

Wait. Did I say that outloud? I guess I better turn off my spam-blocker.

I think it's great...

[Godwin O'Hitler]

...that they're naming these new units after stars of the past. After zeptograms we'll no doubt be seeing grouchofarads, chicobytes, and harpohertz.

No it's not

[Mr. Underbridge]

It's an April Fool's joke you idiot. Weighing molecules, what idiocy. Like you can make a molecule-sized set of scales to weight it on. Not to mention that molecules don't weight straight down like objects, they float about, so wouldn't press down on the scales. The rest of the article is filled with pseudo-science drivel to try to look clever and hide the fact that they're making the whole thing up.

I'm familiar with his research, half my group collaborated with him, and I think I met him once. It's real. MEMS-based cantilever technology has been getting progressively better, this isn't particularly surprising.

I don't know why you're surprised that New Scientist is pseudoscience, but you can find similar results with real science in journals. Look up Roukes, M in "web of science" or something.

Nice troll, but I can't have you confusing the n00bs on matters scientific.