Molecular Motors on the Run

Roland Piquepaille writes "In the nanotech world, molecular 'motors' have been heavily investigated during the last decade. And you probably read that these nano-carriers will one day be able to move a useful drug right where it's needed inside your body. But think for a minute to the size gap between yourself and a molecule. It's pretty impressive! Now, according to this news release, researchers from the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces in Germany have developed a theory stating that only a few motor molecules should be enough for directed transport over centimeters or even meters. It's probably a meaningless comparison, but it's like if you were able to walk to the moon and come back."

Comments

Interesting

[Now.Imperfect]

I always thought it was odd how fast small objects move relative to their size....

if (pique-paille()) exit(1);

[Anonymous Coward]

return cat(tongue);

-1, Roland Piquepaille

[QuantumG]

Typical article from the Piq, completely fails to summarise a complex scientific discovery in the most verbose way possible.

Now for something completely different...

[hackwrench]

I want you all to give a wonderful round of applause for the Max Planck Institute of Colloids and Interfaces. Next, lets hear from the Society of Silly People who Walk Funny!

Exact drug targetting for a fraction of the price

[dtfinch]

Use a needle silly.

Synthetic analogue

[w.timmeh]

A good example of a molecular motor is ATP-synthase, a naturally occurring enzyme in photosynthetic plants and bacteria. It is driven by a pH gradient formed due to the splitting of water and charge separation actions of the photosystems, although it can be forced to operate in reverse, by supplying an excess of ATP.

The enzyme itself is elegant, consisting of a rotating and a stationary segment, and has been the subject of much research by scientists eager to replicate its 'mechanics' into a synthetic cargo-carrying molecular machine, similar to those discussed in the article. Unfortunately, the last I heard imitating nature was proving a lot more difficult than expected.

Re:Synthetic analogue

[Rhys Hardwick]

Basically, if this takes off, we'll all hear about it in the Cancer world. The problem with cancer drugs is that they kill just about every type of cell, not just damaged ones. So trying to get them to just target those damaged, cancerous cells is more than just a little challenge.

Another way of looking at it is that every drug has side effects, and they usually result from the drug acting in places where we did not intend. Imagine cutting out most of these side effects. The state of medicine today will be revolutionised.

Good luck to them!

Re:Synthetic analogue

[HeedlessYouth]

Actually, ATP-synthase is found in every living thing (AFAIK). It's what allows the mitochondria found in the cells of all animals, plants, fungi and protists to make ATP. Bacteria (as you mention) also have it. Non-photosynthetic organisms use the energy provided by breaking down more complex molecules (e.g. sugar) instead of the sun to create the pH gradient that drives the ATP-synthase.

I don't know that I'd classify ATP-synthase as a molecular motor. It has moving parts, to be sure, but it doesn't generate any pulling/pushing force the way the examples mentioned in the article do. One of these, myosin, is the stuff that makes your muscles work. Each myosin molecule generates only a few piconewtons of force and each movement of the molecule moves it only a few nanometers. But a big array of these cycling rapidly can move a lot of mass very quickly (e.g. William "Refrigerator" Perry).

Get off slashdot

[magnus_1986]

Roland, if you have some dignity as a person left in you, get the FUCK off slashdot. Disguising your primidi blog under zdnet was clever.
Editors: When you just have to post his "articles", please remove the shameless plugs to his useless little blogs.
And I am not scared of you or the fact that you have made friends of the editors. So I am not going to post anonymously.

Re:Get off slashdot

[Tsar]

Rather than ignoring people and allowing them to find happiness in what may be an obscure or disgusting manner to us (or just posting friggin blurbs on a board), we comment on it and judge it.

You include this statement (without the slightest sign of intentional irony) in your own judgemental comment on someone else's judgemental comment. Ironically, I feel that I must comment judgementally on this.

This is why I have lunches with Andrea Dworkin and not a bunch of catty women whose sense of humor is so constrained by the mores of society that they don't even laugh at stories of Penis Puppetry.

When you last ate with Andrea, did she happen to mention that she had died in April? I'd have thought that your lunch dates would have been somewhat constrained by that event.

Re:Get off slashdot

[Anonymous Coward]

M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R

Golly!

[mooingyak]

But think for a minute to the size gap between yourself and a molecule. It's pretty impressive!

I think that would really read better as "It's pretty impressive, gosh darn it!"

Theory only

[devilsadvoc8]

If you RTA, it is only theory, and hasn't been proven. So, theories are a dime a dozen. I'll wait and see if someone can actually prove it THEN we can find an application. Seems a bit far off don't ya think?

Jesus

[Kafka_Canada]

Christ, now all those enviro-hippies will be really pissed off about unnecessary transportation, global warming, etc.!