Slashdot Mirror
Fantastic Voyage Into the Heart
Roland Piquepaille writes "According to the Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI), researchers from the Harvard Medical School have written a sequel to 'Fantastic voyage,' the 1966 sci-fi movie. By injecting self-assembling peptide nanofibers loaded with pro-survival factors into rats, they've showed that the animals could be protected from heart failures. So far, the researchers have not extended their experiments to humans."
</hoping the RIAA wont sue him for posting lyrics>
Yes, but only about 1 in 10 of these types of things are tested on humans, and about 1 in 50 of those are ever approved for human use. Still neat though!
LINUX ONLINE POKER: Linux Poker
...but the original article will do just fine. If you want to advertise your blog, fucking pay for an ad you cheap prick!
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
For those of us without PhD's in medical sciences?
The title of the article is rather confusing... but here's my take -
First of all, I doubt that this is going to be approved for human use any time soon, even IF they can prove a good success rate.
Speaking of which, what IS their success rate? As promising as this seems, I don't know if I want this if it's a save-you-or-kill-you sort of treatment. However, their study results show that, in mice, it seems to work just fine.
From TFA:
"A blinded and randomized study in 96 rats showed that injecting nanofibers with PDGF-BB, but not nanofibers or PDGF-BB alone, decreased cardiomyocyte death and preserved systolic function after myocardial infarction. A separate blinded and randomized study in 52 rats showed that PDGF-BB delivered with nanofibers decreased infarct size after ischemia/reperfusion."
"[Note: PDGF stands for "Platelet-derived growth factor" and is is one of the numerous proteins that regulate cell growth and division according to Wikipedia.]"
I'm not a doctor/biologist/etc, but is this something we want to be messing with? I mean, sounds like encouraging excessive cell growth in the heart wouldn't be a good idea at all. It's one thing if the patient is dying, but quite another if people are taking this so they're at a lowered risk of a heart attack later. TFA doesn't seem to mention side effects at all, much less potential side effects in humans.
I'm also not a statistician, but their sample size doesn't seem to be all that large, either.
I may be overanalyzing this, but I'll definitely want to see a LOT more research before I'll write this off as anything other than another group of scientists claiming a magic bullet.
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
Fantastic Voyage is originally a book by Asimov, who already wrote a sequel (Fantastic Voyage II: Destination Brain). The link between TFA and Asimov's novel is faint, if not null. People with interest in Medical research shouldn't be getting their feeds from ZD Net. And while we're at it, the past participle of show is shown.
You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Also, do you have any cheese?
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
... the better SF reference is not to "Fantastic Voyage", for that movie used mAcrotech made tiny, without any changes allowing for different effects of nano-scale. The atomic-powered minisub was a normal atomic-powered minisub, the two-handed surgical laser was a normal two-handed surgical laser, and the madatory busty female was a normal mandatory busty female. They were simply rendered smaller, that's all.
In contrast, Borg nano-technology takes full advantage of the unique properties of objects in small scale, just as does the self-assembling peptide nanofibers referenced in the announcement.
We wouldn't want our SF references to be unrealistic, would we?
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
There was already a sequel to Fantastic Voyage. It was a novel called Fantastic Voyage 2: Destination Brain, and it was written by Isaac Asimov just like the novel the first movie was based on.
So far they've only used rats for the trials. I say they should take the next step and use politicians for the next round of tests. Medical science has shown that politicians and rats share 99.99% of their genes in common, so the risks should be minimal. Besides, with the current state of political affairs in the U.S. I doubt that many of the voting public would complain if a few wayward politicians made a valiant sacrifice in the name of science.
---
First step: Politicans with a heart.
Second step: Politicians with a soul.
Third step: .
Fourth step: Utopia.
Does it come in the 'choose your own adventure' paperback edition?
Scientists develop peptide nanofibers loaded with pro-survival factors, and use them only on rats...
Until one day a lead scientist learns that he has a degenerative heart condition, and has only a month to live.
So late one night he injects the nanofibers into himself (pulp-fiction/Firefly style direct injection to the heart region)...
Now only the late-night crew (inclduing a dashing plumber and kick-ass security babe) stand between the man with greatly enhanced "pro-survival factors" and the outside world!
I think it could be titled... "Nanomadness"
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Stop fixing the rats dammit!, they gonna kill us all!
Does it star Coolio?
I spend most of my time in bed, darling.
Taco and the other "editors" know we hate Roland's scummy backhand deals with Slashdot, so they have to try a few more tricks to make us click'n'pay the guy, such as almost lying about the article contents. The summary of the next article they post from him will probably progress to outright lies.
This sounds familiar... Read more Here.
Hmm, my marketing filter is flashing again..
Panten Pro-V conditioning shampoo with "self-assembling peptide nanofibers loaded with pro-survival factors" for extra shine and longevity..
I'm not calling BS, but cant a crack team of Hardard scientists be a little bit more specific with a short quote!
Wouldn't it just be better to invest in prevention instead of thinking about all this high tech when the damage has already been made? I know I will be trolled for this, but face it: most people who live in more "advanced" states and countries have serious trouble with high obesity figures. Face it: you all take your car far too often, visiting your neighbour who sometimes lives 20m away from you or going to the shop to buy some small groceries. Exercise seems to be the tool of the devil, since nobody ever does it, except when it's a social determination that you HAVE to do it (i.e. fitness...)
Learn to cook instead of seeing the inside of a prepared-meal-in-a-plastic-box (which has way too many salt, fat and sugar in them!) and you will certainly taste the difference after a while. In fatc, you will even know what's in it for a change!
Seriously: try preparing more vegetables and meat or tofoe/quorn/soy/etc. (if your a vegetarian) without using much butter and adding salt and sugar. If you can pull through eating this, you will certainly feel much better after a while and taste the difference when you open canned or pre-maid food again.
Oh yeah: stop smoking! People around you don't have a choise when you smoke: they HAVE to smoke with you. Don't start calling yourself social when you smoke, since you just smoke for yourself, you selfish loner! Your environment, your collegues and your body will thank you for it (I don't care about your wallet!)
I know I know I know, all this prevention is pretty low tech of course...
It's better to invest millions into solutions which are going to be available for the happy few (which are pretty weak, in a social-deterministic point of view)
Darwin is laughing when he sees those people who think they can escape the selection mechanism when they use all those high tech solutions, costing them billions of $'s.
I give massages and reiki treatments (for real!). More info here: http://www.universele-levensenergie.be
Yeh, thats about it. Summary was a copy of the first paragraph, and is about as far as you can go and still make sense of it without a med degree...
tm
Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
So all the nanofibre is doing is holding the survival signalling molecule (PDGF) in place. Without the the nanofibre the signal gets carried away in the blood. Unfolded nanofibre is mixed with the signalling molecule in the lab. The solution is injected to the "injury" site. The nanofibres change shape when put into a different chemical environment(the animal's body). At the injection site fibres form. Trapped within the fibres is the signalling molecule. The molecule gives survival signals to the target cell continuously without being swept away by the blood. More survival signal equates to...you guessed it' more survival.
The nanofiber does not "react" with the heart. It mearly holds the reacting molecule, the PDGF, in place. Thats it. Done.
ASS MODE ACTIVATED
If you don't know what you're talking about, especially in reply to someone asking for the truth on something, you have a couple options: 1) research the topic more thoroughly 2) don't say anything and wait for a an educated reply 3)Put forth a suggestion on how you *think* something might work stating that you are expressing an opinion, not fact.
They're going to have to come up with a shorter name for this before someone starts offering this as cheap medd$ sent out in discreet packaging through their online pharmacy.
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Let's see this here: "self-assembling peptide nanofibers loaded with pro-survival factors into rats..."
Wow, we better load with with unrelated sci-fi movie references and sensationalism or it's gonna be a boring article.
It is a self-assembling peptide nanofiber cake.. with pro-survival factor frosting!
"Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
The sample size isnt too bad, if you have a good correlation. Cutting open that many mice and giving them heart attacks can take some work. Then you need to let them recover, then you need to "harvest" the mice and examine their hearts.
Storm
Scientists, the leading cause of cancer in lab rats.
I remember that movie... and I remember that the guys in the movie used the plateletes as an excuse to grope the girl's tits. Good times. We'll just wait until script kiddies get a hold of the technology and use the nanos to place "pwned" tattoos on your forehead. By injecting self-assembling peptide nanofibers loaded with pro-survival factors into rats, they've showed that the animals could be protected from heart failures. Now I have to get this out of my system. The proper way to write the past tense of show in the sentence above is, "...they've shown..."
I have a problems with this idea. One of the themes I'm currently writing about is technologies that closely resemble 'fictional' technologies/magic but aren't 'seen' as those 'pretend' things because the science gets in the way of our understanding. For instance, a car would be a great interpretation of Seven League Boots. This stuff with the carbon nono-fibre gunk and self assembling whosits sounds an awful lot like nanobots. Are we there, yet?
Here will be an old abusing of God's patience and the king's English.
..but the original article will do just fine. If you want to advertise your blog, fucking pay for an ad you cheap prick!
:P (yes, this one's a joke)
I have three arguments in his defense:
#3: I just click on the original link. Problem solved.
#2: The editors change the links in these cases (they have done the same with some of my submissions).
#1 and the most important: He's not Beatles-Beatles!
The only other sub 5 digiter I met claimed he bought his on ebay.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
I'm impressed that they've gotten so far along with this. Nanotechnolgy is intriguing.
Still, my inner child giggles at the phrase, "...A separate blinded and randomized study in 52 rats showed that...". I picture all those little rats with blindfolds on...
Ahem,.. back to work.
Proverbs 21:19
He's not....
This is absolutely right. In one of his books, Asimov said that people routinely complained to him about the bad science in the movie, incorrectly thinking that he wrote the screenplay, and not the novelization.
I'm too lazy to read the actual study results, and TFA doesn't say, but "self-assembling peptide nanofibers" sound an awful lot like prions to me. Given all the work that's been done on using viruses for genetic engineering, I suppose prion-based therapy was bound to come along eventually.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
After all, it is not like evolution spent millions of years setting the human body up like it is.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
Not super-rats; rats that get fat and won't die from heart attacks. Hardly a super-power. The self-assembling nature of these nanopeptides is the most interesting aspect of this. It should reduce or eliminate the need for repeat administrations. Also, there is likely no downside from this type of treatment; it shouldn't prevent any healing or advantageous adaptation. Before anyone reminds me, yes, this is a first step, and we're at least several years from human use. And yes, it's unlikely that this will be one of the few successes out of the many trials. But it's still good research!