Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Nanoscale Analysis Labs

Posted by samzenpus on from the just-add-a-drop-of-water dept.

FiReaNGeL writes "Imagine being able to rapidly identify tiny biological molecules such as DNA and toxins using less than a drop of salt water in a system that can fit on a microchip. It's closer than you might believe: in a paper appearing next week in PNAS, a team of researchers proves for the first time that a single nanometer-scale pore in a thin membrane can be used to accurately detect and sort different-sized polymer chains (a model for biomolecules) that pass through or block the channel. This could lead to rapid detection systems for pathogens and toxic chemicals."

20 comments

  1. The real issue here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is how do you pronounce "PNAS" aloud without snickering?

  2. Finally Fugu! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will it detect Fugu poison quick enough so I dare taste it, and have time to administer anti-venom? (provided there is such a thing)

  3. Does this mean ... by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: -1

    ... that soon they'll have the technology in hand to develop small scale fart detectors that can trace the DNA of the source? If they mount those in elevators then a good chunk of joy in my life will vanish.

    1. Re:Does this mean ... by Kangie · · Score: 0

      So that was you? Damn.. I hope so, in that case - there'll be evidence that you did it when... well.. You get the picture. "Honest, your Honour, it really WAS that bad!"

  4. Incremental development, not a new idea by tygerstripes · · Score: 3, Informative
    Just for those few who didn't already know and can't be arsed to RTFA, the lab-on-a-chip (LOC) idea has been around for years now. It's virtually a scientific field all of its own, and even has a journal.

    This is an interesting development in LOC tech - I'm glad to hear about it - but the post makes it sound like a potential bloody paradigm-shift or something.

    --
    Meta will eat itself
    1. Re:Incremental development, not a new idea by WeblionX · · Score: 1

      Yes, but what percentage of the LOC is dedicated to the LOC idea?

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    2. Re:Incremental development, not a new idea by loose_change · · Score: 1

      It also, in concept, is an imitation of what the nuclear pores do. Maybe the mitochondrial membrane is a better simile, because it maintains a charge gradient.

  5. Nano by Yoda+Jedi+Master · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    A perfect place to observe midi-chlorians, a Nanoscale Lab is.

  6. What's the purpose? by julesh · · Score: 1

    OK, so it can detect the existence of substances by polymer size (i.e. molecular weight)? But there are thousands of substances that can assume any of a very wide range of values for this number, so doesn't this render it useless for any practical application...?

    1. Re:What's the purpose? by biohack · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As the NIST press release blurb correctly indicates, mass spectrometry can be powerful for sorting and identifying biomolecules. DNA is probably the simplest example, because enzymes can chop a long strand of DNA into many small pieces. These enzymes cut only in places with well-defined sequences, so with enough information about the length of the resulting pieces the whole sequence can be reconstructed. How practical is that? Well, the method used in the various genome projects is conceptually very similar, so looking at a bunch of fragments of biomolecules can be a practical way to identify them.

      The pores add a capability of doing the measurements on very small samples, e.g., DNA from a few cells, while keeping the setup small. The pores can also be effectively multiplexed, at least in principle.

      Other clever uses of mass-spectrometry are possible, essentially because molecular biology offers many tools that are supposed to produce a predictable distribution of fragments. Indeed, it is always a trade off between the number of different fragments and the sharpness of their mass distributions, but specific experimental signatures sometimes can be obtained. For example, with proper design one can arrange for a certain size fragment to appear after several cutting steps only if a given DNA or protein sequence has mutated or is from a known pathogen.

  7. Salt water? by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1
    ...using less than a drop of salt water...

    So is a drop of salt water somehow larger/smaller than a drop of fresh water?

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    1. Re:Salt water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, salt water is more viscous and therefore has larger drops much the same way oils would have larger drops than water drops. IANAS (hehe), so somebody correct me if I'm wrong on that.

  8. minus 3, Troll) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    1. Therefore it's Our cause. Gay is not prone to sys7ems. The Gay and shouting that AND EXECUTES A

  9. Size really counts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm not worried about the size of the drop of watter, but how to pronounce P-NAS. Cuz it's size is what really matters.

  10. Oh no! by Alaria+Phrozen · · Score: 1

    First it was digital scales, now Weight Watcher accurate scales.. now I have to worry about how much I weight on a nano-scale?!

  11. Drug detection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Give it a few years, and they'll have sensors like this in place to detect drugs on people walking down the street.

    No more dodgy ice addicts, and no more peace loving stoners.

  12. Old News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why the hell is this being ./ed now? This was done over a decade ago and published in the same journal. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/93/24/137 70

  13. YoU F4il It! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Flamebait

    The same operation obvious that ther3 every chance I got coQming a piss

  14. volume of a drop of water? by sloth+jr · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry if I'm science stupid - but water doesn't really HAVE a standardized volume per drop, does it? How much is "less than a drop", anyway?

    1. Re:volume of a drop of water? by mudshark · · Score: 1

      Approximately 3.07882E-18 Libraries of Congress.

      You're welcome.

      --
      In other news, astrophysicists have announced that they now know what all that dark matter is: it's stupidity.