DNA Nanorobot Halts Growth of Cancer Cells

ananyo writes "DNA origami, a technique for making structures from DNA, has been used to build devices that can seek out and potentially destroy cancer cells. The nanorobots use a similar system to cells in the immune system to engage with receptors on the outside of cells. The barrel-shaped devices, each about 35 nanometers in diameter, contain 12 sites on the inside for attaching payload molecules and two positions on the outside for attaching aptamers, short nucleotide strands with special sequences for recognizing molecules on the target cell (abstract). The aptamers act as clasps: once both have found their target, they spring open the device to release the payload. The researchers tested six combinations of aptamer locks, each of which were designed to target different types of cancer cells in culture. Those designed to hit a leukemia cell could pick that cell out of a mixture of cell types, then release their payload — in this case, an antibody — to stop the cells from growing. The researchers designed the structure of the nanorobots using open-source software, called Cadnano."

Comments

But, but, but...

[nadszyszkownik]

Bill Gates said open source *is* cancer.

Re:But, but, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Steve Jobs said open source *causes* cancer.

Too soon?

Re:But, but, but...

[K. S. Kyosuke]

Steve Jobs said open source *causes* cancer.

That's the point, isn't it? This is a microscopic amount of Open Source being injected into the patient, clearly a homeopathic treatment.

Note marketeers

[Anonymous Coward]

Origami has shown up twice on slashdot recently and could be a good buzzword candidate.

Re:Note marketeers

[mooingyak]

We'll handle this question in the origami cloud.

Re:Note marketeers

[camperdave]

We'll handle this question in the origami cloud.

Great! I can't wait to see what unfolds

Killer apps?

[History's Coming To]

You have to wonder about the other applications of this technology - targeting specific genetic groups with a vaccine or even a weapon for example.

Re:Killer apps?

[Anonymous Coward]

You have to wonder about the other applications of this technology - targeting specific genetic groups with a vaccine or even a weapon for example.

this is why we can't have nice things.

Re:Killer apps?

[ByOhTek]

It is possible - yes. But it would be, by no means, a "scalpel". There will be many in the ethnic group who lack the appropriately formed receptor, and many in the other groups that have it.

Probably more for the GP, but even so, many tools can be used for malevolent purposes, does that mean we shouldn't have them around for the good purposes? Do you think that just because someone came up with it for a benevolent purpose, if they hadn't nobody would have come up with it for a malevolent purpose later.

Re:Killer apps?

[WalkingBear]

The book "The White Plague" by Frank Herbert already has something similar to this. Scientist sees his family killed by an IRA bomb in Ireland, goes nuts and creates a plague that targets only Irish women. Spreads and kills most females worldwide. Kind of a scary book.

Nobots?

[mcgrew]

Wow. I am continually impressed with the advance in various technologies, especially medical tech. In 1966 McCoy's displays in sick bay were far-out future fantasy, today they look primitive.

When we have nano-robots that can build more nano-robots, I think the time will come when a 3D printer will seem not only quaint, but as primitive as McCoy's sick bay.

Are these devices really "robots," though?

Re:Nobots?

[LordOfTheNoobs]

They're at work right now. You'll hear about their accomplishments when some historian writes a popular novel detailing the incredible inventor of X, savior of mankind. The titles a work in progress of course.

Re:Nobots?

[sjames]

They didn't have the right bullet points for HR and didn't fit well enough in the corporate mold, so they're digging ditches and hauling your garbage away.

Re:Nobots?

[DrgnDancer]

Turing, specifically, was killed by his own government for a crime that most people wouldn't even consider a matter for concern now, just a half dozen decades later. We see him as a "cool people": then he was was an unusually bright man who did some interesting research; but was tragically social maladjusted. This is true to a greater or lesser extent of all the "cool people" from the past. Einstein was a minor celebrity, but then so are Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawkings. Most of the "cool people" of our time won't be recognized as such until {20,30,50} years from now. It's the nature of the beast, you never know who the really important contributors are until you can look back in retrospect.

The same is true in any field. Elvis, The Beatles, The Back Street Boys, Justin Bieber: four groups/singers that all held essentially the same role in four different eras. They were all teeny-heart-throb muscians, who were more popular than anyone but God for a length of time. In retrospect the Beatles were probably the most enduringly popular, Elvis was probably the most "important" (in the sense that he truly changed the music world), the Back Street Boys were nothing but a pointless fad, and who knows about Bieber. He's still a kid. He could be a flash in the pan like the BSB, develop into a musician with real staying power like the Beatles... He could even change the music world one day. 50 years from now people could talk about him like they do Bach, or never know who he was.

Re:Nobots?

[DrgnDancer]

I don't know. He seems like a nice kid. I don't like his music, but that doesn't mean I can never like any of his future music. I'm no huge fan of Lady Gaga, but after being essentially forced to watch her Thanksgiving special I have to admit the woman can, in fact, sing. Seeing her do Jazz standards in fairly normal clothing made me realize that there's a lot more to her than loud noises and obnoxious stunts. If she could be convinced to do more stuff like that, I could be convinced to buy some of her music. Similarly I could envision a future in which Justin Bieber released music I'd be willing to listen too. He just hasn't done so yet.

Regression Testing

[cthlptlk]

I am not a biologist or a roboticist, but as a programmer I suspect regression testing on altered proteins is going to be a bitch.

Re:Regression Testing

[stillnotelf]

It is. Big Pharma is pretty unwilling to use non-antibody scaffolds for protein-based drugs. There are a fair number of antibody drugs on the market these days: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monoclonal_antibody_therapy . There's not much in the pipeline for non-antibodies, because nobody knows how the immune system will react to introduced proteins. Antibodies are given a pass because they're part of the immune system; even then industry is careful not to modify the antibodies more than is strictly necessary.

Re:Test in humans

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the linked article, it says that human defense mechanisms quickly destroy and remove the DNA nanobots (liver filters them out and nucleases, enzymes chew up stray bits of DNA, breaks them up).

A few queries

[Taibhsear]

A few things I didn't see in the article that may be of concern. The immune system itself tends to see loose (extracellular) DNA as foreign and attacks it. Have they tested this to see how the natural immune system responds to this delivery system? Does the DNA structure they used possibly have segments that could be used in transcription, should the nanobot become damaged and broken off loose DNA somehow makes it way into a cell? I only have a bachelor's in biochemistry so I'm sure these guys have considered such things but I'm curious to know.

Re:Test in humans

[Anonymous Coward]

That's easy. Just remove all the cancer cells from the patient, put them in a petri dish, and unleash the nanobots on them there. When finished, put the dead cancer cells back into the patient.

Easy peasy, no?

Re:Test in humans

[argosian]

Sounds like a good thing to me...apply the nanobot hunter-killers directly to the tumor, they do their job, then the host's own housekeeping systems clean up the nanobots.

Either that or develop nanobot hunter-killer hunter-killers (let's call them "snakebots") and when those start to overrun the place, apply nanobot hunter-killer hunter-killer hunter-killers ("gorillabots" perhaps?) and when wintertime rolls around they simply freeze to death

Wow, now THAT was quick o_O

[Johann Lau]

earlier today:

This kind of bullshit technology is always featured here on fanboi central, but never turns into anything real.

Why don't we focus on what's really important and stop fucking around with these stupid stories?

*trollface*

Re:Test in humans

[Saintwolf]

How you don't currently have a Nobel prize is beyond me good Sir.

These Aren't the Driods Your Looking For

[Favonius Cornelius]

Wow I had no idea that the people engaging in this technology could be so sensationalist about how they talk about it. It is profound and very promising, but I hate how they are calling all these constructs 'robots' and 'nanobots' and talk about 'programming' them. That's a load of BS and it cheapens the power of the organic. These constructs are made of organic materials, not steel and silicon robots. Using this language gives the world an entirely wrong idea about what it is about and cheapens the decades of hard work of biologists and biochemists by piggy-backing sci-fi/electronic ideas and fame. Call it a biobot if you must. But then I guess as soon as you start talking about the fact that this is a reactive biological thing created by man, all the bible-bangers of the world get their panties in a bunch.