Slashdot Mirror
Blood Cells Converted Into Chemical Sensors
ananyo writes "Chemists have turned red blood cells into long lived sensors that could be put back into circulation to monitor the make up of patients' blood in real time. Many patients require monitoring of their blood, such as diabetics. But extracting blood is both invasive and provides only a one-off measurement. At the American Chemical Society meeting in Philadelphia, Xiaole Shao explained how her team has built sensors that may one day allow both non-invasive and long-term monitoring of crucial aspects of blood chemistry. Shao, a chemist at the University of Missouri-Columbia, and her colleagues exploited the fact that near-infrared light will penetrate skin. This means it can trigger florescent molecules that are circulating in the blood, and this florescence can be picked up by an external monitoring device. If the molecule's florescence changes in response to chemical conditions, these changes can also be detected, and you have a sensor. But florescent dyes can be toxic, and they don't last long in the body, as they are quickly filtered out. To avoid the problem, the researchers encapsulated the sensors in red blood cells. The team next plans to inject the sensors into rats."
But florescent dyes can be toxic, and they don't last long in the body, as they are quickly filtered out. To avoid the problem, the researchers encapsulated the sensors in red blood cells. The team next plan to inject the sensors into rats.
And, for 10 points on the quiz, what happens to red blood cells after around 90 days? Very good! They get chomped up by the body and the pieces parts recycled.
Poor rats. They should at least use lawyers, we've apparently got a glut of the things and nowhere to put them.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
This sounds like a great way to get that dye concentrated somewhere it shouldn't be.
To avoid the problem, the researchers encapsulated the sensors in red blood cells. The team next plan to inject the sensors into rats.
I don't get it, are the rats going to be somehow injected into humans so that they will glow when we're going to dye? Why don't they just inject it into humans, or a different creature smaller than a rat- those can't be comfortable to have in you.. maybe crickets?
I guess we've reached the point where the "science media" can't even wait for papers to be published, let alone accumulate a few references, before they push a one-sided synopsis they gleaned from a couple of phone calls with real scientists to a blog...
For those of you who studied CS, Chemistry works a bit differently in that publishing papers is a far, far, faaaar greater hurdle than getting a talk accepted at a conference. Half of what you hear at a big, national meeting like ACS will never be published; less in reputable journals. The way things used to work, before "science journalists" started competing with each other to see who could "break a story" the fastest, is that a paper was peer reviewed and published and then it sat in a journal for a while. The second, and more important step, is other people citing that work as they try to reproduce/use/build on it. Only after it has garnered a fair number of citations will it be considered both interesting and relevant. (That is not to say that people fabricate results, just that some chemistry is more difficult to reproduce.)
Ten years ago, you framed the cover art if your paper made it on the cover of a journal. Your university might do a press release if you cured cancer or something. Now (American) universities have whole PR departments (the ever-expanding "administrative" part of university that sucks up your kid's tuition) that basically feed "news" about articles that will be published to "journalists" who then Google a couple of keywords to figure out who they should call for a comment--you know, two sources--after they speak with one of the authors. (But don't worry, their degree in Basic Science or Biology totally qualifies them to write about anything involving a lab coat.) Then they write up some non-information-containing fluff that doesn't even point the reader at the actual, published work (due to policies of the publishers). So what are we supposed to do with this information that is basically a summary of the BS you write in the Introduction about why your work is the bees knees? I mean, this "story" is a summary of the part of a yet-to-be-published paper that referees basically glance at to make sure they cited all the Big Names before they move on to the actual science. In reality, the researchers probably just proved the concept using green fluorescent dyes, as NIR dyes have low quantum yields and are not common because of some fundamental problems involved in fluorescence above 800 nm. But what I know from this story is that NIR light can pass through tissue (sort of; it's not like we're invisible at 1200 nm or something) and that some scientists did something with fluorescence in red blood cells.
I am all for publicizing the results of taxpayer money vis-a-vis university researchers, but this kind of hyperbolic nonsense that doesn't even link back to the actual published results just creates unrealistic expectations from laymen. "I read an article on using blood cells as sensors like two years ago, why do I still have to prick my finger to measure my glucose levels? Stupid scientists--what good are they?"
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
These sorts of sensors would be enormously useful for diving, especially people using rebreathers. The military would absolutely be interested in non-invasive blood monitoring for gas levels.
A common problem with rebreathers is that hypoxic conditions often arise without warning, leading to an unconscious diver. Being able to monitor blood oxygen levels from outside the body would greatly help, as the current solution of oxygen sensors in the breathing loop often have trouble when exposed to water.
"Hey John: You're starting to glow again. Better start for the surface."
Could work.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Florescent: from "flora", and means "A condition, time, or period of flowering".
Fluorescent: from "fluorite/fluorspar", a mineral which showcased an early example of observed fluorescence. I know that word simplification is trending in modern English, but someone should tell the article submitter and the editor that posted it that you can't do it to the point where you turn a word into a different one with incompatible semantics; the result is embarrassment at best (as in this case) and misunderstanding at worst.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."