Slashdot Mirror
Artificial Spleen Removes Ebola, HIV Viruses and Toxins From Blood Using Magnets
concertina226 writes Harvard scientists have invented a new artificial spleen that is able to clear toxins, fungi and deadly pathogens such as Ebola from human blood, which could potentially save millions of lives. When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins in the blood that begin to multiply quickly, causing sepsis, a life-threatening condition whereby the immune system overreacts, causing blood clotting, organ damage and inflammation. To overcome this, researchers have invented a "biospleen", a device similar to a dialysis machine that makes use of magnetic nanobeads measuring 128 nanometres in diameter (one-five hundredths the width of a single human hair) coated with mannose-binding lectin (MBL), a type of genetically engineered human blood protein.
". When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins in the blood that begin to multiply quickly" Viruses are killed by antibiotics and toxins can multiply?
This summary is a butchered summary of a far more interesting article. Here is a far better source! http://www.nature.com/news/artificial-spleen-cleans-up-blood-1.15917 I'm quite surprised at IBT's lack of knowledge. Viruses killed by antibiotics? Toxins Multiplying?
Have gnu, will travel.
Maybe next they could invent an artificial organ that would make me less angry.
"When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins in the blood that begin to multiply quickly, causing sepsis, a life-threatening condition whereby the immune system overreacts, causing blood clotting, organ damage and inflammation."
Toxin are released by bacteria not virus, and antibiotic do diddly squat against virus, they are used against bacteria. For example Staphylococcus (when not resistant...) is killed antibiotic, and Clostridium botulinum release a toxin which can be deadly (look up botulism). On the other hand HIV laugh at your antibiotic, as well as any rhinovirus or any virus. Vitrus hijack our cells reproduction system to instead generate more virus. I won't even go into the difference among viruses. That summary is extremly poorly written. Especially when the article summary mention bacteria. Also it could not have killed to mention this use magnetofection (associating amino acid or protein with a magnetic nanoparticle and afterward direct it to or from a place).
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
>Something got really scrambled between the scientists and the copyrighters.
FTFY
The data in the paper is related to bacteria, not viruses. Antibiotics work against bacteria, not viruses. someone needs to try to repeat the experiment and confirm the results. The paper reads more like a patent application than a scientific publication.
I knew my magnet bracelet was being effective.
Its like waves on the ocean man, they go in, they go out, never a missed communication but, nobody knows how it works.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
No strings but things still stick. You can't explain that!
I'm fairly out of my depth with this stuff, so this is an honest inquiry: how do the magnetic nanoparticles fit into the equation?
I realize that, once coated with a suitably tailored binding protein, the particles will collect whatever target the binding protein was specified for (presumably this could even be tailored, for any target where a suitably tame binding compound is available), and probably fairly efficiently because of the absurd surface area of nanoparticles.
What I don't understand is the necessity of using the nanoparticles. It was my understanding that, outside of seriously immunocompromised victims, T-cells(and possibly other flavors of phagocytes, I'm fuzzy on the details) are extremely adept at engulfing and destroying foreign bodies, including 'clumps' produced by targets bound to the antigens produced by B-cells. This technique appears to be using a synthetic/introduced antigen(which makes sense if the immune system isn't producing the necessary antigen, or not ramping up production fast enough); but it also introduces the nanoparticles so that the antigen clumps can be magnetically scrubbed from the bloodstream, rather than cleaned up by the T Cells.
What is the peculiarity here that would make introducing the novel clump-scrubbing mechanism necessary and worthwhile?
Just a couple of more organs and I'll have a functioning human setup attached to the fridge door.
It looks to me like their technology is very different (and quite cool: nanobeads? magnetic? proteins?). One issue with the CytoSorbents product is that efficacy has only been proven in terms of reducing cytokines and preventing "cytokine storm", but not in terms of lowering actual mortality.
This new filter seems to remove the primary pathogens (according to the Nature article), as opposed to cytokines (as the submission here suggests).
I went to a rejuvenation clinic and got a whole natural overhaul. They took out some wrinkles, did hair repair, changed the blood, added a good 30 to 40 years to my life. They also replaced my spleen and colon. What do you think?
I wonder with these types of artificial filters would there be any benefit for an otherwise healthy person to have this done?
Time to offend someone
Obligatory PhD Comics.
I'm wearing this hat to ward off antibiotic resistant viruses and their army of self-replicating toxins.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
http://www.nature.com/news/artificial-spleen-cleans-up-blood-1.15917
Key points:
* The coating on the nanobeads binds to many different things, so it's useful even if you don't know in advance what is making the patient sick.
* The device can process about 1 litre of blood per hour; compare with about 5 litre blood volume for a typical human, thus this should be able to completely process a person's blood about once every 5 hours. If a faster rate is needed, multiple devices could be used in parallel.
* This has been successfully tested on rats. They infected rats with bacteria and 89% of the rats treated with the "artificial spleen" survived, while only 14% of the control group survived.
* This could move to human clinical trials relatively soon.
Read the whole article. It's not long and all of it is interesting.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
That actually seems like a really good idea. (from my "Not a doctor" point of view anyways) You better email it to someone who actually cares enough to try it, instead of posting it here, where we jaded internet people will just call you names.
I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
I found a book in an old Annapolis bookstore about magnetic healing. It was such quackery...gave it to my wife just before she graduated from PT school.
Book was something like 100 years old at the time. Now, I have to go find it (hopefully, she still has it). It can sit right along my books on post civil war bugle calls and another on Warship design (BB-26 South Carolina..circa 1910).
When people read the summary of this story, I'm sure a lot will be like "blah blah blah blah MAGNETS GOOD FOR HEALTH AND CURE EBOLA blah blah blah.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You don't call Nature a credible source?
Yeah, for years we were told magnet therapy was bullshit. Now there's money to be made by "legitimate" medicine, though, it's suddenly scientifically acceptable.
Well, there's "magnet therapy" as in "wear a magnet on your body", and there's "magnet therapy" as in "coat extremely small magnetic particles with a protein that binds to bacteria, viruses, and bacterial toxins, run your blood through a machine where the particles bind to the bacteria/viruses/toxins and get magnetically removed from the blood, and pump the blood back in".
It's quite possible for the first form of "magnet therapy" to be bullshit and the second form of "magnet therapy" to work.
... , dying viruses release toxins ..." that quickly act on /. editors and make them forget the most basic biological facts.
When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins in the blood that begin to multiply quickly.
Is it just me, or is this sentence completely devoid of any scientificic sense in many different ways (antibiotics killling viruses? Toxins multiplying ??)
No, it's not just you, and, yes, that sentence is completely devoid if any scientific sense. Better sentences can be found in the news article from Nature .
I call bullshit on this. Not a credible source, and whoever submitted the article bungled the science...
A better source is the article in Nature .
But wait, you mean two days straight of grapefruit juice and acai chocolate doesn't work?
"When antibiotics are used to kill them, dying viruses release toxins"
Too bad SlashDot isn't a science web site...
(Antibiotics aren't used for viruses.)
It's also hazardous/lethal to overdose on arsenic, and yet eating apple cores isn't going to cause problems. For that matter, eating foxglove flowers will stop your heart, and yet digitalis is the go-to drug compound for people with heart issues.
For that matter, you can die from swallowing water.
Of course, this is all beside the point, as the idea here is that your blood is pumped outside your body through a screen of magnetic particles and then pumped back in without the pathogens (and without the particles). People undergoing such an invasive process in a controlled lab are unlikely to be swallowing buckyballs and having them tie their intestines in knots.
oblig www.dobugsneeddrugs.org
The actual article (not the IB times pileup) is linked in the comments here already.
I know how that one turns out. Making such a basic mistake make me doubt the other claims being made.
Yes, I'd be inclined to pay attention to only the claims in the Nature news article on the same topic.
antibiotics kill viruses which when dying release toxins? There are so many fundamental errors in this summary, I cannot believe the author of it has any competence to tell rubbish from wisdom.
605413? Yes, it's a prime.
Nature Climate Change has credibility issues.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The nanoparticles are magnetic, not magnets, which is an important different. It means that the nanoparticles will be attracted to an external magnetic field when it is applied, but they will not be attracted to each other.
Buckyballs were banned because if you swallow permanent magnets they can attract each other and could potentially pinch two parts of your intestine together, or other such unpleasant things which would be bad for you.
Swallowing permanent magnets: Bad idea.
Swallowing magnetic nanoparticles: Good idea assuming it passes the relevant medical trials for safety and effectiness.
Those would be called "antivirals"
http://alexchiu.com/index.htm
Jeez guys, our good friend Alex Chiu has been selling fine magnetic immortality devices as long as I can remember on the internet and now some "harvard scientist" thinks they can get in on poor Alex's action here? What gives!?
Harvard scientists have invented a new artificial spleen that is able to clear toxins, fungi and deadly pathogens such as Ebola from human blood
The what? I would have expected that to be all over the news, if it was actually something as momentuous as it is presented. Looking at the fact that this has been accepted in Nature after peer review would suggest that it isn't complete nonsense, however, and the abstract makes sense in a way. I suspect this is about coating very small, magnetic particles with antibodies; these will likely be specific to the pathogen, but the strategy is to let the antibodies bind to pathogens and then use magnets to ectract them. Sounds like something that could work.
Can somebody explain to me where the problem is with this approach? Namely, if there is a protein which
a) binds to all the possible pathogens harmful to humans;
b) can be reliably attached to a magnetic particle;
c) never binds to useful things in the blood (e.g. erythrocytes)
is it not magically amazing? Where's the catch?
Apparently some people actually have more intelligent commentary to share than I do. lol
Ooops! Wrong website.
Indeed, IB Times wins the record of the worst ever summary of microbiology subject.
(mixing virus and bacteria and toxins. And multiplication and dead cells. W.. T.. F.. )
(Also, the magnets have nothing to do with the removal. They are just the mecinal technique used to move the metal beads around. It's the manose-binding lecitin on them that hold the magic.
It's not "removing Viruses and bacteria using magnets" but "removing them using lecitins which happen to be moved around thanks to magnets").
The nature paper it self is good, and the method is typical technique used for extraction / purification (so the principle is solid).
The relative novelty of this method is that, instead of using an antibody as the binding agent (something that needs to be targeted specifically. In vertebrate they are part of the *adaptive* immunity : immunity that the body needs to train) this method uses manose binding lectins (something that isn't specific and bind to lots of targets: bacteria, virus, toxins, etc. In eukaryote, they are part of the *innate* immunity: immunity you are born with, you don't need to train. Your body will already produce lecitins against sugar patterns that aren't frequent in your body, even if you've never encountered them).
Thus, its able to purify and extract from a patient's blood bacteria, virus and toxin *THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW beforehand* (i.e.: anything that presents a pattern of sugar on the surface that isn't common in the body and for which they have the corresponding lecitin).
(Where classical extraction usually rely on antibodies targeting what you would like).
It's a bit equivalent to use coal to purify blood: coal will indiscriminately extract any big organic molecule without you needing to know it in advance and thus is a valuable tool in case of poisoning
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Those would be called "antivirals"
No, we're calling them magnets now. The next step is finding out how magnets work.
The massive die-off you're talking about is called a Jarisch-Herxheimer reaction.
I try to avoid getting too technical, and I'll admit that I'm not a biology major.
I don't read AC A human right
/joke...