Slashdot Mirror


Human Cells Naturally 'Eat' Silicon Nanowires (ieee.org)

the_newsbeagle writes: By showing that human cells naturally engulf minuscule silicon nanowires, a material scientist from the University of Chicago has opened the way to intracellular electronics. Applications could include very specialized drug delivery, electrically stimulating the organelles inside the cell, or recording the signals that pass between those internal structures. From IEEE Spectrum: "Using both an electron microscope and a specialized optical imaging tool designed by the team, the group recorded the eating of the nanowires in detail. It appears that the cell's outer membrane folds itself like a pocket, grabs the nanowire, and envelops it in a membrane-lined bubble. The process is called phagocytosis; it's the same method used by immune cells to grab a bit of bacteria and swallow it up. Once the nanowire is inside, the cell's machinery then shuttles it through its system with sudden bursts of speed -- up to 99.4 nanometers per second -- and deposits it just outside the cell's nucleus. Tian's group made a video of the process (complete with melodramatic accompaniment)."

42 comments

  1. That's yuuuge! by Obfuscant · · Score: 0

    the cell's machinery then shuttles it through its system with sudden bursts of speed -- up to 99.4 nanometers per second

    Don't let the Street Outlaw 405 gang know about this, they'll be absolutely green with jealousy!

  2. Really IEEE !?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    god IEEE... ALL KINDS of security warnings...

    No wonder the ACM is better (>_>)

  3. First. But also, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what good is it to control a couple of cells? One would think thousands would need to make a measurable difference in an organism size of a human. Imagine wiring up thousands of connections? Think phone relays of the old. Now picture it inside your body. I'd like to see where this goes though. Definite progress has been made.

    1. Re: First. But also, by Esteanil · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our silicon nanowire overlords.

      --
      I'm a dreamer, the world is my playpen. But hey, I'm a serious person, I can't dream all the time.
    2. Re: First. But also, by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 2

      I, for one, welcome our silicon nanowire overlords.

      Wouldn't that be "innerlords"?

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  4. I wanted orange, it gave me lemon-lime by ArylAkamov · · Score: 2

    I can't be the only one who read the summary as "A mad scientist from the University of Chicago"

    1. Re:I wanted orange, it gave me lemon-lime by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      you dont build a nuclear pile in a gym by being nonmad

  5. Re:Third, actually. But Also, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    what good is it to control a couple of cells?

    Being able to get a nanowire to 'terminate' inside a cell is a big step forward for biological to electronic interfaces. In particular it helps open the door to being able to directly wire an implant to brain cells, as opposed to the rather crude methods currently being experimented with (which are basically just a spike right through the tissue). Next is to try to be able to do it on a larger scale.

    But as usual, the summary is absolute shit. The cells are NOT "eating" nanowires, that would indicate they are dissolving/digesting or otherwise destroying them. Getting them to engulf the wires is far more exciting in terms of what sort of applications this could have, in particular because they are NOT "eating" them.

  6. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    XKCD https://xkcd.com/644/

  7. What could possibly go wrong?!? by dpilot · · Score: 2

    I seem to once remember hearing another example of nanostructures finding their way into cells easily, and it didn't go well for the cell, in the longer run. I certainly hope they're doing extended life testing with this.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:What could possibly go wrong?!? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I seem to once remember hearing another example of nanostructures finding their way into cells easily, and it didn't go well for the cell, in the longer run. I certainly hope they're doing extended life testing with this.

      Most nano-particles don't transfect into cells (go actively into the cytoplasm itself). Generally, if there is cellular uptake, the nano-particles end up "in jail," trapped inside endosomes, and not actively in the cell's guts proper.

      There are some materials that make for nice, rounded and non-cytotoxic nano-particles that can be functionalized and transfected into the cytoplasm. Such materials are the "Holy Grails" of drug delivery, cancer treatment, and diagnostics. I work on one of them...

    2. Re:What could possibly go wrong?!? by nine-times · · Score: 1

      What happens once they're in the cells? Are they eventually broken down or excreted?

    3. Re:What could possibly go wrong?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Extended life testing? Pshaw! Key quote from the article:

      "Adds Zimmerman: “While we still have a ways to go...by understanding how cells ‘eat’ these nanowires, we can really start to think of how we can actually make these applications a reality.”". Their focus is monetization..

      AC

  8. Human Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What are the specific cells used in the study? That will be the commanding factor in this finding. Blood cells? Awesome. Liver cells? kidney cells? skin cells? I mean seriously how broad could they have left that.

    1. Re: Human Cells? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article clearly describes the various types of cells tested.

  9. Re:Third, actually. But Also, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ummm, I thought one of the reasons that asbestos is so dangerous is that it readily pierce cells and allows materials to move through the membranes

    I'm not claiming that this nano-wire thing is as dangerous as asbestos, just that some modicum of restrain should be exercised

  10. Please, disappoint me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tell me why this could not fight cancer

    1. Re:Please, disappoint me by harperska · · Score: 2

      Probably because it has a good chance of causing cancer. The mechanism sounds awfully like what happens with asbestos fibers.

    2. Re:Please, disappoint me by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      How do you intend to use this to fight cancer? Yes, you might be able to use it as a delivery mechanism, but there's no easy way to differentiate cancer cells from regular cells. Nothing here jumps out as doing something different that's relevant. Most things we use on cancer (radiation, and chemo) work by differentiating between regular cells and cancer cells, generally using the fact that cancer cells are always reproducing. No aspect of this process has anything to do with cell reproduction. This isn't even in the petri dish category https://xkcd.com/1217/.

    3. Re:Please, disappoint me by arth1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How do you intend to use this to fight cancer? Yes, you might be able to use it as a delivery mechanism, but there's no easy way to differentiate cancer cells from regular cells. Nothing here jumps out as doing something different that's relevant. Most things we use on cancer (radiation, and chemo) work by differentiating between regular cells and cancer cells, generally using the fact that cancer cells are always reproducing. No aspect of this process has anything to do with cell reproduction.

      One of your premises is wrong. Radiation therapy works because it kills more cancer cells than normal cells. due to the self-repair process being inhibited for cancer cells, likely because they spend the energy on reproducing. But we don't need to know which ones are which. We bathe the general area in radiation, which causes DNA damage, which the healthy cells repair much more than cancer cells do.
      Any other treatment that could produce genetic damage to cells can similarly be used, with the dosage controlled to damage healthy cells no more than can be repaired.
      Would this open for such a treatment? Possibly - possibly not. But it should not be dismissed summarily without further investigation.

    4. Re:Please, disappoint me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "big black floating specks are good for you"

    5. Re:Please, disappoint me by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      That's a good expansion of how it works; how does it disagree with anything I said?

    6. Re:Please, disappoint me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, I'll slow it down for you:

      You said: "Most things we use on cancer (radiation, and chemo) work by differentiating between regular cells and cancer cells,"
      He said: "One of your premises is wrong. Radiation therapy works because it kills more cancer cells than normal cells. due to the self-repair process being inhibited for cancer cells, likely because they spend the energy on reproducing. But we don't need to know which ones are which."

      That indeed disagrees with what you said.

      Glad I could help. You are welcome.

    7. Re:Please, disappoint me by arth1 · · Score: 1

      That's a good expansion of how it works; how does it disagree with anything I said?

      Treatments don't need to differentiate between cancer cells and healthy cells, which it looked like you used as a premise.

    8. Re:Please, disappoint me by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      It seems like this is an issue of interpretation of English rather than a substantial issue then. Damaging lots of cells and relying on the fact that the cancer cells are bad at repair seems to me to be effectively differentiating between cancer cells and healthy cells.

    9. Re:Please, disappoint me by JoshuaZ · · Score: 1

      As I replied to arth1, this seems to be more of a language issue in what one means by differentiate then. Radiation works by damaging lots of cells and using that the cancer cells have a tougher time repairing themselves. So the differentiating is effectively done by the difference in repair ability.

    10. Re:Please, disappoint me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, no. Your reading comprehension appears to be poor as shit. Radiation therapy doesn't differentiate anything. You are trying to save face, but it is just making you appear even more foolish. The proper response is "Oh, I see. Thanks for the correction". Arth1 gave you a very good explanation and shows that you were incorrect.

      There is nothing wrong with being incorrect. We are all incorrect on something and having folks explain things to us is how we become less incorrect. But if you choose to continue to hide behind lame excuses, you will persist in ignorance.

    11. Re:Please, disappoint me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then why did your original post say "How do you intend to use this to fight cancer? Yes, you might be able to use it as a delivery mechanism, but there's no easy way to differentiate cancer cells from regular cells."

      Clearly you are just trying to cover up the fact that you are wrong. Quite sad, really.

  11. What a sad sack /. has become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    I predict this interesting story of a new discovery with fascinating potential gets maybe 30 comments, perhaps one on topic.

    Did leaning in to the russian troll/fake news hurricane pump up your numbers enough to sell off the smoldering pile of crap that remains? Its clear the OG nerds that made this place interesting are long gone. It will be interesting to see how interested the new crowd is in spend all their time defending rather than attacking.

    1. Re:What a sad sack /. has become by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my defense the article left out a good deal of information from the study (see Human Cells?). I do agree that at least staying on topic should be a requirement. I would say moderation? I miss reading the OG comments :/. I have been reading them since 2005.

  12. Wired reflexes? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    Active skillsofts? Could these nanowires pick up tuned transmissions and further interact on a cellular level? Perhaps even figuring out how to make them so their only absorbed into specific types of cells...

  13. I feel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Controlling cells by having them engulf silicon nanowires.

    I feel like I'm living in a science fiction novel.

  14. Re: Third, actually. But Also, by Zorpheus · · Score: 1

    As far as I know the problem with asbestos is that the fibres are too big for the immune cells to swallow them. They stay in place and cause a constant inflammation.
    Well, I don't see either how they want to connect something to such fibres, didn't read the article though

  15. Mundane finding by Yergle143 · · Score: 2

    Slashdot readers are technical people but are usually trained in the computer and engineering sciences. I'm a biochemist and I've been here since the beginning but I certainly do not come here for biological quality.
    I perused the paper. It is in a good journal and it looks like some good work.
    Single application question: how does phagocytosis of silicon nanowires differ in any significant way from good old run of the mill asbestos?
    Answer: for those dreaming of a bioelectric interface I put forward that these silicon nanowires will cause cancer.
    The authors do not address this and do not provide any experiment that would overcome this hurdle.

    1. Re:Mundane finding by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      Slashdot readers are technical people but are usually trained in the computer and engineering sciences. I'm a biochemist and I've been here since the beginning but I certainly do not come here for biological quality.
      I perused the paper. It is in a good journal and it looks like some good work.
      Single application question: how does phagocytosis of silicon nanowires differ in any significant way from good old run of the mill asbestos?
      Answer: for those dreaming of a bioelectric interface I put forward that these silicon nanowires will cause cancer.
      The authors do not address this and do not provide any experiment that would overcome this hurdle.

      More specifically, you mean Mesothelioma and its relatives. Most cases are caused by asbestos, but only because we used it industrially and in our homes so widely. Broadly speaking, any sub-micron particles that (1) are anisotropic (sharp), and (2) that lack bio-solubility, will cause mesothelioma. The nano-particles act like little daggers that stay in your body forever, cutting back-and-forth as you move. Scar tissue builds up around them. Breathe, or in-take enough by other means, and it will happen. They're too small for the body to recognize as foreign, and are never ejected.

      [CITATION: See work on nano-diamonds, immuno-gold, or III-V nano-particles. Cells do not spit them out like they do chemo drugs. . . which is why conjugating such particles with chemo drugs is such an attractive proposition.]

      The list of materials that can do this goes on and on, but many are so rare that they're not reported. Talc, carbon, silicon carbide, olivine, and any number of exotic "new" materials that fit the above two criteria––all will cause mesothelioma, or a similar condition in other tissues.

  16. Ready to go! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our cells are already ready and anxiously waiting for the next evolutionary step: integrating with machines. Cancer is just they way of expressing the will to leave the collective that has betrayed them with its lack of technology adoption.

  17. Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    Just like fish and sea mammals and birds eat 'naturally' the tiny pieces of plastic in the ocean.

  18. Problem? by bytesex · · Score: 3, Interesting

    They swallow them, but they don't break them down, which means that when the cell dies (which it will), the material goes on a second journey and so on.

    --
    Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    1. Re:Problem? by Sir+Holo · · Score: 2

      They swallow them, but they don't break them down, which means that when the cell dies (which it will), the material goes on a second journey and so on.

      Maybe, and maybe not. Dead cells' guts leave the body through the lymph system, among other routes. I don't think that the lymph ducts have an activee endothelial layer that will lead to up-take of rods from an apoptosed cell.

      It is a good question to ask, and to consider. (Any biochemists out there that can shed some light on this?)

  19. Interesting, but by jandersen · · Score: 2

    Human cells also gobble up asbestos fibres, if I remember correctly. I would be interested in knowing what studies are being made to check out potential negative consequences - as well as, of course, what this research promisis.

  20. Twenty years away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That`s the time when we will all benefit from it, as usual.

  21. Silicosis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That might be just the mechanism for development of silicosis. The cell gobbles up silicone junk and chokes on it.