
One Scientist’s Bid to Build Cancer-Killing Nanorobots - Libertatea
http://recode.net/2014/05/04/self-assembly-required-one-scientists-bid-to-build-cancer-killing-nanorobots/
======
exratione
There is a lot of experimentation going on now that cells can be manipulated
readily and cheaply. It's still the very early days, but much can be done.

The sort of work described in the article overlaps with that of efforts to
enhance cells with additional machinery, such as additional organelles [1] or
programmable surface chemistry [2], and the equally interesting approach of
creating entirely artificial cell-like entities, designed machinery [3]
wrapped in a membrane. [4]

We will have microrobotics in our medicine before nanorobotics, I think, and
those microrobots will look a lot like cells. There will eventually be a
blurring at the boundary between engineered cells - such as those used in
trials of some immune therapies and stem cell treatments - and things that are
not natural cells but look very much like them.

The discovery and development of the moving parts is very similar to that of
raw nanomedicine and rudimentary medical nanorobotics, but riding on the back
of all the existing cellular machinery enables more to be done sooner and with
less.

[1]:
[http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA...](http://www.unibas.ch/index.cfm?uuid=E11708E2A1B6CA17E9F30BEA67B66F72&show_long=1)

[2]:
[http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/...](http://www.mccormick.northwestern.edu/news/articles/2014/04/building-
smart-cell-based-therapies.html)

[3]:
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110620161300.htm)

[4]:
[http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.ht...](http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130404142457.htm)

------
meepmorp
I think we've already got such robots and they're components of our immune
system.

What we need is a means of programming/issuing commands to them more
effectively.

~~~
danieltillett
We already have this - they are called bispecific monoclonal antibodies [0].
If you gave me the job of curing Cancer (and the resource to do it) then this
is what I would spend your money on.

[0]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bispecific_monoclonal_antibody)

------
sadfaceunread
A nanorobot is a lot different from what you might think of as a macroscale
robot. Most of these systems have perhaps two or three functional states, like
an enzyme that can switch more than one active configuration. These are still
much much less complicated than even the simplest of viruses.

~~~
stcredzero
Precisely this formulation of "nanorobot" is mentioned in one of the _Venus
Prime_ books. Basically, they're very complex enzymes that can be regulated by
chemicals and each other, mediated by the protagonist solving systems of
differential equations with a supercomputer she screws on the end of the
kitchen faucet. (So it can dissipate heat by producing gobs of steam.)

------
riggins
Does anyone have any suggestions on resources to learn more about this field?

~~~
cge
What parts would you like to learn more about? Shawn's construction is a
pretty straightforward (and brilliant) combination of 3D DNA origami and DNA
aptamers. The paper can be found at
[https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/223...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/5290041/publications/22344439.pdf)
; the best way to learn about something like this is often to look at the
paper, and then work backwards for the references. If you don't have journal
access, lab websites usually have copies of their papers on them; I know our
lab (dna.caltech.edu) has our papers there, including Paul's original DNA
origami papers.

This paper is actually a bit annoying in its focus and tone regarding the
field. DNA origami is actually surprising _simple_ ; the design is not at all
"as complicated as it sounds." Short, synthesized strands of DNA that are
complementary to various bits of a long scaffold strand of DNA (often single-
stranded plasmid DNA, like M13mp18) in a manner similar to the way one pushes
different faces of paper together with paper origami. Details of design can be
tricky, but it really is something that can be done by hand. CADnano is great
from a convenience level, not from some fundamental necessity level.

And the major challenges facing this particular technology really aren't, in
my opinion, the cost of synthetic DNA. Instead, as many people have pointed
out since this was first presented several years ago, the major problem with
_in vivo_ use is that nucleases are everywhere, and it's really expected that
things like this will get entirely ripped apart in, for example, mammals. Even
if it isn't ripped apart, it needs to not end up with stuff stuck around to it
to the extent that it won't operate. Without some way of protecting the
structure, it's not going to work well.

Still, this has long been the example I've used of an application of our
field.

~~~
riggins
_What parts would you like to learn more about?_

I just need a good introduction. Its a field I'm interested in but know very
little about.

------
qwerty_asdf
...or perhaps just killer nanorobots?

What happens if they malfunction, and don't just kill cancer cells?

~~~
clarky07
then we are at our current solution, chemo.

~~~
qwerty_asdf
Are you sure about that? Killer nanites could pose a far more urgent and
terrible threat to a human being than any old neoplasm.

On the slow side, maybe they're as destructive as a nasty dose of prions. On
the fast side, maybe they're as destructive as a blister agent like mustard
gas.

------
than
One Mad Scientist’s Bid to Build Cancer-Causing Nanorobots

------
tzamora
but the weed?!

~~~
tzamora
hey why the two points less!! the biochemistry that takes place in our cells
is kind of a hack no? So if we invest more in the cannabis investigation maybe
we could check why the CDB in the sativa strains helps in the apoptosis
process which in turns destroys the bad cells. This is more natural and cheap
than a lot of robots inside ourselves. or I'm wrong?

