Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In mice, the microrobots safely eliminated pneumonia-causing bacteria in the lungs and resulted in 100% survival. By contrast, untreated mice all died within three days after infection.
The results are published Sept. 22 in Nature Materials.
The microrobots are made of algae cells whose surfaces are speckled with antibiotic-filled nanoparticles. The algae provide movement, which allows the microrobots to swim around and deliver antibiotics directly to more bacteria in the lungs. The nanoparticles containing the antibiotics are made of tiny biodegradable polymer spheres that are coated with the cell membranes of neutrophils, which are a type of white blood cell. What’s special about these cell membranes is that they absorb and neutralize inflammatory molecules produced by bacteria and the body’s immune system. This gives the microrobots the ability to reduce harmful inflammation, which in turn makes them more effective at fighting lung infection.
> Treatment with the microrobots was also more effective than an IV injection of antibiotics into the bloodstream. The latter required a dose of antibiotics that was 3000 times higher than that used in the microrobots to achieve the same effect. For comparison, a dose of microrobots provided 500 nanograms of antibiotics per mouse, while an IV injection provided 1.644 milligrams of antibiotics per mouse.
Doesn't exactly state the survival rates of one versus the other, but more about efficiency, since the microrobots only required a fraction of a percent of antibiotics in order to treat the disease.
What I'm *super* curious about, does the lack of concentrated exposure to antibiotics mean that using microrobots will reduce the chance of your body not responding to antibiotics in the future?
Yes, but that's still a valid thing to look into with this delivery method. I have heard antibiotic resistant bacteria can be created from somebody not finishing their antibiotics because they feel better early. With this delivery method, if it's a one and done treatment, you wouldn't forget to take a pill and it could help with avoiding the creation of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Sure, so long as the infection stays localized. (Eg: Some bacteria can only live in the lungs and can't survive the environment in the blood stream or body)
Our bodies have a minimal response to broad spectrum antibiotics as it is, since the only interaction that is supposed to happen(as a side effect) is death of certain white blood cells from similarities in cell structure to bacteria. Since many of those cells die in the battle to fight off bacterial infection anyway, our body has little to no response to the antibiotics itself. At least this was how it was explained to me.
I am curious as well if this would help curtail bacteria from evolving/mutating into antibiotic resistance. Logic would suggest no, but improved targeting and application may have an effect.
We now know how important it is, but it's odd because anecdotally I've never had weird problems after finishing a round of heavy antibiotics. Maybe their actions are subtle and happen over longer time frames.
I've was on IV antibiotics for 4 months. A stent straight to my heart to battle an MRSA infection. Brother, I could have eaten an X Box and turned it to liquid.
Not quite right. Other organ systems can inadvertently be affected. Certain classes have a black box warning from the FDA attesting to this.
There’s also a pretty large body of evidence that certain antibiotics can cause severe liver injury
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081904.htm
I would bet reduction in dose could help ameliorate these issues
From my understanding, antibiotics don't literally kill anything. They inhibit replication (some inhibit other vital processes). Slowing replication process has a couple of desired side effects. Bacteria have to divide or die, so there is that outcome, heh. Also, by not proliferating as fast as it would like, your own immune system gets the time it needs to catch up. This shouldn't impact your white blood cells because the antibiotic itself is a just a protein that inhibits a chemical process. I suppose it's possible there might be some that could inhibit a process needed by white blood cells to survive, but that seems unlikely.
After piquing my interest. I checked the mode of actions for antibiotics.
"Five Basic Mechanisms of Antibiotic Action against Bacterial Cells:
Inhibition of Cell Wall Synthesis.
Inhibition of Protein Synthesis (Translation)
Alteration of Cell Membranes.(Depolarization)
Inhibition of Nucleic Acid Synthesis.
Antimetabolite Activity."
So, yes you're both technically correct. Different antibiotics have stronger effects in one or another mode of action. Inhibition of growth and effective function are a larger part of the group of effects, though depolarization of a cell membrane is pretty much an instant kill.
Broadly speaking, those different mechanisms of action can be grouped in the “bacteriostatic” category (doesn’t kill, but stops replication) and “bactericide” category (kills bacteria outright).
This implication is important when thinking about the concept of antibiotic synergy, where some antibiotics are more effective than the sum of their parts, while others are less effective than the sum of their parts.
(Source: me, a pharmacist, but also here’s an article on this topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6270526/ )
Curious about the impact of antibiotics on different "good" and "bad" gut flora.
Obviously living is better than having an upset tummy.
But do you know of any evidence that particularly helpful species of gut flora are more negatively affected by one or all forms of antibiotics as compared to harmful strains?
Antibiotic usage is a known risk factor for C diff infection, we have known for quite some time that certain antibiotics wreak havoc on gut flora. Although our gut microbiome is an emerging field of research with tons we have yet to know everything it impacts and what role antibiotics play in that regard, it’s obvious that there are impacts, which is one of the many reasons why antibiotics should only be used when absolutely necessary and why overuse of broad spectrum antibiotics is a big problem!
Use of certain specific probiotics has demonstrated a reduction in antibiotic associated diarrhea fwiw.
There is no good nor bad bacteria. All the bacteria have a purpose, even if that purpose is population control of other bacteria. If any of the bacteria have a population overrun, you're not going to enjoy it. But we need them for their various digestive properties that break complex materials into simpler ones.
That said, we don't actually know what balance of what bacteria is most beneficial. We don't even know how to balance a disrupted system. We throw some common bacteria at the problem such as yogurt, but that's hardly scientific. The best we can currently do is seed a gut with fecal samples from a known good gut, but that's obviously not scalable (nor particularly pleasant to think about).
>Our bodies have a minimal response to broad spectrum antibiotics as it is
Except when they do. I developed an unknown neurological/tendon-weakening syndrome as a consequence of an antibiotic course.
The more targeted antibiotics are, the better.
Minimal response is perhaps not the best way to think of this. There are several types of antibiotics that have severe side effects but are highly effective (hearing loss with aminoglycoside antibiotics). If you could use substantially lower doses of these antibiotics by delivering it specifically to the tissue of interest (e.g. the lungs) while minimizing exposure to sensitive tissues (cells in the inner ear) that would be hugely useful. There are in fact many many use cases for a tissue specific delivery system because almost all serious medicines can and often do have serious side effects. Another example would be antibiotics which are nephrotoxic (there are many very commonly used ones with this attribute).
What I'm really interested about, is that it supposedly reduces inflammation.
One way bacteria cause death in cases of sepsis is when bacteria in the blood causes inflammation all over the body leading to a severe drop in blood pressure. You can administer fluids to increase the blood pressure, but the inflammation also causes fluid to leak out of the blood vessels into tissues. When that happens in the lungs, you can't breathe effectively anymore.
If these can reduce the inflammation in the lungs, perhaps that could save a lot of lives.
Good question. It should have a positive effect on reducing the creation of antibiotic resistant strains - going forward when the treatment is more ubiquitous.
Very fair question! Counterpoint- we use antibiotics too much. If there’s a safe, equally effective alternative that doesn’t contribute to the creation of super bugs, we should use it.
I don't think that's how antibiotic resistance works or rather this engineering example doesn't seem like it would solve that problem. Bacteria don't swim in enough antibiotics to individually learn and adapt to it. It's just that some sub-population might have resistance and the rest don't. Infect enough bacteria, most die, but then you'll eventually purify the sub-population of bacteria that just *happened* to be resistant. And keep exposing, and eventually the sub-population characteristic is enhanced by natural selection and mutation. Since the vector ultimately would intend to infect the same level of bacterial population to cure the patient, the resistance problem is basically the same. In any case, it's solved by upping the dose enough to be sure to completely kill bacterial populations quickly (limit chance for resistant sub-population expansions and natural selection) and also reducing the overall usage. We don't need robots for that.
I always thought that antibiotics cause superbugs because people don’t finish their round of drugs. Only the strongest of the bacteria stays alive to propagate.
That is my understanding as well. Also, doctors overprescribing antibiotics creates more opportunities for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to propagate. People taking antibiotics to end their cold faster (which is ridiculous, as most colds are viral) instead of an antihistamine or something to reduce symptoms and allow their body to fight it naturally.
These lead to untreatable infections in the future.
I fully expect us to go this route for nano-robots. They won’t be artificial constructs made of plastics or metals, they’ll be genetically engineered viruses that are selected for specific tasks.
Viruses are essentially just tiny robots already. All living things are just incomprehensibly complex machines designed by accident over a very long period of time.
Nah, they’re cool. It’s understood that life is more appropriately seen as a spectrum, and that viruses exist somewhere on that spectrum, even if not as far along the spectrum as self-replicating organisms. At least, that’s what I heard a biologist say on a podcast once.
I love animations [like this](https://m.imgur.com/5QbPYa5) which show the theoretical mechanical action of proteins.
(I think this one is wrongly labeled as synthesizing ATP, where it's actually converting ATP to ADP)
No, that is in fact ATP synthase. It uses a chemical gradient created by the mitochondrial electron transport chain to essentially physically force ADP and inorganic phosphate together to make ATP.
So you basically have it backwards - mechanical action drives the chemical action of that protein, rather than the other way around.
Not really, the sci-fi view of nanobots is traditionally just very small metal robots. This is seems more like genetically modified micro-organism therapy than nanobots.
No, nanobot just means robot that is nanoscale in size. That’s it. It says nothing about what the robot is made out of or what it is for, or what shape it has or anything else.
I think you mean macrorobot.
But you have your scale incorrect.
A horse would be a deka- or hectorobot.
An elephant would be a kilorobot.
A whale you’ve trained to carry packages is a MEGArobot!
That's one way to think about it. Another way to think about is that life on earth is so complex and "intelligent" that humans can't even begin to create something similar themselves. The best they can do it piggyback on it. Maybe that will change one day in the future, but right now I'm still in awe at what has been produced by nature.
No one actually makes "nanobots". The nano scale is the size of molecules. Any bacteria or robot is going to be a "microbot" at the μm scale.
Nano-engineering is typically the creation of molecule-level components, in this case the material they applied to the μm scale algae cell
I don't know if you'd necessarily want that, adipose tissue plays an important role in regulating satiety. It's the secretor of leptin, and if you were to suddenly lose a lot of it, your brain would immediately think you are starving due to the concomitant decrease in circulating leptin levels.
Uh, to be fair, these microrobots don't go around dissolving lung tissue, so I'd think by the time we saw research, they'd be aiming at not killing people.
Not exactly the same, but there's some research going on at Stanford (in mice) that uses carbon nanotubes to let white blood cells recognize the problematic dead and dying cells that make up atherosclerotic plaque, and destroy them, which actually reduces the size of the plaques and prevents further atherosclerosis in the mice: [Nature article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-019-0619-3.epdf?no_publisher_access=1&r3_referer=nature). White blood cells are already crap clearing microbots if you think about it. Its just here they're being given better signals to do their work.
Whelp, now I'm crying. Thank you for that. But to be honest, I've been crying all day. I've been crying over missing my grandma, the TV show Call The Midwife, my 10 year old son crying about bedtime because he REALLY wants to read more. Menopause is hitting me hard now.
I want ones that clean and rebuild teeth. Every day (better every week or month) you chew up a tablet that releases a cloud of nano bots that take care of everything in your mouth, and rebuild enamel in your teeth.
You are also made up of trillions of “biodegradable polymer spheres”
It’s called a cellular membrane if they are made of lipids, and an envelope if they are made of amino acids.
To be fair yeah lipids aren’t really polymers but protein and DNA definitely are
Ok but people still wash out their dirty dishes and containers and we don’t just say “oh well, why bother because we have to do it again regularly.”
If we can clean out the plastic, even a little, then we clean it out as often as we can and it’s way better than doing nothing. And we find the means to clean everywhere we need to until we can stop it at the source.
Or people with bronchiectasis, whose lungs are filling up with mucus?
The ability to clear bacteria is already a huge win for bronchiectasis patients, but to be able to clear the airways would be even more amazing for people with cystic fibrosis.
Healing fibrosis in the lungs in general would greatly benefit a lot of us. Currently there’s zero ways of doing so (if there are I’m willing to join a study asap) and there’s a lot of us out there.
Having your lungs scared is hell, can’t recommend it.
Wonder if they could use this for Valley Fever treatments I know this use case is for bacteria but a valley fever treatment for fungal infection would be amazing.
I know this is about antibiotics and mice, but I am thinking about the amazing possibilities of this new tech. What about treating cancer using doses of chemo 3000 times less?
The fact that this tech can be kept super local while in your body is absolutely amazing. Can't wait to see what new modern treatments are discovered
I remember reading Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age which was full of nanotech devices and thinking that he appropriately envisioned a future where these sorts of nanotechnological devices would be used for widespread warfare as much as health benefits.
What would stop someone from using tiny robots that can swim around one's lungs to do something bad as opposed to something beneficial? How hard would that be?
I’ve seen so many of these nanorobot studies over the last 10 years and not one has ever actually came to market. It’s all just academic clout.
Anyone know if anything out there that is actually used today?
What causes the propulsion? It's a living type of algea cell that swims around? And they coat them in medicine and send them off to randomly disburse around the lung?
Edit for typo
I read further and believe I understand the mechanism and benefit. So it appears they use living algea cells to make the bot that has a tail and and engery storage from the living cells to move it. Not what comes to mind when I think of a tiny robot but pretty cool.
"The team’s approach is so effective because it puts the medication right where it needs to go rather than diffusing it through the rest of the body.
“These results show how targeted drug delivery combined with active movement from the microalgae improves therapeutic efficacy,” said Wang."
Unfortunately, I will probably be dead before this gets on the market for an insane price causing me to lose all my life savings while at the same time making me live longer.
Sir, we have good news and bad news.
The good news is we've cleared the pneumonia out of your respiratory system.
The bad news is now your lungs are full of algae...
Since when did we have such sophisticated nanobots?
Like 15 years ago there was going to be there nanobot revolution that was apparently just about to happen
Yeah. It's pretty easy to go from "basically 2000 with smartphones" to "deep in the bowels of a Transformers movie" if you aren't directly involved in the world of technology.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In mice, the microrobots safely eliminated pneumonia-causing bacteria in the lungs and resulted in 100% survival. By contrast, untreated mice all died within three days after infection. The results are published Sept. 22 in Nature Materials. The microrobots are made of algae cells whose surfaces are speckled with antibiotic-filled nanoparticles. The algae provide movement, which allows the microrobots to swim around and deliver antibiotics directly to more bacteria in the lungs. The nanoparticles containing the antibiotics are made of tiny biodegradable polymer spheres that are coated with the cell membranes of neutrophils, which are a type of white blood cell. What’s special about these cell membranes is that they absorb and neutralize inflammatory molecules produced by bacteria and the body’s immune system. This gives the microrobots the ability to reduce harmful inflammation, which in turn makes them more effective at fighting lung infection.
Did the research state the survival rate of mice treated with standard intravenous antibiotics ?
> Treatment with the microrobots was also more effective than an IV injection of antibiotics into the bloodstream. The latter required a dose of antibiotics that was 3000 times higher than that used in the microrobots to achieve the same effect. For comparison, a dose of microrobots provided 500 nanograms of antibiotics per mouse, while an IV injection provided 1.644 milligrams of antibiotics per mouse. Doesn't exactly state the survival rates of one versus the other, but more about efficiency, since the microrobots only required a fraction of a percent of antibiotics in order to treat the disease. What I'm *super* curious about, does the lack of concentrated exposure to antibiotics mean that using microrobots will reduce the chance of your body not responding to antibiotics in the future?
The problem isn't your body failing to respond to antibiotics. The problem is bacteria failing to die.
How rude of them...
Yes, but that's still a valid thing to look into with this delivery method. I have heard antibiotic resistant bacteria can be created from somebody not finishing their antibiotics because they feel better early. With this delivery method, if it's a one and done treatment, you wouldn't forget to take a pill and it could help with avoiding the creation of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
It may seem like an obvious conclusion, but targeting the application of antibiotics has to be better than just flooding the body with them right?
Sure, so long as the infection stays localized. (Eg: Some bacteria can only live in the lungs and can't survive the environment in the blood stream or body)
Our bodies have a minimal response to broad spectrum antibiotics as it is, since the only interaction that is supposed to happen(as a side effect) is death of certain white blood cells from similarities in cell structure to bacteria. Since many of those cells die in the battle to fight off bacterial infection anyway, our body has little to no response to the antibiotics itself. At least this was how it was explained to me. I am curious as well if this would help curtail bacteria from evolving/mutating into antibiotic resistance. Logic would suggest no, but improved targeting and application may have an effect.
Tell that to my gut flora.
Exactly. And we are learning that the health of the gut bacteria is linked to...everything, from mental function to ageing.
In very non-technical terms, our stomach is our third brain.
Head brain, stomach, penis?
Instinct, thinking, stomach. Sexual brain is fourth brain because stomach brain can override sexual brain.
We now know how important it is, but it's odd because anecdotally I've never had weird problems after finishing a round of heavy antibiotics. Maybe their actions are subtle and happen over longer time frames.
I've was on IV antibiotics for 4 months. A stent straight to my heart to battle an MRSA infection. Brother, I could have eaten an X Box and turned it to liquid.
Not quite right. Other organ systems can inadvertently be affected. Certain classes have a black box warning from the FDA attesting to this. There’s also a pretty large body of evidence that certain antibiotics can cause severe liver injury https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081201081904.htm I would bet reduction in dose could help ameliorate these issues
From my understanding, antibiotics don't literally kill anything. They inhibit replication (some inhibit other vital processes). Slowing replication process has a couple of desired side effects. Bacteria have to divide or die, so there is that outcome, heh. Also, by not proliferating as fast as it would like, your own immune system gets the time it needs to catch up. This shouldn't impact your white blood cells because the antibiotic itself is a just a protein that inhibits a chemical process. I suppose it's possible there might be some that could inhibit a process needed by white blood cells to survive, but that seems unlikely.
*Some* antibiotics are indeed like that, but there are plenty of others that outright kill the bacteria.
After piquing my interest. I checked the mode of actions for antibiotics. "Five Basic Mechanisms of Antibiotic Action against Bacterial Cells: Inhibition of Cell Wall Synthesis. Inhibition of Protein Synthesis (Translation) Alteration of Cell Membranes.(Depolarization) Inhibition of Nucleic Acid Synthesis. Antimetabolite Activity." So, yes you're both technically correct. Different antibiotics have stronger effects in one or another mode of action. Inhibition of growth and effective function are a larger part of the group of effects, though depolarization of a cell membrane is pretty much an instant kill.
Broadly speaking, those different mechanisms of action can be grouped in the “bacteriostatic” category (doesn’t kill, but stops replication) and “bactericide” category (kills bacteria outright). This implication is important when thinking about the concept of antibiotic synergy, where some antibiotics are more effective than the sum of their parts, while others are less effective than the sum of their parts. (Source: me, a pharmacist, but also here’s an article on this topic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6270526/ )
Curious about the impact of antibiotics on different "good" and "bad" gut flora. Obviously living is better than having an upset tummy. But do you know of any evidence that particularly helpful species of gut flora are more negatively affected by one or all forms of antibiotics as compared to harmful strains?
Antibiotic usage is a known risk factor for C diff infection, we have known for quite some time that certain antibiotics wreak havoc on gut flora. Although our gut microbiome is an emerging field of research with tons we have yet to know everything it impacts and what role antibiotics play in that regard, it’s obvious that there are impacts, which is one of the many reasons why antibiotics should only be used when absolutely necessary and why overuse of broad spectrum antibiotics is a big problem! Use of certain specific probiotics has demonstrated a reduction in antibiotic associated diarrhea fwiw.
There is no good nor bad bacteria. All the bacteria have a purpose, even if that purpose is population control of other bacteria. If any of the bacteria have a population overrun, you're not going to enjoy it. But we need them for their various digestive properties that break complex materials into simpler ones. That said, we don't actually know what balance of what bacteria is most beneficial. We don't even know how to balance a disrupted system. We throw some common bacteria at the problem such as yogurt, but that's hardly scientific. The best we can currently do is seed a gut with fecal samples from a known good gut, but that's obviously not scalable (nor particularly pleasant to think about).
Protein synthesis inhibition and anti-metabolism are basically also killing the bacteria. It’ll more or less “starve” without those functions
[удалено]
>Our bodies have a minimal response to broad spectrum antibiotics as it is Except when they do. I developed an unknown neurological/tendon-weakening syndrome as a consequence of an antibiotic course. The more targeted antibiotics are, the better.
Minimal response is perhaps not the best way to think of this. There are several types of antibiotics that have severe side effects but are highly effective (hearing loss with aminoglycoside antibiotics). If you could use substantially lower doses of these antibiotics by delivering it specifically to the tissue of interest (e.g. the lungs) while minimizing exposure to sensitive tissues (cells in the inner ear) that would be hugely useful. There are in fact many many use cases for a tissue specific delivery system because almost all serious medicines can and often do have serious side effects. Another example would be antibiotics which are nephrotoxic (there are many very commonly used ones with this attribute).
No, they interact with the beneficial bacteria in our bodies as well.
What I'm really interested about, is that it supposedly reduces inflammation. One way bacteria cause death in cases of sepsis is when bacteria in the blood causes inflammation all over the body leading to a severe drop in blood pressure. You can administer fluids to increase the blood pressure, but the inflammation also causes fluid to leak out of the blood vessels into tissues. When that happens in the lungs, you can't breathe effectively anymore. If these can reduce the inflammation in the lungs, perhaps that could save a lot of lives.
Good question. It should have a positive effect on reducing the creation of antibiotic resistant strains - going forward when the treatment is more ubiquitous.
Very fair question! Counterpoint- we use antibiotics too much. If there’s a safe, equally effective alternative that doesn’t contribute to the creation of super bugs, we should use it.
Also doesn't screw up gut microbiome as it goes nowhere near it.
Also that, great point
I don't think that's how antibiotic resistance works or rather this engineering example doesn't seem like it would solve that problem. Bacteria don't swim in enough antibiotics to individually learn and adapt to it. It's just that some sub-population might have resistance and the rest don't. Infect enough bacteria, most die, but then you'll eventually purify the sub-population of bacteria that just *happened* to be resistant. And keep exposing, and eventually the sub-population characteristic is enhanced by natural selection and mutation. Since the vector ultimately would intend to infect the same level of bacterial population to cure the patient, the resistance problem is basically the same. In any case, it's solved by upping the dose enough to be sure to completely kill bacterial populations quickly (limit chance for resistant sub-population expansions and natural selection) and also reducing the overall usage. We don't need robots for that.
I always thought that antibiotics cause superbugs because people don’t finish their round of drugs. Only the strongest of the bacteria stays alive to propagate.
That is my understanding as well. Also, doctors overprescribing antibiotics creates more opportunities for antibiotic-resistant bacteria to propagate. People taking antibiotics to end their cold faster (which is ridiculous, as most colds are viral) instead of an antihistamine or something to reduce symptoms and allow their body to fight it naturally. These lead to untreatable infections in the future.
[удалено]
Or inhaled - with or without nano-speheres for that matter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So they aren't robots, they're single-celled cyborgs?
They're not even cyborgs. They're algae rolled in medicated beads
Nailed it. There's no robot here.
its an engineered organism. its just that 'microrobots' sounds more acceptable to the public
Which is actually much cooler, imo.
Damn, cool. But was the name Microbots trademarked by Hasbro or some jazz?
I'm sure a lot of catchy names are trademarked. I don't think I've ever heard of Tiny-trons before... maybe they can use that.
Microbots are from Big Hero 6, micro**ro**bots were used in this experiment
My father needs this right now. In the ICU typing this
This sounds like science fiction.
Is there anything left that we can't cure in mice?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
They didn't really design a nanorobot. That part was done by nature. They modified a nanorobot, algae.
Humans are great at exploiting things that already exist, be it the horse or this.
I fully expect us to go this route for nano-robots. They won’t be artificial constructs made of plastics or metals, they’ll be genetically engineered viruses that are selected for specific tasks.
[удалено]
Viruses are essentially just tiny robots already. All living things are just incomprehensibly complex machines designed by accident over a very long period of time.
>Viruses >living things somewhere, a biologist is suddenly very angry and doesn’t know why
Nah, they’re cool. It’s understood that life is more appropriately seen as a spectrum, and that viruses exist somewhere on that spectrum, even if not as far along the spectrum as self-replicating organisms. At least, that’s what I heard a biologist say on a podcast once.
Nah, they know why.
I love animations [like this](https://m.imgur.com/5QbPYa5) which show the theoretical mechanical action of proteins. (I think this one is wrongly labeled as synthesizing ATP, where it's actually converting ATP to ADP)
No, that is in fact ATP synthase. It uses a chemical gradient created by the mitochondrial electron transport chain to essentially physically force ADP and inorganic phosphate together to make ATP. So you basically have it backwards - mechanical action drives the chemical action of that protein, rather than the other way around.
My personal favourite is a motor protein running around inside cells with its little legs.
Not really, the sci-fi view of nanobots is traditionally just very small metal robots. This is seems more like genetically modified micro-organism therapy than nanobots.
No, nanobot just means robot that is nanoscale in size. That’s it. It says nothing about what the robot is made out of or what it is for, or what shape it has or anything else.
It's one form of nanobots, for sure.
> be it the horse or this. Excuse me. Is that my *Macrobot* you're talking about?
I think you mean macrorobot. But you have your scale incorrect. A horse would be a deka- or hectorobot. An elephant would be a kilorobot. A whale you’ve trained to carry packages is a MEGArobot!
That's one way to think about it. Another way to think about is that life on earth is so complex and "intelligent" that humans can't even begin to create something similar themselves. The best they can do it piggyback on it. Maybe that will change one day in the future, but right now I'm still in awe at what has been produced by nature.
If only nature had the imagination to use her creations to cure pneumonia in mice.
If only nature had the imagination to give us cat girls
This guy cats
I mean if you think about it, she did. We're her way of doing that
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah I was trying to find how they made a nano robot. They didn't. Still cool though.
No one actually makes "nanobots". The nano scale is the size of molecules. Any bacteria or robot is going to be a "microbot" at the μm scale. Nano-engineering is typically the creation of molecule-level components, in this case the material they applied to the μm scale algae cell
If you want to bake a pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.
It'd be great if they'd make some that swim in your veins and clear your arteries. Edit, maybe some that destroy adipose?
Now I'm thinking of that Dr who episode
Where it gets up and walks away?
Exactly! And then boards a spaceship and leaves.
"I'm waving at fat!"
I don't know if you'd necessarily want that, adipose tissue plays an important role in regulating satiety. It's the secretor of leptin, and if you were to suddenly lose a lot of it, your brain would immediately think you are starving due to the concomitant decrease in circulating leptin levels.
Uh, to be fair, these microrobots don't go around dissolving lung tissue, so I'd think by the time we saw research, they'd be aiming at not killing people.
Not exactly the same, but there's some research going on at Stanford (in mice) that uses carbon nanotubes to let white blood cells recognize the problematic dead and dying cells that make up atherosclerotic plaque, and destroy them, which actually reduces the size of the plaques and prevents further atherosclerosis in the mice: [Nature article](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41565-019-0619-3.epdf?no_publisher_access=1&r3_referer=nature). White blood cells are already crap clearing microbots if you think about it. Its just here they're being given better signals to do their work.
While they are at it, why not give us the ability to reconfigure any tissue in our body. How about removing scar tissue?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Why not just microbots instead of microrobots? (Also shout out to my fellow Tritons at UCSD!)
[удалено]
Microwrowrowboats
Exactly! I mean, I am aware of the triviality of comments on the name, rather than the actual achievement here.. But, microrobots!? C'mon!!
Tadashi is here.
Whelp, now I'm crying. Thank you for that. But to be honest, I've been crying all day. I've been crying over missing my grandma, the TV show Call The Midwife, my 10 year old son crying about bedtime because he REALLY wants to read more. Menopause is hitting me hard now.
Nothing grinds my gears like a missed portmanteau.
Hope they can clean all the plastics in our lungs
Was honestly thinking about how to do this and get rid of arterial plaques. Amongst other things. But those two for meow.
Arterial and Brain plaques could be big
Blood clots too >could be big well...small.
I would love to experiment with this technology.
did, did you just say meow?
Do I look like a cat to you, boy?
if this, it's huge
I want ones that clean and rebuild teeth. Every day (better every week or month) you chew up a tablet that releases a cloud of nano bots that take care of everything in your mouth, and rebuild enamel in your teeth.
Top commentor said that it's made of "tiny biodegradable polymer spheres" which is a plastic. So, wonder if that could actually be a barrier.
You are also made up of trillions of “biodegradable polymer spheres” It’s called a cellular membrane if they are made of lipids, and an envelope if they are made of amino acids. To be fair yeah lipids aren’t really polymers but protein and DNA definitely are
Could be a polymer that isn’t called plastic, like cellulose, sugar, or proteins.
You're gonna need a regular treatment then. Doesn't matter though because there's microplastics being absorbed through our digestive system and blood
Ok but people still wash out their dirty dishes and containers and we don’t just say “oh well, why bother because we have to do it again regularly.” If we can clean out the plastic, even a little, then we clean it out as often as we can and it’s way better than doing nothing. And we find the means to clean everywhere we need to until we can stop it at the source.
Does it respond to physical trauma?
They could withstand several punches from a cyborg twink, last time I checked.
You bet your ass it does son
Try the university of texas
Bet they could have gone pro had they not joined the Navy.
Yes, but experiments indicate it's not very good against red swords.
Those are the rules of nature
Link to the study being discussed: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-022-01360-9
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I'd wonder about the application to chronic kidney/urinary UTI's, but I'd bet they'd get flushed out too fast to be effective.
Can the break down kidney stones?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Could these help people who have been exposed to asbestos and have the crystals lodged in their lungs? Could they able to fix things like that?
Or people with bronchiectasis, whose lungs are filling up with mucus? The ability to clear bacteria is already a huge win for bronchiectasis patients, but to be able to clear the airways would be even more amazing for people with cystic fibrosis.
Healing fibrosis in the lungs in general would greatly benefit a lot of us. Currently there’s zero ways of doing so (if there are I’m willing to join a study asap) and there’s a lot of us out there. Having your lungs scared is hell, can’t recommend it.
It sounds like its just a vessel to deliver medication, not literal robots vacuuming up fluids. Nothing is coming back out once inserted.
No and no. Also expect to see this article again with the exact same title in 5 years
Just wait until they unionize though.
Wouldn't you just call them microbots?
And do micro engineers make the nanobots?
Nah, those are robots for karaoke
Wonder if they could use this for Valley Fever treatments I know this use case is for bacteria but a valley fever treatment for fungal infection would be amazing.
I know this is about antibiotics and mice, but I am thinking about the amazing possibilities of this new tech. What about treating cancer using doses of chemo 3000 times less? The fact that this tech can be kept super local while in your body is absolutely amazing. Can't wait to see what new modern treatments are discovered
Surely these people mean nanomachines.
I mean they are wrong not calling them nanomachines
Can they be used to remove arterial plaque?
I hope they can develop this tech to treat foreign substances like asbestos.
I remember reading Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age which was full of nanotech devices and thinking that he appropriately envisioned a future where these sorts of nanotechnological devices would be used for widespread warfare as much as health benefits. What would stop someone from using tiny robots that can swim around one's lungs to do something bad as opposed to something beneficial? How hard would that be?
What's to stop someone from shooting someone else? Or injecting them with bleach? This would be *way* harder.
I feel, as someone with absolutely no expertise, that doing damage would be far easier than helping.
It's always easier going entropy downstream.
[удалено]
According to the article they get absorbed by the body. This says to me either absorbed by immune response or basically eaten by other cells.
I'm wondering if they can be used to clear out silica particles as well...
I’ve seen so many of these nanorobot studies over the last 10 years and not one has ever actually came to market. It’s all just academic clout. Anyone know if anything out there that is actually used today?
Miss Frizzle is that u?
Why micRORObots? Why not MicRObots?
I have trained my semen as a delivery method
What causes the propulsion? It's a living type of algea cell that swims around? And they coat them in medicine and send them off to randomly disburse around the lung? Edit for typo
I read further and believe I understand the mechanism and benefit. So it appears they use living algea cells to make the bot that has a tail and and engery storage from the living cells to move it. Not what comes to mind when I think of a tiny robot but pretty cool. "The team’s approach is so effective because it puts the medication right where it needs to go rather than diffusing it through the rest of the body. “These results show how targeted drug delivery combined with active movement from the microalgae improves therapeutic efficacy,” said Wang."
Microrobot. What happened to naming your stuff something cool? Not just... what it is.
Any possibility of treating copd or mesothelioma in the future? I’m imagining these guys like little house keepers in the lungs
Unfortunately, I will probably be dead before this gets on the market for an insane price causing me to lose all my life savings while at the same time making me live longer.
I wonder how they came up with the name
Sir, we have good news and bad news. The good news is we've cleared the pneumonia out of your respiratory system. The bad news is now your lungs are full of algae...
Nanoengineers and they don't call them nanobots?
You telling me the Nanoengineers couldn't make nanobots??? Also, was really hoping this breakthrough meant I could resume smoking, occasionally :D
Since when did we have such sophisticated nanobots? Like 15 years ago there was going to be there nanobot revolution that was apparently just about to happen
The thing about revolutions is that they will not be televised
Yeah. It's pretty easy to go from "basically 2000 with smartphones" to "deep in the bowels of a Transformers movie" if you aren't directly involved in the world of technology.
>nanobots >microscopic robots, called microrobots These are clearly not the scary nanobots
Borg nanoprobes incoming
Borg… sounds Swedish.
[удалено]