Silicon wafer directs and filters out cancer cells
By Joshua Fruhlinger 
posted Jun 8th 2008 10:16AM
posted Jun 8th 2008 10:16AM
Normally we get excited when a slab of silicon makes our games run at 60 frames per-second, but in this case we're impressed with a new chip that filters out cancer cells. The device, created by some impressive souls at Princeton and Boston University, directs and focuses streams of cells in a liquid. Like a change sorter, it then separates regular cells form unusual ones. The silicon wafer is tacked with tiny pillars that catch abnormal cells that are, in the end, potentially cancerous. The device hasn't been used to any major extent, but we'll keep an eye on this promising discovery.
Im either still drunk or REALLY hungover... OR this sounds like another step towards curing practicaly any blood based disease?! I wish i was that smart to work on those kind of projects. respect!
Well said. I don't know how they pull this stuff off, but it's simply amazing.
*Kicks your avatar in the nut sack*
Yes, this discovery could basically, when adjusted, filter out any sort of blood based toxin.
Implant this type of filter inside a major artery, and it does the job of a liver. A replacable, bionic liver.
Or program it to track down HIV. Place it in the bloodstream. While it may not be able to cleanse the body, it could significantly reduce the effects, and maybe give the body a fighting chance.
never gonna happen the pharmecutical corportion will stop this
they dont my money from cures or preventions only treatment
DAMN the corpartion
sorry pardon my spelling and grammer
I dunno. Cancer cells are offshoots of normal cells. Bloodborn diseases are foreign substances in the blood. Its kinda hard to explain, but you understand where i'm going right?
Methinks it would be more accurate to say this could be a treatment for localized cell abnormalities, lest you drop it in and it traps every single cell in the body in the case of systemic conditions
@dramamoose
Impossible with this particular bit of tech. The HIV virus is hundreds of times smaller than the white blood cells they infect, so it would be impossible to filter them out simply based on shape. They'd still squeeze through unless some sort of pressurized rolling-liquid membrane is developed... which might create harmful blood pressure levels.
YEAH!! Go science, GO !!!
Hmm..interesting...using silicon to frag cancer cells...They could totally make a game out of that...It'd be like the expansion to Folding@Home.
Hmm..interesting...using silicon to frag cancer cells. They could totally make a game out of that. It'd be like the expansion to Folding@Home.
Amazing.
But hopefully this will get somewhere, unlike the thousands of "discoveries" we hear about all the time that end up disappearing with the media also happy to just stop covering them all of a sudden.
Hey Engadget, any chance of a source link at all?
Just click on the image ;)
You just have to click the picture
Heh derrr, hadn't spotted that. I was looking for hyperlinks. Shame that site wants you to apy before it'll show you the rest though.
This sounds a little like they've combined FACS and chromatography. To save you the trouble of reading all of those links, here's a basic idea of how it works: FACS puts the cells in a suspension and shines a light at them. there's sensors that detect how much of that light is scattered, and how much gets through. The more light that passes through uninterrupted, the smaller the cell. More light scattered means the cell is more complex (both in shape and internally - macrophages for instance). It's far from a foolproof method, but it works well enough for most purposes. Note that this only works as an identifier and doesn't physically separate the cells.
Chromatography is the separation step. However, in order to separate them you need to have some physical difference between the cells. If there's a significant size difference, then that's simple enough, but size differences alone usually won't cut it. What we do then is to use labeled antibodies. Antibodies are extremely specific for certain markers on cells (among other things, depending on the antibody). Basically, they find a certain feature on the cell and stick to it. Antibodies are Y-shaped proteins, with the top parts of the Y being the sticky ones. The stem of it can have something else attached. To do a physical separation, you attach some magnetic metal ions to the stem. This allows you to use a magnet to separate out the cells that have the antibody stuck to them, while other cells will simply pass through.
The difficulty is that cancer cells have nearly identical markers to normal cells. There's a lot of cell biologists and biochemists out there trying to elucidate the differences and designing antibodies that will hit cancer cells but not normal ones. The other problem is that there's a lot of different kinds of cancer, even within the same tissues, which means we more or less have to reinvent an antibody for each type. Add to it that the above method only works with cells in a solution (no tumors or tissue cancers), and you see the problem. For lymph, CSF, and blood, this may work well enough, but it's not a silver bullet.
So this is where the next generation of pharmaceuticals comes in. Instead of attaching a metal ion to separate some cells from others, you simply attach your extra-toxic drug to the stem of the antibody. Since the drug won't stay anywhere long until it attaches, you can use drugs that would normally be too toxic otherwise. Your antibodies will just flow along in your bloodstream until they find the cancer. Once they find it, they'll stick to it, and your drug starts to do its job. The cancer gets hit and the rest of your body is unaffected.
Summary: This chip sounds similar to equipment and techniques that scientists are already using in the laboratory; it's just smaller. A chip like this will potentially be useful for research purposes, but it's not a cure.
Also, sorry for the extra-long rant.
Thanks for the information.
Close, but not quite. Chromatography is a method of separating chemical compounds by their molecular mass or / and affinity to the mobile and stationary phases (in other words, their polarity). No antibodies there, applies to proteins and simpler organic compounds mostly. What you are talking about is magnetic cell sorting and separation (e.g the popular MACS system).
Regarding FACS - you described regular flow cytometry and called it FACS, which actually stands for Fluorescent Activated Cell Sorting. This technique additionally employs fluorescent-labeled antibodies and enables identification of narrow cell populations (e.g pre-B lymphocytes in leukemias) with great precision. What is more, many flow cytometers have cell sorters which charge passing cells electrically depending on the wavelength of the light emitted by a fluorescent marker illuminated by the laser. Then it just sorts the passing cells in an electric field directing them to respective test-tubes.
And of course there are also old-school methods of cell separation, like centrifugation, separation with osmotic shock or adherential separation of cells using antibodies.
So yeah, there is quite a lot of science there but what you will spot online is usually Wow! Silicon filter!
Medgadget anyone?
@ppk,
I suppose I wasn't very clear in my assessment and explanation. I got more caught up in getting it all typed out that I didn't proofread for clarity or make any significant revisions. Your comment did clarify some of my comment's shortcomings, and I thank you for that.
What I was trying to say really is that, as I read it, this chip claims to do 2 things; 1: identify cancer cells, and 2: physically separate them from normal cells.
As I understand it, there are a few ways to identify cancerous cells. Typically the easiest way is to look at a cell's morphology (physical characteristics). I did indeed confuse Flow cytometry with FACS, but in my (admittedly limited) experience, the two are often used in conjunction. More info here. This same process can also, as you stated, can physically separate the cells. However, I have difficulty imagining this happening on a piece of silicon.
My use of the term "chromatography" was also off. It was an attempt to simplify things that ended up convoluting them instead. What I was trying to describe was a hypothetical epitope-affinity column. My MACS example was relevant to cell sorting, but not chromatography per se. However, after reading the free portion of the linked article, chromatography (size-based) is prettymuch what they're doing. It's far from accurate, and even further from a cure.
So yeah, I was wrong or at least unclear on a few points, but I stand by my summary.
Supposedly, once we finally cure cancer (if we haven't cured cancer already), the government will (or has been) keep it away from public use because too many medical facilities and industries are making too much money from treating it, and it would hurt the economy.
I really doubt it, in places like the UK where the NHS is government funded they'll leap on the opportunity to cure cancer so they no longer have to pay for the ridiculously expensive treatments from pharmacy companies
Yeah, gotta watch out for those government conspiracies. Our government(s) don't want us to be healthy individuals or anything like that, it could mean disaster!
Any crackpot that actually believes this knows nothing about scientific research. Yes, pharmaceutical companies totally rip off consumers, but no one is hiding cures from the public. You tinfoil-hat wearers believe that one drug can cure cancer. It just shows that you know nothing about cancer or biology. First of all, there are TONS of different kinds of cancer cells, many of which are completely and totally different with few, if any, similarities. This means they cannot be killed by the same, or even similar, drugs. Many different drugs, or viral vectors, or any other treatments, are needed for each type of cancer. Ignoring this fact, however, and assuming some miracle drugs do exist that 'cure' cancer, you're obviously oblivious as to the complexity of the human body. Any drug or treatment that affects one thing will almost certainly affect one or many other things. Look at the COX-2 inhibitors. It is very difficult to know the full effects of drugs or treatments on patients until their use is widespread -- and by that point, if problems ARE discovered, many people will be affected, possibly making the situation worse than it originally was. The government isn't perfect, but in this case they're trying to help you, not kill you.
As an example of the danger of treatments, look at the case of Jesse Gelsinger when using viral vectors to treat OTCD. The treatment had shown promise in other patients, but killed Jesse Gelsinger because of an immune response. That's bad. Science is unpredictable and every care must be taken when attempting to treat humans -- and therefore drugs should be thoroughly tested before being used.
Take off the tinfoil hat and get back to reality.
Has anyone told you that you are stupid?
Just in case, you are stupid.
But then again, is it really "curing" cancer? Don't get me wrong, I am all for this technology, but it doesn't really address the root cause of cancer.
But at the same time, a technology like this gives a lot more time to find the root cause since people should not be dying as much in the meanwhile.
@ Haxxy, very true. And at @skry, very true also. However, I also realized that American medical and pharmaceutical companies do a lot of medical business abroad as well, so they unfortunately have lots of influence the world over, I think =(
If I were you, I'd thank your deity of choice for that. Or just thank America.
If the American Medical establishment suddenly decided to start serving exclusively Americans, the rest of the world's standard of living would drop considerably.
Don't forget to change your silicone cancer cell filter every three months.
I wonder if there will be different quality filters. Silver, Gold, Ultimate and maybe even Platinum! Each step up gives you a better chance of survival! Maybe they would even have a 6 or 12 month "extra mileage" filter!
Build micro-robots, give them a laser and we got the cure. ;)
Micro-Sharks with freaking lasers FTW!
Yes, but will run Crysis ?
doom!
I low ranked both of you.
Anyone have access to the full article at new scientist - I want to find out what journal this research was published in. Thanks.
Search PubMed for Robert Austin, there are quite a few relevant papers.
This is amazing.
Beware!! We all know what happened in "I Am Legend". If this really turns out to be a cure for cancer and not turn us to zombies then this will be the biggest discovery since penicillin.
Why did you have to remind me of that godawful movie? =(
Who cares about curing cancer? 3G iPHONE!!!
I can't wait till tomorrow's over.
either my sarcasm meter is completely broken or you're a complete moron.
Cause, I mean, mobile internet is much more important than saving lives right?
Looks really promising however it really does sound to good to be true.
Superb Fantastic. Nepal could open a silicon based factory then to remove cancerous cells.
lava kafle
http://www.everestuncensored.org/?s=lava
Probably decades/centuries from being useable if it even is possibly usable.
I think nanorobots that'll repair your DNA for you are probably gonna be functional before these, lol.