Antibiotic-loaded microalgae treat bacterial pneumonia in mice(nature.com)
nature.com
Antibiotic-loaded microalgae treat bacterial pneumonia in mice
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41563-022-01360-9
74 comments
By "robots" they mean algae cells coated with a drug.
Ok, we've replaced nanoparticle-modified microrobots with antibiotic-loaded microalgae* in the title above. We've also inmiced it. Thanks!
* because those words appear in the abstract
* because those words appear in the abstract
Interestingly, this employment of algal cells to deliver drugs is far more in keeping with the original meaning of the word which became "robot" - namely, "robota", which in many languages refers to forced work or slavery. So, in a very real sense, these are robots.
These are robots in the sense that the origin of the word has this meaning, but in contemporary English use "robot" refers to some kind of electromechanical machine, or sometimes a piece of software. But in my mind engineered algal cells don't really fit with contemporary English use of the word.
Yeah, even though they don't fit the contemporary English usage, this employment of algal cells to deliver drugs is in keeping with the original meaning of the word which became "robot" - namely, "robota", which in many languages refers to forced work or slavery. So, in a very real sense, these are robots.
Blink twice if you're a language model that's doing "robota" right now
Now I’m torn between “they aren’t robots because they actually want it” and “they are robots because they were engineered”. What have you done.
Aren't all cells slaves in some way?
[deleted]
Using 'robot' to denote just any "worker" seems to make no (terminologically) decisional sense, not theoretical nor practical - you could find better options.
It is, in this case, like tying cleaning rags on the paws of a household cat, and saying "There, I have a robot".
It is, in this case, like tying cleaning rags on the paws of a household cat, and saying "There, I have a robot".
[deleted]
> robot
This very odd "employment" (well) of the term 'robot' just had me check for the meaning a bit more deeply:
it appears that "robota" is related to work after the subject was forced to work, with limited choice, by a "predicament", a "change of condition", namely chiefly by being orphaned (cpr. related latin 'orbus').
That seems to be the field in which the word should move.
(It also seems that some people in wiktionary.org are doing a very good job.)
This very odd "employment" (well) of the term 'robot' just had me check for the meaning a bit more deeply:
it appears that "robota" is related to work after the subject was forced to work, with limited choice, by a "predicament", a "change of condition", namely chiefly by being orphaned (cpr. related latin 'orbus').
That seems to be the field in which the word should move.
(It also seems that some people in wiktionary.org are doing a very good job.)
Kinda weird that scientific articles in Nature journals now have clickbait titles.
Tiny robots do it all the time. They're called immune cells.
Those are not really our robots when we don’t have the API.
They’re as much “robots” as drug coated algae.
> Here we use click chemistry to attach antibiotic-loaded neutrophil membrane-coated polymeric nanoparticles to natural microalgae, thus creating hybrid microrobots for the active delivery of antibiotics in the lungs in vivo.
> Overall, these findings highlight the attractive functions of algae–nanoparticle hybrid microrobots for the active in vivo delivery of therapeutics to the lungs in intensive care unit settings.
This is fascinating, but not “robots”:
> A robot is a machine — especially one programmable by a computer — capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
> Here we use click chemistry to attach antibiotic-loaded neutrophil membrane-coated polymeric nanoparticles to natural microalgae, thus creating hybrid microrobots for the active delivery of antibiotics in the lungs in vivo.
> Overall, these findings highlight the attractive functions of algae–nanoparticle hybrid microrobots for the active in vivo delivery of therapeutics to the lungs in intensive care unit settings.
This is fascinating, but not “robots”:
> A robot is a machine — especially one programmable by a computer — capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot
We have the API in almost every cell of our bodies. We don’t have good docs though.
god is a typical programmer. doesnt like to write docs.
[deleted]
It's so crazy to think that we as humans can look at our lungs and clearly see what's wrong with them and what it would take to solve the problem but we can't simply order our immune cells to deal with the matter consciously and are at the mercy of a system we have a murky relationship with.
Instead, just like CRISPR, we have to find already existing organisms or mechanisms that do something and try to get them inside of us to carry the job
Instead, just like CRISPR, we have to find already existing organisms or mechanisms that do something and try to get them inside of us to carry the job
Giving orders to our immune system so directly would risk bypassing all kinds of subtle interactions that hold the whole system together. It would be like seeing a typo, and dealing with it by ordering that the chunk of the screen containing the typo be carved out.
Order is perhaps a strong word. Suggestion might be more fitting?
In a similar sense I'm a bit troubled by sleep, it is absolutely paramount for your well-being but you only have a very indirect control of it.
In a similar sense I'm a bit troubled by sleep, it is absolutely paramount for your well-being but you only have a very indirect control of it.
Probably because, even though we know what to fix, ordering our immune system to do what we think is right would probably break other things due to the huge complexity our our bodies.
So we have to go "roundabout" ways to tell existing cells what to do, so they can keep doing what they are doing to keep us alive at the same time as they do what we say.
So we have to go "roundabout" ways to tell existing cells what to do, so they can keep doing what they are doing to keep us alive at the same time as they do what we say.
> even though we know what to fix, ordering our immune system to do what we think is right would probably break other things due to the huge complexity our our bodies
When it comes to the decision making of biological systems, I always think about the game Elevator Saga[0], and how "fixing" one level can break all the others. Now think that game with million times the signals/variables/events and so many levels that it feels infinite, and you begin to understand the challenge that our immune system faces. The current solution passes many "levels" (diseases) but not all, and when we make changes, there's no single test-suite that guarantees that we didn't break anything significant.
[0]: https://play.elevatorsaga.com/
When it comes to the decision making of biological systems, I always think about the game Elevator Saga[0], and how "fixing" one level can break all the others. Now think that game with million times the signals/variables/events and so many levels that it feels infinite, and you begin to understand the challenge that our immune system faces. The current solution passes many "levels" (diseases) but not all, and when we make changes, there's no single test-suite that guarantees that we didn't break anything significant.
[0]: https://play.elevatorsaga.com/
This is the same analytical problem with geoengineering climate change mitigations. Unforeseeable consequences while underway and when it stops.
I've thought the exact same thing. One thing I think about a lot is how we're really at a very frustrating transitionary point in history, where we're aware of most of the causes of what is wrong with us, but we don't quite have the facilities to actually address them just yet.
But also that we are actually NOT aware of the causes; a really interesting field these days (imo, as a layperson) is gut biome and its interactions with the rest of the body, and more and more links being found with brain conditions like alzheimer's and co. These are really complicated systems that we still haven't figured out entirely.
I like to think our gut biome is just a natural network of microbes that evolve together to operate this sack of flesh we occupy.
So us assuming we know best about what quantities of which microbes is good for us seems quite hard to believe for me.
So us assuming we know best about what quantities of which microbes is good for us seems quite hard to believe for me.
Biological systems have developed for hundreds of millions of years, their complexity is much bigger than anything in the IT realm, which is relatively young.
I don't wonder at all that it is nature that can fight nature better than we can. Nature is by far the biggest and the oldest lab of them all, with an untold count of experiments ran.
I don't wonder at all that it is nature that can fight nature better than we can. Nature is by far the biggest and the oldest lab of them all, with an untold count of experiments ran.
> Nature is by far the biggest and the oldest lab of them all, with an untold count of experiments ran.
That's a weak argument. With sound reasoning you can often reduce the solution space dramatically, even before running any experiments at all.
In other words, a single argument can be worth an "untold count of experiments", if you've modeled the problem space well.
In the limit (just to illustrate the point, rare in biological systems), you could derive a solution from its constraints analytically. In which case you need exactly zero experiments.
And even in complex biological systems, it's not like "everything goes", you still don't need to try everything. Informed reasoning helps, relative to "a lab of random mutation experiments". That's why humans have been taking their ecosystems by storm… for better or worse.
That's a weak argument. With sound reasoning you can often reduce the solution space dramatically, even before running any experiments at all.
In other words, a single argument can be worth an "untold count of experiments", if you've modeled the problem space well.
In the limit (just to illustrate the point, rare in biological systems), you could derive a solution from its constraints analytically. In which case you need exactly zero experiments.
And even in complex biological systems, it's not like "everything goes", you still don't need to try everything. Informed reasoning helps, relative to "a lab of random mutation experiments". That's why humans have been taking their ecosystems by storm… for better or worse.
Unless of course you consider humans a part of nature (as I do). In which case "nature's lab" includes humans and their science too, and the point becomes tautological.
Articulate planning and reasoning is then just another experiment in nature's lab.
Articulate planning and reasoning is then just another experiment in nature's lab.
> we can't simply order our immune cells
I tried that, now they're unionising and threatening strike action unless I provide better pay and conditions!
I tried that, now they're unionising and threatening strike action unless I provide better pay and conditions!
how about how anesthesia works.
If you know a way to order yourself into anesthesia I think some kind of million dollar prize is waiting for you
I think hypnosis is sometimes used for anesthesia. So maybe self-hypnosis is also possible.
After a quick look at wikipedia I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hypnosis#Childbirth_anest...
Not sure how solid this is though.
After a quick look at wikipedia I found this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-hypnosis#Childbirth_anest...
Not sure how solid this is though.
What if you did it and couldn't order yourself out though?
hopefully not, but...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locked-in_syndrome
Ray Kurzweil had a prediction that by 2030 nanobots will cure diseases (before we have the technology to cure aging, which many people predict to be about 15 years from now, Ray predicts earlier).
While it's not inorganic molecules (Ray is not specific about technology implementations on purpose), immunotherapy is already getting better, and this looks like one more interesting example.
While it's not inorganic molecules (Ray is not specific about technology implementations on purpose), immunotherapy is already getting better, and this looks like one more interesting example.
> before we have the technology to cure aging, which many people predict to be about 15 years from now, Ray predicts 12
This number seems oddly small and specific? If aging is "cured" in humans in 12-15 years, you would expect it to be already cured today in animal models. Is there such an example where we were able to make an animal immortal?
This number seems oddly small and specific? If aging is "cured" in humans in 12-15 years, you would expect it to be already cured today in animal models. Is there such an example where we were able to make an animal immortal?
My mom used to work at an institute for Vitality and Aging and the leading professor there liked to say that "the first person that will reach a 1000 years of age has already been born"
It wasn't Aubrey De Grey was it?
In any case I'm skeptical for the same reasons as the parent. Until we can do it to a mouse reliably, it's at least 20 years away.
The other thing that people miss is we have cures for a whole lot of things that people still die from in many parts of the world. If this technology was available, I don't see any encouraging precedent that it would become cost effective enough in any normal time horizon to be available to normies like the rest of us.
In any case I'm skeptical for the same reasons as the parent. Until we can do it to a mouse reliably, it's at least 20 years away.
The other thing that people miss is we have cures for a whole lot of things that people still die from in many parts of the world. If this technology was available, I don't see any encouraging precedent that it would become cost effective enough in any normal time horizon to be available to normies like the rest of us.
No, this was at a less famous institute in Leiden, The Netherlands
Not exactly, but there are promising experiments that may or may not turn into something in the near future.
There are competing hypotheses for what's causing aging and how it may be "cured".
Among the more "simple" ones is that aging is programmed, for some reason like to ensure genetic diversity and that new genes can get a good chance to survive and reproduce. That's the thing with young blood seemingly doing some rejuvenation on older individuals. This has not yet resulted in huge lifespan extensions of any animals. Whether this is just because the procedures needs to be tweaked a bit or the hypothesis is wrong should become clear in the next few years I think.
There are competing hypotheses for what's causing aging and how it may be "cured".
Among the more "simple" ones is that aging is programmed, for some reason like to ensure genetic diversity and that new genes can get a good chance to survive and reproduce. That's the thing with young blood seemingly doing some rejuvenation on older individuals. This has not yet resulted in huge lifespan extensions of any animals. Whether this is just because the procedures needs to be tweaked a bit or the hypothesis is wrong should become clear in the next few years I think.
There is, partial reprogramming using Yamanaka factors. The problem is that they can turn some cells into stem cells if they are applied too long, so while they work amazingly well, they have a side effect of causing cancer.
There are 2 ways to fix the problem: have a cure for cancer or use other proteins instead of Yamanaka factors that only do partial reprogramming.
There's research going on in both direction, though the second solution could have more research in it (the $2B injection to Altos Labs by Jeff Bezos can help though).
There are 2 ways to fix the problem: have a cure for cancer or use other proteins instead of Yamanaka factors that only do partial reprogramming.
There's research going on in both direction, though the second solution could have more research in it (the $2B injection to Altos Labs by Jeff Bezos can help though).
[deleted]
2030 seems way too early, but Feynman predicted the nanobots a while ago:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eRCygdW--c
There are at least two ways to go about this:
1 - keep making computers smaller until they are ingestible and somehow interface with biology
2 - learn enough about existing biology to be able to re-program cells for our purposes
However, to me the most exciting type of projects are the ones that merge these approaches, like an ingestible pill shaped device containing a compartment filled with bacteria engineered for particular tasks. In one case the bacteria were made to glow in the presence of heme, and the device contains a light sensor as well as bluetooth transmitter to relay the data to the smartphone in real time. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9315
As Feyman mentioned, this type of device could also be made to capture a biopsy, perform certain micro-surgeries, etc aka Swallow the Doctor.
But without even even getting to the super fancy nanorobots, it seems to me there is a lot of low-hanging fruit in simply chemically modifying or repackaging existing drugs for tissue-specific application. This would enable increasing the dosage of existing medication without increasing side effects. That seems like something that could happen by 2030 and it would revolutionize medicine.
There are at least two ways to go about this:
1 - keep making computers smaller until they are ingestible and somehow interface with biology
2 - learn enough about existing biology to be able to re-program cells for our purposes
However, to me the most exciting type of projects are the ones that merge these approaches, like an ingestible pill shaped device containing a compartment filled with bacteria engineered for particular tasks. In one case the bacteria were made to glow in the presence of heme, and the device contains a light sensor as well as bluetooth transmitter to relay the data to the smartphone in real time. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aas9315
As Feyman mentioned, this type of device could also be made to capture a biopsy, perform certain micro-surgeries, etc aka Swallow the Doctor.
But without even even getting to the super fancy nanorobots, it seems to me there is a lot of low-hanging fruit in simply chemically modifying or repackaging existing drugs for tissue-specific application. This would enable increasing the dosage of existing medication without increasing side effects. That seems like something that could happen by 2030 and it would revolutionize medicine.
It will be so crazy to me if Ray Kurzweil ends up being right about everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil#Predictions
Yes, it would be crazy, because some of his predictions have already been incorrect.
The prediction was about nanobots curing diseases, not papers about nanobots curing diseases.
is it just me but doesnt ray kurzweil look like a ghost from all the drugs hes inje[cs]ted?
aparently he eats 100 pills a day now according to wikipedia.
Maybe he eats them, but he's fat. Having a personal trainer would help him live longer than those pills. He's clearly not maximizing his probability of living long enough to get access to age reversal medicine, but that doesn't mean that his ideas were not thought provoking.
a guy that needs to eat 100 pills a day needs to get his mental health checked.
This made me think of Calico/Google trying to develop early cancer detection systems. If I recall correctly, they wanted you to swallow something that would be wandering in the bloodstream, ready to attach to loose cancer cells. That combo could then theoretically be measured by a wristband of sorts that we would wear around.
I remember seeing that demo 8 or 9 years ago. Yet here we are, still waiting for the pancreas to start hurting, when it's obviously too late to do anything about it. If only we had good incentives around preventive care...
I remember seeing that demo 8 or 9 years ago. Yet here we are, still waiting for the pancreas to start hurting, when it's obviously too late to do anything about it. If only we had good incentives around preventive care...
Ah to be born two decades later, may be I wouldn't have the damage to my lungs from pneumonia. Would have killed to have this treatment then.
Nanorobots have been a subject that I keep thinking will lead amazing breakthroughs, it seems like they are coming, just much slower than expected
wow. not long b4 they send it as payload on your next booster.
Any way to bypass the paywall?
Found this source (not full research) https://today.ucsd.edu/story/tiny-swimming-robots-treat-dead...
there's probably a robot for that :)