BiomedNews.org

?esky: Aplikace “rychlého” inzulínu inzulinovým perem (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Nanotech is performing miracles on a lot of fronts. Now they’re using it to develop new ways to treat diabetes and even to monitor blood sugar without the painful blood-letting currently required.

This scholarly paper discussing new fronts in nanotechnology gives you an idea of the scope of the investigations. A quick rundown of the contents:

“…polymeric nanoparticles, oral insulin admin-istration using polysaccharides and polymeric nanoparticles, inhalable insulin nanoparticle formulations, and insulin delivery using BioMEMS [biomedical (or biological) microelectromechanical systems]. In addition to ceramic and polymeric nanoparticles, studies on gold nanoparticles for insulin delivery and treatment of diabetes-associated symptoms are discussed.”

I had to look up “polymeric,” so I’ll share. Polymeric just means made out of polymers, which are already in everything from synthetic plastics (your kitchen storage stuff) and other things we use every day at work and at home, to natural biopolymers (like in RNA, DNA and amino acids) that are critical pieces of our biological selves.

Carbon nanotubes (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And here’s one about nanosensors that could selectively measure glucose concentrations. Glucose  would alter the current flowing down the conductive nanotubes. That data would then be fed to an embedded microchip which would send it wirelessly to a wearable computer. The technology’s not there yet, though. They’re still working on making these things compatible with staying inside the human body for long periods of time – not a small problem.

And then there’s something that’s closer to becoming a reality. Put on the diabetic patient like a tattoo, a solution of nanoparticle  sensor molecules reacts with sodium or glucose, creating “biomarkers”. Ultraviolet light makes the tattoo shine. They’re thinking they can use converted iPhones to make the light that’s needed. Though this probably won’t be a complete solution, it may help diabetes patients spot dangerous changes in between regular monitorings, according to an article on AZOnano.com.

English: Diagram to show how embryonic stem cells are differentiated (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I’m excited to report news involving three of my favorite topics: nanotechnology, stem cells, and fixing hearts. Past efforts using stem cells to treat heart attacks and heart failure haven’t been very successful. And the worst part is, they don’t know why. Apparently they inject the stem cells into a patient but then don’t know where they end up. Do they stay in the targeted part of the heart or wander off somewhere else? If the treatment doesn’t work, up til now there’s been no way to determine why not. Now if only they could tell where the stem cells go and what they do…

Enter this new visualizing technique. Doctors at Stanford University School of Medicine have designed a way to use nanotechnology to track stem cells after they’ve been introduced into a patient’s body. The thought is that once they know where the stem cells have gone, they’ll be able to see more clearly what’s happening with them.  The tracking technique, which also allows doctors to guide the stem cells more precisely to their intended location,  involves marking the stem cells with nanoparticles and a gadolinium-laced contrast agent and following them with standard ultrasounds (Yay, non-invasive!) as they enter the body and move around. The hope is the docs’ll be able to see exactly where the stem cells take up residence and watch what they do. Do they stay in the targeted area or do they diffuse away from the heart? Do they develop into the desired cells or into something else entirely?

I know that gadolinium as a contrast agent ingredient is known to cause people who have kidney problems to develop a terrible and disfiguring disease known as Nephrogenic Systemic Fibrosis. It’s certainly good to hear that the substance can also be used in this new way to potentially help people with serious heart issues.

Unfortunately, this exciting discovery has at least three more years before it can be used in humans. But as with all life-limiting conditions, those of us who live with them are always looking for reasons to hope.

Nanotechnology (Photo credit: podbay)

Nanotechnology has been around for thousands of years, says Nanofilm CEO Scott Rickert in an article for Virtual Strategy Magazine. He wonders how it got tagged as something new and unknown – and therefore, impliedly, worth being careful with.

Stating, as Mr. Rickert does, that nanoparticles have been around for four thousand years, and that humans have, for the most part completely unknowingly, been using nanotechnology for things like fighting bacteria, does not a defense make that using nanotechnology for any purpose is inherently and automatically safe.

After all, it’s well known that asbestos, which occurs naturally in pockets all over the world, has been being used by humans for thousands of years. Flame-proofing tablecloths was just one of the reasons ancient Romans used asbestos. And yet early history reports Roman  slaves who worked with the material as sickening and dying of respiratory problems. Yet science didn’t make the definitive connection between asbestos fibers and deadly diseases of the lungs until the early 20th century.

Asbestos fibres – a single fibre is believed to cause mesothelioma (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

When you consider it can take 20, 30 or even 50 years for the effects of asbestos fibers to result in killer diseases like mesothelioma, asbestosis and other cancers, it’s easy to see how companies that stand to make a mint from  manufacturing such a  material might be hesitant to publish any evidence that working with the material can eventually lead to disability and death.

It costs big money to put appropriate safety measures in place to protect workers from inhaling or ingesting the type of sub-microscopically tiny fibers that make up asbestos and nanotubes and fibers. And there’s plenty of evidence now that certain nanomaterials are indeed made up of the same-sized fibers as asbestos.

While no one wants to stop science from continuing to research what wonderful things we can do with nanomaterials, no one on the other hand needs to make a killing – financially or otherwise – by taking on such work and sacrificing workers’ health in order to make a bigger profit.

Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) buds (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Ho, ho, ho, nano. Santa Claus dropped off news of a study in India that shows the needles from your Christmas tree may be useful to sterilize nano medical devices.

Scientists used extract of Douglas fir needles to create nanoparticles that were then used to create an “antimicrobial, self-sterilizing composite material…essentially a silver/chitosan bionanocomposite” [that's bio-nano-composite]. The material can be used to safely coat medical implants and surgical devices to prevent bacteria from growing. Bacterial infection at the site of implanted devices, prosthetics and sensors is “one of the most troubling problems in biomedicine,” according to the article in Biomedical Nanoscience and Nanotechnology.

University of Washington quad in Spring (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Leave it to Seattle, the hotbed of software programming geniuses. Its local North Seattle Community College has invented a new certificate program and a new 2-year degree called AAS-T, Associate of Applied Science in Nanotechnology.  They’re collaborating with the University of Washington, which has comprehensive nanotech facilities, to prepare bunches of young people to become skilled technicians and fill an expected large number of jobs in the field of nano.

I’d advise anyone thinking of taking the program to conduct due diligence on the safety of working with nanofibers. See my earlier post on the length of inhaled fibers that lead to lung diseases. And get formal written assurances from the schools.

Remember, for decades many companies did not tell their workers about the dangers of asbestos fibers until the law forced them.

I’ve been worrying about potential danger from these guys ever since I first heard about them. Now comes some research indicating strongly that nanoparticles/nanofibers could be deadly to humans who are exposed to them. This particular research shows that it may be the length of the fibers that’s critical to whether they might eventually induce disease.

Some scientists set up the experiment with five types of silver nanofibers of various lengths and exposed mice to them. The mice developed inflammation in the pleura (the lining of the lungs) when exposed to fibers of a certain length—4 µm to be precise (that’s 4 millionths of a micron). We are talking tiny.

Asbestos fibres - a single fibre is believed to cause mesothelioma (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Since the pleura is exactly the same part of the body that is attacked when asbestos is breathed or ingested, researchers concluded their research could be relevant for colleagues investigating malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM), a deadly and aggressive type of lung cancer. Mesothelioma, as yet incurable, is the subject of lawsuits across the US and around the world because so many corporations either negligently or deliberately concealed from workers the dangers of inhaling or ingesting asbestos.

Asbestos was and is (in third world countries where it is still being widely used without regard for its danger to humans) a highly profitable substance. Its fire-retardant and heat-resistant properties, as well as its ability to be flexible and to strengthen other substances have made it much sought-after for hundreds of years. Profits grew even as those who worked with it were being sickened because of inadequate protections. And the long latency period before asbestos diseases manifest has helped camouflage the disregard for human safety—people may develop mesothelioma cancer as late as 10, 20, 30 or even 50 years after being exposed to asbestos. Who was going to connect a lung disease in a 60-something-year-old with what he did for a living 30 years ago?

This new research is the first solid evidence I’ve seen that nanofibers may hold the same type of danger to human health and life as asbestos. And heaven knows, nanotechnology is looking to be even more profitable than asbestos. The permutations of products made better, stronger, more flexible—almost more anything you want—with nanotechnology seem almost limitless. As may also be the greed of those who stand to make enormous financial gains from its use.

Let’s hope all the profits and material gains do not come at the price of ever more human suffering and lost lives.

When a 61-year-old woman died recently after having received an accepted targeted treatment—known as stereotactic body-radiation therapy—doctors had to start re-thinking both the radiation dose and the treatment itself.

Non-small-cell lung carcinoma (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Months after she’d received the treatment for early-stage adenocarcinoma, a type of non-small cell lung cancer, the woman came back suffering. Doctors found not only that her cancer had metastasized but also that a large portion of healthy tissue in her airway had been destroyed by the radiation.  They then treated her with chemotherapy rather than radiation, but she died anyway a few months later.

Despite doctors following accepted protocol, the patient died. It took courage to report this case, according to the US News and Health article. Even though this incident is about a single patient, having it on the record can help other doctors think more carefully about how and how much to use this increasingly popular therapy.

Let us hope physicians are all as brave and forthcoming if and when they discover dangerous or devastating side effects from the new nanoparticle-based targeted cancer therapy techniques.

Blood_Vessels (Photo credit: shoebappa)

The trouble with some of the miracles of science is that we discover some wonderful substance and start manipulating it in the belief we know what we’re doing, only to find out at some later date that the substance in question—in this case, nitric oxide—does not, in fact, perform its magic all by itself.

A recent study reports that hydrogen sulfide (H2S), which was thought to perform on its own certain functions similar to those of nitric oxide (NO), is actually a partner with NO in such actions as growing new blood vessels and relaxing existing ones. The authors of the study were Greek and American scientists, and the report is published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

Adoption of Genetically Engineered Crops in the U.S. HT = herbicide tolerance. BT = insect resistance. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The only conclusion I can reach is that these researchers were surprised by this discovery. Which makes me wonder. How can we use nanotechnology for a myriad of purposes and gaily go about genetically modifying foods and so on without having done enough safety studies? What surprise “partnerships” might we be missing/ignoring? And if we’re missing something, anything, what long-term effects will, for example, the genetically modified foods have on the nutrition—and therefore growth and health—of the animals and humans consuming them?

I served recently on a small panel of ordinary citizens being questioned by food industry representatives. The topic was attitudes about food safety and food labeling. What kind of labels did we think would make us feel confident about a food? I ask you: if you read “This is really good for you!” on a package, how much do you believe that? How often do you trust that “free range” really means the chickens didn’t spend most of their lives crammed together on top of each other in cages? And does “organic” broccoli mean they used compost from the kitchen in the dirt but still sprayed the hell out of it with pesticides? The truth is often a crapshoot

Some panelists thought they’d trust a source of foods–like Trader Joe’s or Whole Foods–more than they’d trust the marketing language of the manufacturer. The assumption being that these large, consumer-friendly stores that talk big about wholesome and healthy have actually done some serious investigating before they decided to carry a certain brand.

When it comes to nanotech in medicine, I’m sure that if a medicine could be nano-power-injected in me that would save my life—even for a while—I’d say hurry up and shoot, man. But it’s a different story when we talk about using it to fight cancer in a small child where we don’t know what the long-term consequences may be of nanoparticles injected into the body.

No Luddites here. Thank God for every exciting step forward in science—and equal gratitude for those who urge balance and caution.

We eat radishes. "Radish Roll" (Photo credit: ulterior epicure)

It’s not good news, but it’s also not unexpected. Recent experiments with adding engineered nanoparticles to plants’ diets determined that the plants started gradually shriveling up and dying.

Specifically, the plants being experimented with were radishes and two ryegrass ground covers that grazing animals commonly eat.  Researchers at National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the University of Massachusetts Amherst (UMass) wanted to learn:

…whether nanosizing cupric oxide [a reactive chemical that removes electrons from other compounds] made the generation and accumulation of DNA lesions more or less likely in plants. If the former, the researchers also wanted to find out if nanosizing had any substantial effects on plant growth and health.

They found out. The radishes absorbed twice as much cupric oxide and developed twice as many DNA lesions when the mineral came in smaller nanoparticles versus those bigger than 100 nanometers. And the results on the radish seedlings were definitively destructive.

Although the DNA of the two ryegrasses was not as dramatically affected, in all three plant species, growth of both roots and shoots was significantly stunted. Next up for these researchers will be similar testing with “titanium dioxide nanoparticles — such as those used in many sunscreens — on rice plants.”

This report’s conclusions stick strictly to the science and don’t project anything about how the effects of this experiment might apply to human beings being injected or otherwise treated with medicines or protocols involving nano-sized particles. It’s reassuring, at least, to know that high-level researchers are working to test the safety of nanoparticles for living systems. Let’s hope this series of experiments is the first of many that will lead to new, strict standards for nano-sized development.

As baby boomers age, people are also living longer. Naturally they hope to also have improved quality of life—without paying their entire retirement savings for it.

What if we could affordably regenerate blood vessels, bones, cartilage, and even organs? Stem cell research is doggedly pursuing these magical goals, and now nanotechnology is promising to team up to help direct those efforts.

According to a recent presentation at the American Chemical Society (ACS), scientists are beginning to understand biological pathways more deeply. And now nanotech chemistry is coming along to help them implement new ways of doing things. Experts are developing nanotechnology strategies to use “supramolecular self-assembly” to create noodle-like “nanoscale filaments, virus-like objects, or cell-like microcapsules” that can act as scaffolding for building regeneration processes.

The report goes on to say these noodle “gels” can be used with stem cell therapies to help treat spinal cord injury and Parkinson’s disease, to promote rapid growth of blood vessels for heart attacks or diseased arteries, and to facilitate regenerating bone and cartilage.

The patient’s right hip joint replaced by a metal head and a plastic cup. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

As someone who’s looking at another hip replacement in the near future, this makes me want to say, “Hell, no,” and refuse to let them do the current barbaric procedure. This sawing-and-cutting-out-your-bones thing is so 18th century. Would I ask any questions about whether those nanoparticles could hurt me? Not at my age.

Wonder if I can hold out long enough for this promising tech to bear fruit?