Nanomachines fucks up cancer's shit

>>9139742
>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/08/30/nanomachines-drill-cancer-cells-killing-just-60-seconds-developed/
Any non popsci/clickbait link?

>>9139745
This. Paper or out.

>>9139742
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v548/n7669/full/nature23657.html?foxtrotcallback=true

Just pay Nature $5 to read it unless you already have a subscription.

>>9139742
He's always right

>>9139742
Nanomotors, not nanomachines. In summary they made nanomotors that can stick to cells, and fuck them up by spinning around. They're probably not that specific either.


Wew, we've made so much progress in molecular machines that we're now at the level of Hero's steam engine.

>>9140938

From https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170830132217.htm:

"The Rice lab created 10 variants, including motor-bearing molecules in several sizes and peptide-carrying nanomachines designed to target specific cells for death, as well as control molecules identical to the other nanomachines but without motors."

and

"The Pal lab at Durham tested motors on live cells, including human prostate cancer cells. Experiments showed that without an ultraviolet trigger, motors could locate specific cells of interest but stayed on the targeted cells' surface and were unable to drill into the cells. When triggered, however, the motors rapidly drilled through the membranes.

Test motors designed to target prostate cancer cells broke through their membranes from outside and killed them within one to three minutes of activation, Pal said. Videos of the cells showed increased blebbing -- bubbling of the membrane -- within minutes after activation.

Smaller molecular motors were harder to track but proved better at getting into cells quickly upon ultraviolet activation, disrupting their membranes and killing them. Motorless control molecules were unable to kill cells upon ultraviolet exposure, which eliminated thermal absorption of ultraviolet light as the cause of disruption, according to the researchers."

They are able to target specific cells.

File: north-korea-moon-base.jpg (106KB, 771x414px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 771x414px

>>9139742
Not true, cancer can only be cured by the healing touch of glorious Kim.

File: s-l300.jpg (18KB, 300x296px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 300x296px

>>9141070
Tell me /sci/, you glorious bunch, is it possible to cure cancer?

NANOMACHINES SON

>>9141065
sure, as long as only those specific cells express a certain binding site.

Still, you can barely call the damn thing a nanomachine.

>>9139742
A news story about a miracle cure for cancer? That's a first, looks like cancer's a thing of the past now, that's a relief, gonna go throw out my sunscreen and smoke some marlboros.

File: 1358065683862.jpg (46KB, 445x600px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 445x600px

Hooray! And it'll only be about 120 more years until they're developed into something that can actually work in humans!

>>9141155
>Hooray! And it'll only be about 120 more years until they're developed into something that can actually work in humans!

http://bigthink.com/think-tank/big-idea-technology-grows-exponentially

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_change

Progress of knowledge is not linear but exponential since knowledge builds unto itself.