Researchers create incredible 'DNA NanoGripper' that could revolutionize medicine: 'This approach has bigger potential'
"We wanted to make a soft material, nanoscale robot with grabbing functions that never have been seen before, to interact with cells, viruses and other molecules for biomedical applications," said lead researcher Xing Wang in a release by the school. "We are using DNA for its structural properties. It is strong, flexible and programmable. Yet even in the DNA origami field, this is novel in terms of the design principle. We fold one long strand of DNA back and forth to make all of the elements, both the static and moving pieces, in one step."
The so-called NanoGripper has been initially used to bind to COVID-19 cells. Thanks to a little collaboration with computer scientists, researchers have been able to make a highly accurate COVID test on par with what's used in hospitals.
When you're choosing health and beauty products, which of these factors is most important to you?
Cost
Brand name
Ingredients
Packaging
Click your choice to see results and speak your mind.
"Our test is very fast and simple since we detect the intact virus directly," electrical and computer engineering professor Brian Cunningham said. "When the virus is held in the NanoGripper's hand, a fluorescent molecule is triggered to release light when illuminated by an LED or laser. When a large number of fluorescent molecules are concentrated upon a single virus, it becomes bright enough in our detection system to count each virus individually."
Researchers foresee many uses for this technology, including preventative medicine, diagnostics, and treatment for a wide range of serious diseases. "This approach has bigger potential than the few examples we demonstrated in this work," said Wang.
It would be great to see a tool like this aimed at problems introduced by microplastics in the body, or the effects of particulate pollution, assuming it is as flexible as suggested. Of course, we aren't likely to see practical, large-scale applications of this technology for a few years, but it's certainly a novel and promising development.
Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Crews deployed to battle invasive 'vampire fish' in Great Lakes
Crews are out in the field, working to keep sea lamprey populations under control this summer, according to a recent social media post from Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Work began back in April in Lake Erie in Ontario and is expected to continue into October. That's good news, because when left to multiply, sea lampreys can cause big problems and threaten the Great Lake's $5.1 billion fishing industry. Yikes! (Canva) There are four native lamprey species in the Great Lakes - the American brook lamprey, the chestnut lamprey, the silver lamprey, and the northern brook lamprey. The sea lamprey is invasive, and it can devastate local ecosystems. That has a lot to do with its size. Sea lampreys are big compared to naive species -- up to four times bigger. And in the Great Lakes, they have almost unlimited food availability, practically unlimited spawning grounds, and no natural predators. Sea lampreys posing for the camera. (Fernando Losada Rodríguez/Wikipedia) CC BY-SA 4.0 COVID-19 restrictions caused a spike in sea lamprey population COVID-19 safety restrictions paused the ongoing work needed to control sea lamprey populations in the Great Lakes. A March 2025 study found this caused sea lamprey numbers to "skyrocket," highlighting the need for ongoing control measures. Experts say the invasive lampreys can kill more fish than humans in the Great Lakes. Vampire fish Sea lampreys can inflict gruesome damage on their prey, earning these eel-like parasites the nickname "vampire fish." Only about one in seven fish attacked by a sea lamprey will survive. They will suction themselves to a fish, creating a seal that's nearly impossible to break off. They have about 100 teeth, which they use to suction to the side of a fish, and a sharp tongue that drills through its scales. They secret an enzyme that prevents blood from clotting. Once attached, the sea lamprey will spend the next several months feeding off the blood and fluids of the host animal. Lake trout with lampreys attached. (Great Lakes Fishery Commission/Wikipedia) Just in case you're wondering, sea lampreys can accidentally latch on to humans, usually when people are swimming. A bite won't be fatal, but it can be painful, and untreated wounds could lead to infection. Sea lampreys don't pose a threat to people though - they aren't interested in us and human bites appear to be rare. In their native environment, the Atlantic Ocean, sea lampreys don't often kill their host. In the Great Lakes, where sea lampreys have not co-evolved alongside native species, they are a significant threat. Shipping canals transport more than just ships Sea lampreys entered the Great Lakes from the Atlantic Ocean through man-made shipping canals, popping up in Lake Ontario in the 1830s. When the Welland Canal deepened in 1919, sea lampreys gained access to all the Great Lakes -- and they remain there to this day, although their numbers are falling. In the 1950s, the U.S. and Canada teamed up to implement population control measures), and they have worked. Several strategies, including traps to capture adult lampreys, lampricides to target sea lamprey larvae, and installing barriers and traps are a few tactics in use. So far, it's working. Today, sea lamprey populations are down by around 90 per cent in the Great Lakes. Header image: Cheryl Santa Maria for The Weather Network, using elements from Canva Pro and the public domain.
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
The contagion scale: which diseases spread fastest?
When the COVID pandemic hit, many people turned to the eerily prescient film Contagion (2011) for answers – or at least for catharsis. Suddenly, its hypothetical plot felt all too real. Applauded for its scientific accuracy, the film offered more than suspense – it offered lessons. One scene in particular stands out. Kate Winslet's character delivers a concise lesson on the infectious power of various pathogens – explaining how they can be spread from our hands to the many objects we encounter each day – 'door knobs, water fountains, elevator buttons and each other'. These everyday objects, known as fomites, can become silent vehicles for infection. She also considered how each infection is given a value called R0 (or R-nought) based on how many other people are likely to become infected from another. So, for an R0 of two, each infected patient will spread the disease to two others. Who will collectively then give it to four more. And so a breakout unfolds. The R0 measure indicates how an infection will spread in a population. If it's greater than one (as seen above), the outcome is disease spread. An R0 of one means the level of people being infected will remain stable, and if it's less than one, the disease will often die out with time. Circulating infections spread through a variety of routes and differ widely in how contagious they are. Some are transmitted via droplets or aerosols – such as those released through coughing or sneezing – while others spread through blood, insects (like ticks and mosquitoes), or contaminated food and water. But if we step back to think about how we can protect ourselves from developing an infectious disease, one important lesson is in understanding how they spread. And as we'll see, it's also a lesson in protecting others, not just ourselves. Here is a rundown of some of the most and least infectious diseases on the planet. In first place for most contagious is measles. Measles has made a resurgence globally in recent years, including in high-income countries like the UK and US. While several factors contribute to this trend, the primary cause is a decline in childhood vaccination rates. This drop has been driven by disruptions such as the COVID pandemic and global conflict, as well as the spread of misinformation about vaccine safety. The R0 number for measles is between 12 and 18. If you do the maths, two cycles of transmission from that first infected person could lead to 342 people catching the illness. That's a staggering number from just one patient – but luckily, the protective power of vaccination helps reduce the actual spread by lowering the number of people susceptible to infection. Measles is extraordinarily virulent, spreading through tiny airborne particles released during coughing or sneezing. It doesn't even require direct contact. It's so infectious that an unvaccinated person can catch the virus just by entering a room where an infected person was present two hours earlier. People can also be infectious and spread the virus before they develop symptoms or have any reason to isolate. Other infectious diseases with high R0 values include pertussis, or whooping cough (12 to 17), chickenpox (ten to 12), and COVID, which varies by subtype but generally falls between eight and 12. While many patients recover fully from these conditions, they can still lead to serious complications, including pneumonia, seizures, meningitis, blindness, and, in some cases, death. Low spread, high stakes At the other end of the spectrum, a lower infectivity rate doesn't mean a disease is any less dangerous. Take tuberculosis (TB), for example, which has an R0 ranging from less than one up to four. This range varies depending on local factors like living conditions and the quality of available healthcare. Caused by the bacterium] Mycobacterium tuberculosis, TB is also airborne but spreads more slowly, usually requiring prolonged close contact with someone with the active disease. Outbreaks tend to occur among people who share living spaces – such as families, households, and in shelters or prisons. The real danger with TB lies in how difficult it is to treat. Once established, it requires a combination of four antibiotics taken over a minimum of six months. Standard antibiotics like penicillin are ineffective, and the infection can spread beyond the lungs to other parts of the body, including the brain, bones, liver and joints. What's more, cases of drug-resistant TB are on the rise, where the bacteria no longer respond to one or more of the antibiotics used in treatment. Other diseases with lower infectivity include Ebola – which is highly fatal but spreads through close physical contact with bodily fluids. Its R0 ranges from 1.5 to 2.5. Diseases with the lowest R0 values – below one – include Middle East respiratory syndrome (Mers), bird flu and leprosy. While these infections are less contagious, their severity and potential complications should not be underestimated. The threat posed by any infectious disease depends not only on how it affects the body, but also on how easily it spreads. Preventative measures like immunisation play a vital role – not just in protecting people, but also in limiting transmission to those who cannot receive some vaccinations – such as infants, pregnant women and people with severe allergies or weakened immune systems. These individuals are also more vulnerable to infection in general. This is where herd immunity becomes essential. By achieving widespread immunity within the population, we help protect people who are most susceptible. Get your news from actual experts, straight to your inbox. Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all The Conversation UK's latest coverage of news and research, from politics and business to the arts and sciences. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Dan Baumgardt does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Vox
14 hours ago
- Vox
In seven years, here's what I got right and what I missed
is a senior writer at Future Perfect, Vox's effective altruism-inspired section on the world's biggest challenges. She explores wide-ranging topics like climate change, artificial intelligence, vaccine development, and factory farms, and also writes the Future Perfect newsletter. I've been at Vox since Future Perfect, our section devoted to tackling the world's most important and unreported problems, launched in 2018, and I am incredibly grateful to all of you — our readers — for what it has become. Over the past few weeks, I've been reading a lot of our old articles, asking myself, what holds up? What did we do best? What did we get wrong? Future Perfect Explore the big, complicated problems the world faces and the most efficient ways to solve them. Sent twice a week. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. It's a sober sort of accounting, because while I think we got a lot of stuff right that no one else did — our 2018 and 2019 coverage of the importance of preventing the next pandemic holds up particularly well — I am never quite sure if it mattered. The way that we learned we were right, after all, is that a pandemic happened, killing millions and devastating our world in a way that will take a long time to recover from. It's not generally considered the job of journalists to prevent catastrophes. But if there is anything we could have written that would have made the Covid-19 response actually work — to contain the virus early, or better target measures to keep people safe — that would have mattered more than anything else. I'm in this reflective mood because, after seven years at Future Perfect, I am leaving to start something new (I'll share more details in the coming weeks). I will be moving into a contributing editor role here at Future Perfect, because I still believe it is one of the most distinctive and important corners of the news. I have had an incredible experience here, and am incredibly grateful for all I've gotten the chance to write and do. But did it matter? At Future Perfect, we've highlighted incredibly cost-effective, lifesaving global aid programs that are the crowning achievement of the Bush administration and a testament to the fact American power can be used for good. Now they're under threat, and some of them are gone. I've written about the importance of preventing pandemics — yet post-Covid, the policy appetite for doing anything at all to prevent the next one seems totally absent. We are not uniquely doomed any more than humans have ever been. I've also covered the replication crisis in science and the gradual, painstaking progress the scientific community has made in imposing standards for reproducibility and truth, only for a massive new crisis in science to emerge: Under the new administration, funding for high-impact cancer and vaccine and anti-aging research has been slashed, programs canceled, and some top researchers deported. Reporting matters. I think it matters more than ever in this new AI-fueled world, where talk is cheap but new ideas, specific details, and an understanding of where our focus and attention should lie are relatively scarcer — and harder to find than ever in a growing vortex of uncertainty. Future Perfect matters, and our style of work — trying to tell the most important stories that others aren't paying enough to — is almost by definition always going to be underserved. I'm proud of the work we did. But I love our country and our world and I care about humanity's future, and it's impossible, in the present state of the world, to feel like we've done enough to actually change the course of things. I take comfort in the fact that, as grim as the world seems today, along every single dimension I lose sleep over, it has been worse before. Government corruption and political weaponization of the Department of Justice has been worse. Child mortality and the toll of infectious disease has been much worse. Even the blatantly stupid flirtation with annihilation, which I fear characterizes our current approach to AI, has been worse — it's hard to surpass the recklessness of the nuclear arms race early in the Cold War. We are not uniquely doomed any more than humans have ever been. So my parting wish for Future Perfect (my incredible colleague Dylan Matthews is taking over for me in our Friday newsletter) is that it focuses not just on writing the stories no one else is writing but also on the marriage between those stories and results in the real world. There's a lot of work to do, and journalism is more embattled than ever, but also more necessary than ever. I'm incredibly proud of the work I've done here, grateful for the chance to do it, and grateful for the whole team here. And I want to say again that I'm grateful to you, our readers. When I started at Future Perfect, there was an open question as to whether anyone even wanted to read about the topics we cover. But your readership has made Future Perfect a success for all this time — a rare bright spot in an increasingly difficult industry. Every week, I get thoughtful emails from people from all over the country and the world, sharing new perspectives I had never considered. You are the people who make Future Perfect possible, and I've learned so much from writing for you over the last seven years. You've read 1 article in the last month Here at Vox, we're unwavering in our commitment to covering the issues that matter most to you — threats to democracy, immigration, reproductive rights, the environment, and the rising polarization across this country. Our mission is to provide clear, accessible journalism that empowers you to stay informed and engaged in shaping our world. By becoming a Vox Member, you directly strengthen our ability to deliver in-depth, independent reporting that drives meaningful change. We rely on readers like you — join us. Swati Sharma Vox Editor-in-Chief Membership Monthly Annual One-time $5/month $10/month $25/month $50/month Other $50/year $100/year $150/year $200/year Other $25 $50 $100 $250 Other Join for $10/month We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay.
