[HN Gopher] Electrical detection of RNA cancer biomarkers at the...
___________________________________________________________________
Electrical detection of RNA cancer biomarkers at the single-
molecule level
Author : jdmark
Score : 86 points
Date : 2023-08-19 23:29 UTC (23 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medicalxpress.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (medicalxpress.com)
| adamredwoods wrote:
| Prefer: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-39450-6
|
| Abstract:
|
| >> Cancer is a significant healthcare issue, and early screening
| methods based on biomarker analysis in liquid biopsies are
| promising avenues to reduce mortality rates. Electrical detection
| of nucleic acids at the single molecule level could enable these
| applications. We examine the electrical detection of RNA cancer
| biomarkers (KRAS mutants G12C and G12V) as a single-molecule
| proof-of-concept electrical biosensor for cancer screening
| applications. We show that the electrical conductance is highly
| sensitive to the sequence, allowing discrimination of the mutants
| from a wild-type KRAS sequence differing in just one base. In
| addition to this high specificity, our results also show that
| these biosensors are sensitive down to an individual molecule
| with a high signal-to-noise ratio. These results pave the way for
| future miniaturized single-molecule electrical biosensors that
| could be groundbreaking for cancer screening and other
| applications.
| tux3 wrote:
| So, they seem to have made special DNA probes that attaches to
| some cancer-specific bit of RNA, and the combination of the two
| stuck together is something they can detect via "scanning
| tunneling microscopy break junction (STM-BJ)". Is that right?
|
| I guess the question is whether you can use this DNA/RNA
| detection method _without_ having a whole sophisticated STM setup
| as the other part of the detector. The article says calls it a
| nanobiosensor, and says it "has a promising future as an
| inexpensive, highly sensitive and label-free miniaturized device
| for early-stage cancer screening of liquid biopsies".
|
| This is really cool, but it's only a nanobiosensor insomuch as
| you can get a useful signal out of it without an expensive
| scanning tunneling microscope setup attached, I would assume!
| haldujai wrote:
| Basically. It's been a while since I've worked in wetlabs
| (clinical now) but looking at their methodology the fixed
| equipment costs would seem comparable to ddPCR and I'd expect
| cheaper than NGS currently used for ctDNA. Per-unit consumable
| costs also seem negligible.
|
| The specific AFM setup they used here is pretty old and can be
| replicated (relatively) inexpensively.
|
| I would guess the biggest cost barrier/disadvantage would be
| throughput rather than setup costs but these results appear to
| be a potentially good and/or cost-effective solution to the
| sensitivity issues.
| camus_absurd wrote:
| I think you're overestimating the complexity of an stm setup.
| There exist small coffee machine sized stm machines because the
| principal behind the operation is relatively straightforward.
| People have made diy stm machines using piezo electric buzzers
| as the component that moves a tungsten needle over a sample.
| It's relatively easy to make atomically thick tungsten needle
| points because of how it fractures along its grain structure.
| The tech behind the principle of operation of an stm is already
| ubiquitous.
| arrosenberg wrote:
| This is neat, but seems wildly more complex than other detection
| methods with liquid biopsy. Most major players in this space are
| using methylation analysis with high specificity and sensitivity
| - it's not obvious to me that there is a benefit to electrical
| detection over that.
| haldujai wrote:
| Not sure I follow, methylation analysis is very different from
| NA detection.
| cancer-research wrote:
| Apologies for my enthusiastic interruption. I am deeply intrigued
| by this ctDNA work using electrical signal detection. However, I
| see two challenges with current early detection liquid biopsy
| methods. Firstly, they target signals that are inherently rare in
| blood (less than 1% of any blood volume). Secondly, they focus on
| either cfDNA or ctDNA, indicating that cancer has already
| progressed significantly or spread to other areas.
|
| In this context, I strongly believe that our approach positions
| us as one of the most captivating players in this field. We aim
| to leverage the immune response as an indicator of the body's
| cancer status. By harnessing the highly effective detectors
| within the immune system, we actively pursue cancer detection.
| Additionally, relying solely on specific biomarkers seems
| reminiscent of manually curating features, akin to the early days
| of NLP when compared to modern transformers.
|
| We are eager to share some of our methodologies and eagerly seek
| collaboration with professionals from diverse backgrounds,
| including genomics, wet lab scientists, bioinformatics experts,
| as well as AI and full stack engineers. Although we are currently
| in stealth mode and cannot divulge extensive details, we would be
| thrilled to engage with inquisitive and enthusiastic scientists.
| In some ways, we believe that our approach may also enable us to
| validate the efforts of the prominent players in the field of
| multi-cancer early detection.
|
| For further discussions, please feel free to reach us at
| qubind@qubind.com.
| car wrote:
| Why is this getting so many upvotes? Pretty unspectacular stuff.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-20 23:00 UTC)