>>The ability for populations of bacteria to develop resistance to drugs is basic evolution. When a patient takes antibiotics, the majority of the offending bacteria will be wiped out – but not all of them. Some individuals will have random genetic mutations that let them survive the onslaught, and since they’re now the only ones left, these genes will be passed onto their offspring. In time, that resistance trait becomes the norm for that species, and the drug becomes ineffective against them.

The team’s solution was to use magnetic, liquid metal nanoparticles. When exposed to a low-intensity magnetic field, these droplets change their shape, with their edges becoming sharp enough to puncture cell walls and biofilms – the sturdy, sticky substance that colonies of bacteria build to protect themselves from antibiotics.

In the lab, the team tested the new technique against bacterial biofilms. After 90 minutes, the biofilms were destroyed, as were 99 percent of the bacteria. This was shown to work against both main types of bacteria – gram-positive and gram-negative – and thankfully, didn’t harm human cells.

“Bacteria are incredibly adaptable and over time they develop defenses to the chemicals used in antibiotics, but they have no way of dealing with a physical attack,” says Aaron Elbourne, an author of the study. “Our method uses precision-engineered liquid metals to physically rip bacteria to shreds and smash through the biofilm where bacteria live and multiply. With further development, we hope this technology could be the way to help make antibiotic resistance history.”

The team says that the technology could be used as a spray coating for medical implants and instruments to keep them sterile, or potentially as an injectable treatment straight into the site of an infection. In the long run, it could be adapted to work against fungal infections, cholesterol plaques and even cancer.<<

https://newatlas.com/medical/liquid-metal-shredder-superbugs/

I’m not sure I understand how this can be harmless to the human cells in the mix.

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

buffy said:

I’m not sure I understand how this can be harmless to the human cells in the mix.

gees you’re picky.

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

I imagine smart nanoparticle could be the way to go to fight most diseases, specific cell targeting using blunt force trauma, would the body excrete the dead cells harmlessly though.

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

then again, every element is a metal.

:-)

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

then again, every element is a metal.

:-)

Like everything you can just about think of bar spirituality is based on some sort of science

• And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I would guess that it is because it is not doing its work by chemical reaction but instead is doing it by physical reaction. Still, I wouldn’t put it past the bacteria evolving some resistance to a physical attack mechanism. In their test they got 99%, perhaps that other 1% had slightly thicker cell walls?

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

then again, every element is a metal.

:-)

Except those that are non-metals and noble gases.

Good news.

furious said:

… perhaps that other 1% had slightly thicker cell walls?

maybe Rhinosinusitis bacteria.

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

… perhaps that other 1% had slightly thicker cell walls?

maybe Rhinosinusitis bacteria.

LOL

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

furious said:

… perhaps that other 1% had slightly thicker cell walls?

maybe Rhinosinusitis bacteria.

LOL

OK, went to the actual paper. Here is their explanation of why the human cells weren’t affected:

This likely occurs due to the inherent differences between the elasticity and physical size of bacterial cells when compared to eukaryotic cells. In general, eukaryotic cells are much larger than bacterial cells, meaning that any outside force, such as that imparted by the GLM-Fe particles in response to the magnetic field, is distributed across a larger surface area,minimizing the localized exerted stress on the cellular membrane. Further, mammalian cells are more compliant(softer, more flexible) than bacterial cells, with elasticity values routinely measured to be orders of magnitude lower than that observed for bacterial cells viananoindentation studies (seeTable S5). For reference, the apparent stiffness of mammalian cells, as measured using AFM, typically ranges between 1 and100s of kPa,75while bacteria often show values in the MParange.76This likely indicates that eukaryotic cells were capable of distorting and yielding in response to the movement of the magnetically activated GLM-Fe particles without damaging the membrane or the internal cytosolic material within the cells.77−81In contrast, the bacteria are much more rigid,meaning that the GLM-Fe more readily damage the bacterial membrane.

————————————————————————————————-

They tested on human embryonic kidney cells.

If anyone wants to look at the paper, I went through SciHub:

https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1021/acsnano.9b07861

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

then again, every element is a metal.

:-)

Except those that are non-metals and noble gases.

metal noble gases like helium

buffy said:

And I quite like the way they say they are not using “chemicals”. I have generally put metals into the chemical basket.

I’ve looked at the link and there is now explanation about how this method would not affect human cells. It’s a physical rip and tear of cell walls.

^

SCIENCE said:

Michael V said:

ChrispenEvan said:

then again, every element is a metal.

:-)

Except those that are non-metals and noble gases.

metal noble gases like helium

I was a little incorrect, every element bar hydrogen and helium.

buffy said:

I’m not sure I understand how this can be harmless to the human cells in the mix.

Not obvious. Shredding cells by using sharp nanoparticles of close to this physical size is exactly how blue asbestos causes cancer.

I think I can see what they are trying to do. You can attach a nanoparticle to an antibody. Make the antibody to react to a specific bacterial wall site. Then, once attached, change the shape to puncture the bacterial cell wall. This is a variant on traditional chemotherapy methods where the antibody is attached to a cell-killing chemical.

This method cannot and must not be used to kill the bacteria that accumulate within cells, which is one way that superbugs survive chemical attack.