Placeholder Content Image

Could sound replace pacemakers and insulin pumps?

<p>Imagine a future in which crippling epileptic seizures, faltering hearts and diabetes could all be treated not with scalpels, stitches and syringes, but with sound. Though it may seem the stuff of science fiction, a <a href="https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41467-022-28205-y" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">new study</a> shows that this has solid real-world potential.</p><p><a href="https://sonogenetics.salk.edu/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Sonogenetics</a> – the use of ultrasound to non-invasively manipulate neurons and other cells – is a nascent field of study that remains obscure amongst non-specialists, but if it proves successful it could herald a new era in medicine.</p><p>In the new study published in <em>Nature Communications</em>, researchers from the Salk Institute for Biological Studies in California, US, describe a significant leap forward for the field, documenting their success in engineering mammalian cells to be activated using ultrasound.</p><p>The team say their method, which they used to activate human cells in a dish and brain cells inside living mice, paves the way toward non-invasive versions of deep brain stimulation, pacemakers and insulin pumps.</p><p>“Going wireless is the future for just about everything,” says senior author Dr Sreekanth Chalasani, an associate professor in Salk’s Molecular Neurobiology Laboratory. “We already know that ultrasound is safe, and that it can go through bone, muscle and other tissues, making it the ultimate tool for manipulating cells deep in the body.”</p><p>Chalasani is the mastermind who first established the field of sonogenetics a decade ago.</p><p>He discovered that ultrasound — sound waves beyond the range of human hearing — can be harnessed to control cells. Since sound is a form of mechanical energy, he surmised that if brain cells could be made mechanically sensitive, then they could be modified with ultrasound.</p><p>In 2015 his research group provided the first successful demonstration of the theory, adding a protein to cells of a roundworm, <em>Caenorhabditis elegans</em>, that made them sensitive to low-frequency ultrasound and thus enabled them to be activated at the behest of researchers.</p><p>This was a milestone achievement for the credibility of the field, but Chalasani’s team soon hit a stumbling block. The same protein that was so successful in sensitising roundworm cells produced no discernible effect at all in mammalian cells. While sonically controlling roundworms is undoubtedly cool, without making the leap to mammalian cells, the potential medical revolution would be dead in its tracks.</p><p>Undeterred, Chalasani and his colleagues set out to search for a new protein that would work in mammals.</p><p>Although a few proteins were already known to be ultrasound sensitive, no existing candidates were sensitive at the clinically safe frequency of 7MHz – so this was where the team set their sights.  </p><p>“Our approach was different than previous screens because we set out to look for ultrasound-sensitive channels in a comprehensive way,” says Yusuf Tufail, a former project scientist at Salk and a co-first author of the new paper.</p><p>The screening process took over a year and encompassed nearly 300 candidate proteins which they tested on dishes of a common human research cell line, but at last the team struck gold. TRPA1, a channel protein that lets cells respond to the presence of noxious compounds and activates a wide range of cells in the body, was the winner, responding to the 7MHz ultrasound frequency.</p><p>“We were really surprised,” says co-first author of the paper Marc Duque, a Salk exchange student. “TRPA1 has been well-studied in the literature but hasn’t been described as a classical mechanosensitive protein that you’d expect to respond to ultrasound.”</p><p>To test whether TRPA1 could activate cell types of clinical interest in response to ultrasound, the team used a gene therapy approach to add the genes for human TRPA1 to a specific group of neurons in the brains of living mice. When they then administered ultrasound to the mice, only the neurons with the TRPA1 genes were activated.</p><p>This leap from theory to physical demonstration is a huge step forward for the burgeoning field. Though it is early days, Chalasani believes the next steps are within reach.</p><p>Clinicians treating conditions including Parkinson’s disease and epilepsy currently use deep brain stimulation, which involves surgically implanting electrodes in the brain, to activate certain subsets of neurons. Chalasani says that sonogenetics could one day replace this approach—the next step would be developing a gene therapy delivery method that can cross the blood-brain barrier, something that is already being studied.</p><p>Perhaps sooner, he says, sonogenetics could be used to activate cells in the heart, as a kind of pacemaker that requires no implantation.</p><p>“Gene delivery techniques already exist for getting a new gene – such as TRPA1 – into the human heart. If we can then use an external ultrasound device to activate those cells, that could really revolutionise pacemakers.”</p><p>Though sonogenetics could one day circumvent medications and invasive surgeries, for now the team is sticking with nailing down the fundamentals. Their current focus is on determining exactly how TRPA1 senses ultrasound, which could allow this sensitivity to be tweaked and enhanced.</p><!-- Start of tracking content syndication. Please do not remove this section as it allows us to keep track of republished articles --><p><img id="cosmos-post-tracker" style="height: 1px!important;width: 1px!important;border: 0!important" src="https://syndication.cosmosmagazine.com/?id=181725&amp;title=Could+sound+replace+pacemakers+and+insulin+pumps%3F" width="1" height="1" data-spai-target="src" data-spai-orig="" data-spai-exclude="nocdn" /></p><!-- End of tracking content syndication --><div id="contributors"><p><em><a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/health/sonogenetics-replace-invasive-medical-treatments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">This article</a> was originally published on <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cosmos Magazine</a> and was written by <a href="https://cosmosmagazine.com/contributor/jamie-priest" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jamie Priest</a>. Jamie Priest is a science journalist at Cosmos. She has a Bachelor of Science in Marine Biology from the University of Adelaide.</em></p><p><em>Image: Getty Images</em></p></div>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

New ‘smart’ insulin could revolutionise Type 1 diabetes treatment

<p><span style="font-weight: 400;">For the 15 in every 100,000 people with Type 1 diabetes, living with the condition often involves balancing diet, exercise, and insulin therapy to keep blood sugar levels in a normal range.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Though there are a plethora of solutions being developed to help those with diabetes live more easily, a new approach has focused on insulin itself.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Dr Michael Weiss, a biochemist from the School of Medicine at Indiana University, has worked with colleagues to tweak the structure of insulin so it responds to the presence of a simple sugar molecule.</span></p> <p><img style="width: 500px; height:231px;" src="https://oversixtydev.blob.core.windows.net/media/7843122/image-for-release_weiss_pnas.jpg" alt="" data-udi="umb://media/411d3753b46448bb978e1922daac8560" /></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Image: IU School of Medicine</span></em></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The researchers have utilised a feature already built into insulin’s structure - a “hinge” that enables the molecule to function when open and keeps it stable while closed.</span></p> <p><strong>What the study found</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">The experiments performed by Dr Weiss and his team used the carbohydrate fructose to manipulate insulin, so that it would only be ‘switched on’ by the presence of a certain amount of sugar, causing it to activate a sample of cells derived from the liver.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Though the experiments were more confirmation that the concept would be viable than an actual treatment, it would theoretically work for an insulin shaped to activate in the presence of glucose.</span></p> <p><strong>Why it matters</strong></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Weiss envisions a future where people don’t have to worry about their blood sugar falling too low (hypoglycemia) or too high (hyperglycemia), which can result in symptoms such as delirium, convulsions, blindness, or strokes.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“The promise of this kind of ‘smart’ insulin is that it would transform diabetes care, so people wouldn’t have to worry anymore,” Weiss </span><a rel="noopener" href="https://medicine.iu.edu/news/2021/07/Synthetic-hinge-could-hold-key-to-revolutionary-smart-insulin-therapy" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: 400;">said</span></a><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">“With our invention, we envision that when the blood sugar goes too low, the hinge would close,” he explained.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">Though a lot needs to happen before this invention is incorporated into treatments, it could help affected individuals be able to manage their sugar levels and improve their quality of life.</span></p> <p><span style="font-weight: 400;">This research was published in </span><em><a rel="noopener" href="https://www.pnas.org/content/118/30/e2103518118" target="_blank"><span style="font-weight: 400;">PNAS</span></a></em><span style="font-weight: 400;">.</span></p> <p><em><span style="font-weight: 400;">Image: IU School of Medicine, Getty</span></em></p>

Body

Placeholder Content Image

From coronavirus tests to open-source insulin and beyond, ‘biohackers’ are showing the power of DIY science

<p>In March, amateur scientists in Sydney announced they had created a <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-03-25/amateur-scientist-making-a-rapid-test-for-coronavirus/12084974">COVID-19 test kit</a> that is simpler, faster, and cheaper than existing tests. While the test has not yet been approved by regulators, if effective it could play a role in scaling up the world’s coronavirus testing capability.</p> <p>The test’s creators, associated with a “community lab for citizen scientists” called <a href="https://foundry.bio/">Biofoundry</a>, are part of a growing international movement of “biohackers” with roots stretching back <a href="https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12516984-100-forum-roses-are-black-violets-are-green-the-emergence-of-amateur-genetic-engineers/">30 years or more</a>. Biohacking, also known as DIY biology, takes cues from computer-hacking culture and uses the tools of biological science and biotechnology to carry out experiments and make tools outside any formal research institution.</p> <p><strong>Who’s afraid of biohacking?</strong></p> <p>But biohacking is under threat as governments, wary of potential risks, pass laws to restrict it. A more balanced approach is needed, for the benefit of science and society.</p> <p>As biohacking has gained increased visibility, it has also attracted increased scrutiny. Media coverage has played up the risks of biohacking, whether <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130124-biohacking-fear-and-the-fbi">from malice</a> (“bioterror”) or <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-29/autopsy-reveals-biohacker-traywick-died-from-accidental-drowning">by accident</a> (“bioerror”).</p> <p>Local and national governments have also sought to legislate against the practice.</p> <p>In August 2019, politicians in California <a href="https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/8/13/20802059/california-crispr-biohacking-illegal-josiah-zayner">introduced a law</a> that forbids the use of CRISPR gene-editing kits outside professional labs. Australia has some of the world’s most stringent regulations, with the <a href="http://www.ogtr.gov.au/internet/ogtr/publishing.nsf/Content/9AA09BB4515EBAA2CA257D6B00155C53/%24File/06%20-%20Biohacking%20and%20community%20science.pdf">Office of the Gene Technology Regulator</a> monitoring the use of genetically modified organisms and risks to public health and safety.</p> <p>Some authorities have gone so far as to arrest biohackers on <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/22/nyregion/22bioart.html">suspicion of bioterrorism</a>.</p> <p>But such anxieties around biohacking are largely unfounded.</p> <p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWEpeW7Ojzs">Ellen Jorgensen</a>, co-founder of the <a href="https://www.genspace.org/">Genspace</a> community lab in New York, argues that such responses overestimate the abilities biohackers and underestimate their ethical standards. <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/seven-myths-and-realities-about-do-it-yourself-biology-0">Research shows</a> shows the great majority of biohackers (92%) work within community laboratories, many of which operate under the <a href="https://diybio.org/codes/">Ethical Code for Safe Amateur Bioscience</a> drawn up by the community in 2011.</p> <p><strong>Connoisseurs of science</strong></p> <p>One way to think of biohackers is as what the Belgian philosopher Isabelle Stengers calls <a href="https://books.google.com.au/books/about/Another_Science_is_Possible.html?id=e1hHDwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover&amp;source=kp_read_button&amp;redir_esc=y#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false">“connoisseurs of science”</a>.</p> <p>Somewhere between an expert and an amateur, a connoisseur is able to relate to scientific knowledge and practice in an informed way, but can also pose new questions that scientists are unable to.</p> <p>Connoisseurs can hold scientists to account and challenge them when they skip over concerns. They highlight how science might be done better. Like other pursuits such as music or sport, science can benefit from a strong and vibrant culture of connoisseurs.</p> <p>Biohackers are an important node in the relationship between science institutions and wider society. Stengers highlights how it is not enough for there to be a relationship between science and society. It is the nature and quality of this relationship that matters.</p> <p><strong>A two-way relationship</strong></p> <p>Traditional models of science communication assume a one-way relationship between science and society at large, with scientists transmitting knowledge to a public who passively receive it. Biohackers instead engage people as active participants in the production and transformation of scientific knowledge.</p> <p>Biohacking labs like BioFoundry and Genspace encourage hands-on engagement with biotechnologies through classes and open workshops, as well as projects on local environmental pollution.</p> <p>Biohackers are also making discoveries that advance our understanding of current scientific problems. From devising coronavirus tests to making science equipment out of <a href="https://hackteria.org/wiki/DIY_microscopy">everyday items</a> and producing <a href="https://openinsulin.org/">open-source insulin</a>, biohackers are reshaping the sense of where scientific innovation happens.</p> <p><strong>From law to ethics</strong></p> <p>While biohacking can produce great benefits, the risks can’t be neglected. The question is how best to address them.</p> <p>While laws and regulations are necessary to prevent malicious or dangerous practice, their overuse can also push biohackers underground to tinker in the shadows. Bringing biohackers into the fold of existing institutions is another approach, although this could threaten the ability of biohackers to pose tough questions.</p> <p>In addition to law, ethical guidelines and codes drawn up by the biohacking community themselves offer a productive way forward.</p> <p>For Stengers, an “ethical” relationship is not based on the domination or capture of one group by another. It instead involves symbiotic modes of engagement in which practices flourish together and transform each other.</p> <p>A balance between law and ethics is necessary. The <a href="https://diybio.org/codes/">2011 code of ethics</a> drawn up by biohackers in North America and Europe is a first step toward what a more open, transparent, and respectful culture of collaboration could look like.</p> <p>In the US we have seen experiments with a more <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278613/">open and symbiotic relationship</a> between the FBI and the biohacking community in recent years.</p> <p>But this is just the beginning of a conversation that is in danger of stalling. There is much to lose if it does.</p> <p><em>Written by Andrew Lapworth. Republished with permission of </em><a href="https://theconversation.com/from-coronavirus-tests-to-open-source-insulin-and-beyond-biohackers-are-showing-the-power-of-diy-science-138019"><em>The Conversation.</em></a></p>

Caring