Seqanswers Leaderboard Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by stefanoberri View Post
    "In theory" it could be possible, but there are many serious obstacles to overcome.

    At the moment "reading" the genetic code of a cell is disruptive. You need to process the DNA in such a way that you can't "put it back" into a cell. Even if you could, it is unlikely you can read the whole DNA of a cell without upsetting that cell.

    Even if you could, it would be disruptive to read all DNA in all cells without damaging surrounding tissues/organs. How do you get to every liver cell without damaging the liver? You would need microscopic machines that run with no energy and automatically find EVERY cell and sequence their DNA. Today, such machines are the size of a large printer at best.

    Even if you could, there are about 10^13 cells in an adult human being. Each has 6*10^9 nucleotides to be read (if you make a ASCII file with that sequence, each cell would require a 6GB file). Even if you had 1000 of such microscopic machines, each reading the DNA of each cell in one second, it would take about 317 years to finish. Furthermore, today, the sequencing costs approx 5000$ per genome and takes at best a couple of days each. You do the math.

    Even if you could, it is not quite uderstood what makes a cell a cancer cell. Not for most cancers. If you give scientists the sequence of any of your cells, it is unlikely that they will be sure that that particular cell does not have a cancer mutation. What scientists can tell you, is to spot some well defined cancer sequences (search for EGFR, BRAF, KRAS, TP53). This is, of the above, the easiest bit, I would say, but still very very hard.

    Computers are amazing and I love Linux, but I doubt this will be the approach.
    But is there absolutely no other way to recognize a cancer cell without touching the DNA?

    If a cancer cell can be recognized for other cancer-specific characteristics, such as color, size, density, whatever... then that's what the computer must be programmed to look for. As far as I see..


    Brian

    Comment


    • #17
      Another consideration regarding the potential of computers in health care due to their very high level of accuracy, is this: applications like Gimp, used for graphics, allows a very high level of precision drawing and modification of images.

      This precision could be utilized in medicine, allowing the doctor to see the tumor or disease on a very deep level, and with a high-precision tool, burn or freeze the harmful cells.

      So the control could be either by the computer (following the information inserted in the application), or directly by the doctor. Organs and blood could be "cleaned" using digital instruments.


      Anyway, I wanted to share these ideas on this forum, because this seems to be a promising area of interface between computers and medicine, and I see a lot of promise here. I wish I were a programmer myself! (or that I had the funds to get a project going!)


      Brian

      Comment


      • #18
        Biology is not Computer Science and the human body is not a computer that can be so easily disassembled and put back together. People do use imaging technologies to identify cancerous cells. But it is not so simple as you suggest. Even less simple is the removal/elimination of such cells.

        If you have a real interest in this, I suggest you takes some time to study Biology and come to grips with just how difficult the whole process is.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by chadn737 View Post
          Biology is not Computer Science and the human body is not a computer that can be so easily disassembled and put back together. People do use imaging technologies to identify cancerous cells. But it is not so simple as you suggest. Even less simple is the removal/elimination of such cells.

          If you have a real interest in this, I suggest you takes some time to study Biology and come to grips with just how difficult the whole process is.
          I'm sure Biology is quite complex. And I'm not a biologist.

          But the whole idea I'm suggesting isn't based on understanding biology as much as it is creating an application that can distinguish between health and unhealthy cells.

          I realize that, in the case of cancer, where an organ has been damaged, a computer cannot "rebuild" the lost tissue. But it should certainly be able to target and burn/freeze harmful masses without creating further damage. (obviously with much more success that doctors can do today, bless their hearts)

          Brian

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by briandc View Post
            I'm sure Biology is quite complex. And I'm not a biologist.

            But the whole idea I'm suggesting isn't based on understanding biology as much as it is creating an application that can distinguish between health and unhealthy cells.

            I realize that, in the case of cancer, where an organ has been damaged, a computer cannot "rebuild" the lost tissue. But it should certainly be able to target and burn/freeze harmful masses without creating further damage. (obviously with much more success that doctors can do today, bless their hearts)

            Brian
            That sounds nice and wonderful, but its impossible for a computer to identify cancer cells without sufficient knowledge of what that cancer cell is. You also greatly underestimate the difficulty in distinguishing such cells, especially early on from surrounding tissue. And how exactly is a computer going to get to cancer cells that are located in the middle of an organ surrounded by healthy tissue that needs to be saved? This is not a problem for computers, it is a problem of biology, of medicine. Computers do already aid both doctors and biologists, but it can only do so much.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by briandc View Post
              just as an application can be made to scan an entire computer for a virus, why couldn't a computer application be made that can be used to locate cancer cells within the human body?

              Since cancer cells have a very unique "code," and the entire human genoma has been discovered, couldn't a computer with a probe be used to scan areas of the body for cancerous cells, and eliminate them without the need of drugs or surgery?
              You probably want to do a web search on "nanomedicine".

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by chadn737 View Post
                That sounds nice and wonderful, but its impossible for a computer to identify cancer cells without sufficient knowledge of what that cancer cell is. You also greatly underestimate the difficulty in distinguishing such cells, especially early on from surrounding tissue. And how exactly is a computer going to get to cancer cells that are located in the middle of an organ surrounded by healthy tissue that needs to be saved? This is not a problem for computers, it is a problem of biology, of medicine. Computers do already aid both doctors and biologists, but it can only do so much.
                Once a characteristic unique to the cancerous cells is found, removing them would be about as easy as retouching a photo image.
                Here are a couple of interesting concepts that *might* be in line with what I think a computer might use to destroy cancer cells:

                Photoacoustic_imaging_in_biomedicine

                Segmentation_image_processing


                Brian

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by briandc View Post
                  Once a characteristic unique to the cancerous cells is found, removing them would be about as easy as retouching a photo image.
                  Here are a couple of interesting concepts that *might* be in line with what I think a computer might use to destroy cancer cells:

                  Brian
                  I know of no technology that can scan at the individual cell nor sub-cellular level, all the cells of a living human body. Individual cancer cells are examined microscopically on biopsied tissue - tissue surgically removed from the body and specifically prepared for that fine a level of scanning or imaging.

                  3d scanning of whole living humans is not remotely possible on an individual cellular basis presently. Even the highest resolution non-invasive scanning techniques like high resolution NMR or CT scanning cannot even resolve things on the scale of the smallest macroscopic body components like individual micro-blood vessels. Nor are all tissues equally amenable to any single scanning technique - some technologies are superb for resolving soft tissues, but useless at resolving hard tissues, for example.

                  Your computer can scan for software viruses because every bit of code stored on a computer is technically accessible to the scanning software. Individual human cells in a human body are not all accessible to any current scanning or imaging technology. That's the very reason why current highest resolution scanning technologies like mammography miss a significant number of actual tumors (NOT individual cells, but multi-cell active tumors).

                  If we cannot yet even see all the multicellular structure of an intact human being, how would we even being to implement any sort of cellular level scanning?
                  Michael Black, Ph.D.
                  ScitoVation LLC. RTP, N.C.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by mbblack View Post
                    I know of no technology that can scan at the individual cell nor sub-cellular level, all the cells of a living human body. Individual cancer cells are examined microscopically on biopsied tissue - tissue surgically removed from the body and specifically prepared for that fine a level of scanning or imaging.

                    3d scanning of whole living humans is not remotely possible on an individual cellular basis presently. Even the highest resolution non-invasive scanning techniques like high resolution NMR or CT scanning cannot even resolve things on the scale of the smallest macroscopic body components like individual micro-blood vessels. Nor are all tissues equally amenable to any single scanning technique - some technologies are superb for resolving soft tissues, but useless at resolving hard tissues, for example.

                    Your computer can scan for software viruses because every bit of code stored on a computer is technically accessible to the scanning software. Individual human cells in a human body are not all accessible to any current scanning or imaging technology. That's the very reason why current highest resolution scanning technologies like mammography miss a significant number of actual tumors (NOT individual cells, but multi-cell active tumors).

                    If we cannot yet even see all the multicellular structure of an intact human being, how would we even being to implement any sort of cellular level scanning?
                    Good question.
                    My thinking was that, if we are able to study dna, nano-biology, etc, then we are obviously at the point where we can study cells on a very deep level.
                    So, perhaps by working to increase scanning resolution, we will be able to individuate the sick cells from the health ones (using computer technology).
                    This, together with a computer's capability to process millions of data per second, makes me conclude that, if a computer could "see" on a cellular level, it could individuate all cancerous cells.

                    I think it would be more precise than experimenting with pharmacology, which is often more harmful than helpful, not to mention the length of time to study a chemical's effect on the body before it can be put on the market.

                    We already have the technology to be able to take blood samples to study levels of cholesterol, etc. right from our own home. New devices are constantly being developed that give us improved knowledge of our bodies, and which can be run by a simple home computer.
                    It just seems like the "natural" direction of our technological progress.


                    brian

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      While we can study cellular DNA, we do that by harvesting the cells, lysing them to release the DNA, then analysing it. There is no scanning of intact cells in vivo in an intact human being.

                      We study cells "on a very deep level" using highly reductionist techniques, not working on cells in intact human beings. So it is not a matter of "increasing scanning resolution" but inventing entirely new scanning technologies - ones that would bear more resemblance to a star trek tricorder than any known current technology.

                      Taking a blood sample for cholesterol screening is a false analogy. That is simply a chemical assay that has been adapted to automation and that automation has become cost effective and pragmatic for local analysis. But it is more analogous to a using a home bp monitor than a cellular or sub-cellular level scanning technique. And the home cholesterol kits are still really quite crude relative to what a skilled clinical lab can assay from the same blood sample.

                      You are talking about some huge leaps in technology or even wholly new and unthought of technologies, not merely evolution of current technology.
                      Michael Black, Ph.D.
                      ScitoVation LLC. RTP, N.C.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by mbblack View Post
                        While we can study cellular DNA, we do that by harvesting the cells, lysing them to release the DNA, then analysing it. There is no scanning of intact cells in vivo in an intact human being.

                        We study cells "on a very deep level" using highly reductionist techniques, not working on cells in intact human beings. So it is not a matter of "increasing scanning resolution" but inventing entirely new scanning technologies - ones that would bear more resemblance to a star trek tricorder than any known current technology.

                        Taking a blood sample for cholesterol screening is a false analogy. That is simply a chemical assay that has been adapted to automation and that automation has become cost effective and pragmatic for local analysis. But it is more analogous to a using a home bp monitor than a cellular or sub-cellular level scanning technique. And the home cholesterol kits are still really quite crude relative to what a skilled clinical lab can assay from the same blood sample.

                        You are talking about some huge leaps in technology or even wholly new and unthought of technologies, not merely evolution of current technology.
                        Yes, I see your point. I guess we're not quite there yet.
                        Remember back about 30 years? Star Trek's communication devices seemed impossible to us back then.. But here we are now, communicating and sending data over thousands of miles in milliseconds on the Internet, using smartphones, etc.
                        A few months back, I saw a presentation of a new technology, where images could be transferred from a computer to another by merely touching both at the same time. The human body has become a new transfer method for data! Wow!

                        So I remain hopeful about computers to treat the body; just as we now have robots that can do surgery without the drastic interventions of yesterday. I think we'll get there, if not in our lifetime, sometime shortly thereafter. I just don't see why not.

                        brian

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          I'm not saying we won't get there either, just its an inestimable time away.

                          And remember, Star Trek also communicated over distances of many light years as easily, and as quickly as we do making a phone call across town, so these Star Trek analogies only go so far
                          Michael Black, Ph.D.
                          ScitoVation LLC. RTP, N.C.

                          Comment

                          Latest Articles

                          Collapse

                          • seqadmin
                            Strategies for Sequencing Challenging Samples
                            by seqadmin


                            Despite advancements in sequencing platforms and related sample preparation technologies, certain sample types continue to present significant challenges that can compromise sequencing results. Pedro Echave, Senior Manager of the Global Business Segment at Revvity, explained that the success of a sequencing experiment ultimately depends on the amount and integrity of the nucleic acid template (RNA or DNA) obtained from a sample. “The better the quality of the nucleic acid isolated...
                            03-22-2024, 06:39 AM
                          • seqadmin
                            Techniques and Challenges in Conservation Genomics
                            by seqadmin



                            The field of conservation genomics centers on applying genomics technologies in support of conservation efforts and the preservation of biodiversity. This article features interviews with two researchers who showcase their innovative work and highlight the current state and future of conservation genomics.

                            Avian Conservation
                            Matthew DeSaix, a recent doctoral graduate from Kristen Ruegg’s lab at The University of Colorado, shared that most of his research...
                            03-08-2024, 10:41 AM

                          ad_right_rmr

                          Collapse

                          News

                          Collapse

                          Topics Statistics Last Post
                          Started by seqadmin, 03-27-2024, 06:37 PM
                          0 responses
                          13 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post seqadmin  
                          Started by seqadmin, 03-27-2024, 06:07 PM
                          0 responses
                          11 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post seqadmin  
                          Started by seqadmin, 03-22-2024, 10:03 AM
                          0 responses
                          53 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post seqadmin  
                          Started by seqadmin, 03-21-2024, 07:32 AM
                          0 responses
                          69 views
                          0 likes
                          Last Post seqadmin  
                          Working...
                          X