[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)