paper link here https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-023-01383-y i thought this sentence from the abstract was interesting 'Given that a cell is unlikely to develop resistance to such molecular mechanical forces...' I wonder if someone could explain what basis there for believing that cells couldn't develop such resistance. Is the difference in energies that high?
I think that the reasoning is that no cells will have even partial resistance to mechanical action, therefore "fitness" wouldn't develop in surviving cells. i.e. there's no fitness function with improve upon. Perhaps the ability of these dye molecules to infiltrate could be affected, but given the fundamental structure of cells, that may not be a likely outcome within a single human organism (since cancer is generally non-communicative)
I wondered what makes these 'molecular jackhammers' attack only cancer cells. The trick is that they are dye molecules, which can be engineered to attach to a specific biomolecule.
Also the fact that they're activated/powered by an external light source, meaning it's fine if they accidentally bind to healthy cells as long as those cells are not within the area getting beamed.
What is it with science reporting abusing quotes? Every other article is ‘blah blah blah “EXTREMELY HAMFISTED ANALOGY” blah’. You can’t just splatter whatever you want inside quotes.
> the method had a 99 percent efficiency against lab cultures of human melanoma cells, and half of the mice with melanoma tumors became cancer-free after treatment.
