Pointing out how fingerprints help us feel fine detailsIn a piece of true science detective work, researchers at the Laboratoire de Physique Statistique in Paris have found another reason why we have fingerprints.
Writing in the journal Science, they developed a special mechanical sensor which is fitted with a rubbery cap to act like a fingertip. Using either smooth caps, or ones ridged to simulate fingerprints, they rubbed their artificial finger across finely textured surfaces. They found that the cap with a ‘fingerprint’ was made to vibrate by the contact, at a frequency of around 250Hz, that’s 250 vibrations per second. This coincides with the sensitive range of a type of nerve endings found in the skin, called “Pacinian corpuscles”. Two types of nerve ending are known to be involved in detecting texture, slow reacting nerves are responsible for identifying relatively coarse textures by detecting different pressures at different places on the skin, while fine details are reported by the Pacinian nerve endings. They have only tested this with a series of straight, parallel ridges, so not exactly the same as the swirly lines of our fingerprints, but their findings suggest that our fingerprints actually fine tune the vibrations, selectively amplifying certain frequencies to ensure our nerves can pick up the fine details.
1st Feb 2009 Implanted Electronics and Artificial SkinDr Stephanie Lacour, Cambridge Nanoscience CentreKat - We’re joined by Stephanie Lacour from the Cambridge Nanoscience Centre where she’s working on making flexible electronics that could be worn over your skin or maybe even under your skin. Hello, Stephanie. Thanks for coming on the show. Tell us about your aim. What’s the issue that you’re trying to address?
Kat - A kind of bionic man-type thing? Stephanie - Yeah, I was thinking about the six million dollar man, basically. Kat - What are the sort of challenges? What do you need to make electronics do to make them like skin? Stephanie - There are two challenges. The first one is to find ways to put electronic components onto a substrate that is very soft. The electronic processes that are available today are usually using fairly high temperature deposits using material. The substrate we’re using to make skin-like devices are polymers. In particular we’re working with materials called elastomers. Kat - So they’re very bendy? Stephanie - It’s like a rubber band material. These materials don’t withstand very high temperature. We need to find processes to deposit the device material at very low temperatures, specifically below 150 degrees C. That’s one challenge. Once we’ve found a way to deposit this material directly on the soft material we have to find a good design or overall architecture for the system so that the electronics can withstand the mechanical deformation. It’s one thing to actually deposit the materials onto the substrate but we also want to make sure the transistor is still working when there’s cooling onto the transistor. Kat - Because obviously transistors are made of things like silicon and you don’t think of that as very flexible. How are you trying to get round this problem? Stephanie - The approach we’re following is to distribute onto the very soft substrate tiny platforms that would be rigid. This tiny platform would host a very fragile material like the silicon for the transistors. Once you have this pig cell structure all across the elastomer we would need to use very elastic interconnects to connect one platform to the other so they can talk together. What we found a few years ago – I found a way to make stretchable metal. By depositing very thin layers of gold directly into an elastomer on a rubber band I found that I can stretch it up to twice its length and it will not fade electrically. From there we’ve decided to push forward the technology and use these stretchable metals as interconnects for the electronics. Kat - Basically, you’ve got an elastic band covered in gold with all these little transistors studded into it. They’ll communicate with each other? Stephanie - Yes, exactly. Kat - What sort of applications do you see for this kind of technology?
Kat - So they’d be able to feel how hard they were touching something or how hot and cold they were? Stephanie - Exactly. We’re trying to implement various sensors directly onto this rubbery substrate like temperature or touch sensors so that we can mimic sensory function that is embedded in our own skin. Kat - how are things going at the moment? What sort of stage are we at? Stephanie - We’re at the very first stage. At the moment we’re really evaluating the technology to make these. We know how to make stretchable metal so we’re investigating how we can implement this to make touch sensors. This is where we’re pretty much in the sensing at the moment. We’re also evaluating how to make the transistors directly onto this rubbery substrate with a platform. We’re just starting so this is where we’re at. Kat - Presumably a big issue is trying to make all this electronics talk to the human brain. It is nerves and electrical impulses. Stephanie - Right. This is the second aspect of the project. In my group we’re looking at ways to make these prosthetic skins but there’s also this application where we’re looking at a way to use these very soft electronic devices to interface everything with the nervous system. Because the human body and particularly the nervous system is made of extremely compliant material we cannot use a silicon chip to interface directly with your nerve for a long time. What we’re doing is to use this polymer and elastomer substrate with embedded electrodes in it to connect directly with a peripheral nerve – so a nerve which is in the limb, not in the spinal cord or the brain - really in the limb, from the electrical signal from the neurons. Once we can do that then the idea would be to connect these peripheral implant directly to the prosthetic skin so that we could take the signals that are coming out of the prosthetic skin and convert them into a neuron format and feed that directly into the implant which would then communicate to the nerve and back to the brain. Kat - It sounds like exciting stuff. Presumably you have a multidisciplinary team so you have to bring a lot of different people together. What sort of range of scientists are working on this kind of technology? Stephanie - I’m an electrical engineer by training but in the team we have people who are material scientists, biophysicists and neurosurgeons. Particularly for the project onto the peripheral implant I’m working with lots of people in Cambridge and a couple of other universities in the UK – it’s extremely important to collaborate between engineers and the medical field. Without good collaboration we could not do that. Kat - And when do you think we might see the bionic man? Stephanie - Not tomorrow! It will take quite a long time. Surely along the way we’ll have some devices where you’ll have for clinical application but for the final project it could be 25 years or so. February 2009 Writing the world’s smallest lettersKeeping with our theme of nanotechnology this week, researchers at Stanford University in the States have managed to write the smallest letters ever – assembled from subatomic particles just 0.3 nanometres in size. The researchers are particularly pleased with their achievement, because it was Stanford scientists that first created the world’s smallest writing in 1985, but lost the record in 1990 to IBM, when they famously arranged xenon atoms to spell out the company’s name. Now they have it back. But how did they do it? The researchers encoded the letters "S" and "U" (standing for Stanford University) by using the interference pattern of electron waves on the surface of a film of copper. The technique actually projects a tiny hologram of the letters, which can only be seen using a very powerful microscope.
Electrons are constantly whizzing around on the copper, because it is a metal. And because electrons can act as waves, as well as the more traditional view that they are particles, the electron waves get shaped by the carbon monoxide, and interfere with each other like ripples in a pond. These interference patterns depend on the position of the carbon monoxide molecules on the copper surface. So eventually they create a consistent pattern that can be read, like a molecular hologram. It all sounds quite nerdy, but the technique could be very important for the future of computing, as it would enable information to be stored at a very high density in small chips. For example, the researchers could create different holograms on the same chip by using different electron wavelengths, increasing the amount of information that can be stored, and pushing it beyond current boundaries.
1st Feb 2009 Mob rule to scare away cuckoosResearchers studying Reed warblers have found out that mob rule can avoid being cuckolded by cuckoos.
Writing in Current Biology, Cambridge University researcher Nick Davies reports on how Reed Warblers use mobbing techniques to keep the parasitic cuckoos away from their nests. Mobbing is a risky strategy – it’s energy intensive and it exposes you to predators, and may not prevent the cuckoo from getting through. Worse still, sometimes they mistakenly mob a sparrowhawk, which looks a bit like a cuckoo and actually prays on reed warblers. Some birds would save their energy, and just reject any eggs that don’t look like their own, but the cuckoos have evolved to be able to lay ‘mimic’ eggs which look similar, establishing an evolutionary arms race between parasite and host. By placing model cuckoos near the reed warbler’s egg-bearing nests, Davies and colleagues could observe how the warblers attempted to defend their nests. About half the time, the warblers became aggressive and attempted to mob the cuckoos. In the high risk areas, this made them far less likely to be subject to a cuckoo visit than their more peaceful neighbours. Significantly, in areas where the Warblers were at much lower risk of being parasitized, they were far less likely to show this mobbing behavior – in fact, in those areas mobbing was likely to attract cuckoos, rather than scare them away Reed warblers also reserved mobbing behavior only for cuckoos, showing that they adapt their nest defense strategy according to their conditions, not unlike our own military!
1st Feb 2009 Turning up the heat on cereal genomeIt’s clear that the global climate is changing, and this is having a big impact on food supplies. For example, if the climate changes in a major crop-growing region, it may not be possible to grow that crop successfully any more. So scientists are investigating whether people living in dry regions – that are only getting drier – can grow alternatives to wheat and other food crops.
It sounds like an all-round wonder-plant, and in order to uncover the secrets to its versatility and hardiness, researchers in Munich have analysed the whole sorghum genome. This is the first time the genome of a plant of African origin has been sequenced. Publishing their results in the latest issue of the journal Nature, the scientists say that their results will help us understand more about how plants like sorghum resist drought and high temperatures, and could help with the development of hardier versions of other crops in the future. And the new data will also enable researchers to compare the genome of sorghum with rice and maize, two important crop plants that have had their genomes sequenced. This will tell us a lot about how crop plants evolve, and the genes that give them their specific properties.
1st Feb 2009 New LEDs to Slash household billsProfessor Colin Humphreys, University of CambridgeBen - There's a new way to make LEDs and this could slash household lighting bills and help to make clean drinking water accessible to everybody. Professor Colin Humphreys from the University of Cambridge joins us now on the line. Hi, Colin. Colin - Hi. Ben - Tell us a bit about this. We’ve had LEDs for a long time. They are already turning up in torches, in home lighting. What’s the new method that you’ve got?
Ben - Wow. These LEDs are very energy efficient, I understand. How will it compare to a normal incandescent light bulb? Colin - They’re very energy efficient and they’re really going to help global warming. In fact, they’ll help it much more than wind power will. In terms of an incandescent light bulb we’re aiming to be twelve times as efficient as a tungsten light bulb and we’re aiming to be 3 times as efficient as a low energy light bulb. Already they’re more efficient than a low energy light bulb. Ben - Is that for the same brightness as well? Colin - That’s for the same brightness, absolutely. We want to make them better quality and better bright light than the low energy bright light ones, which as you know are not very popular. They’re a popular cause for divorce in the country now, I’m told, low energy light bulbs! Ben - Hopefully your gallium nitride LED light won’t be a cause for divorce but I’ve also heard these could be used to make clean drinking water. I understand what you can do with these is make ultraviolet light. Colin - That’s right so the light emission from the gallium nitride – we actually add some indium to it to get visible light emission. If you add aluminium you can get deep ultraviolet. Deep ultraviolet has certain wavelengths, it’s about 270nm. It destroys the nucleic acid in both DNA and RNA and it stops viruses and bacteria from reproducing so it effectively kills them. If we can make LEDs that emit this deep UV we can kill all known viruses, all known bacteria and you could put a ring of these LEDs on the inside of a water pipe coming into a home in the third world. Water riddled with bacteria and viruses, you can make it harmless. Also it could be useful for our country as well, particularly for third world people. Ben - And we could use them in hospitals as well to ensure things are sterile without having to go through the chemical cleansing that we do now. As they are so efficient does this mean we can set this up with a solar panel and make this water purification very portable? Colin - Absolutely. That’s absolutely right. These are very efficient. They’ll run of 4 volts, which is ideal for a solar panel, you have a solar panel and a battery connected as well if you like and then have these connected to that. You have these for lighting in the developing world but also for water purification in the developing world. Ben - These sound fantastic but what’s different about gallium nitride that allows us to make this seemingly wider range of frequencies? If we can make UV that we couldn’t before. Why is gallium nitride so special? Colin - Gallium nitride’s called a wideband gap semiconductor. Before it came along the only light emission which you get from semiconductors was in the infrared and in the red and rather weakly in the green and the yellow. Silicon doesn’t emit light anyway. Gallium arsenide emits light and indium phosphate but they’re narrow band gap materials. If it’s a much wider band gap material, gallium nitride itself emits near ultraviolet and then there’s another material called indium nitride which emits in the infrared. If you mix those two together you can get any energy you want from the near-infrared going right through the visible spectrum to near-ultraviolet. If you add some aluminium to it you can go really into deep ultraviolet. This is a new material system. It’s man-made. It can cover this range of the electro-magnetic spectrum that we’ve never had before form a solid state semiconductor. Ben - This sounds quite incredible. When should we expect to see these on the market? Colin - For the home and office lighting –scientists always predict thing will happen before they’re going to happen! I think within the next five years, certainly. Maybe two or three years. The UV problem is more difficult to solve. We’ve already got the right wavelength being emitted but the intensity at the moment is too low. We’ve got to push up that intensity. I think realistically that may be 5-10 years. I really believe it’s going to happen. Ben - Clearly getting clean and drinkable water to everyone in the world is going to be a challenge and I suspect unfortunately it will still be a challenge in those 5-10 years. Good luck, I hope we get them to market as soon as possible!
February 2009 Silver from sootConvert normal soot into a beautiful silvery substance using just a candle, some water and a mug... What you need
What to DoLight your candle Hold the mug in the yellow part of the flame and build up a good layer of soot. Be careful the mug could be hot! Put the sooty part of the mug into a deep basin of water. Does it look the same?
What may HappenYou should find that the soot suddenly becomes shiny and when you take it out again it will still be dry.
What is going on?The soot repels water very strongly (is hydrophobic) which means that a layer of air is trapped between the soot and the water and light reflects from the surface of the water, and the soot looks shiny. The layer of air keeps the soot dry, so it isn't wet when you take the mug out again. Why does the candle produce soot?Most candles are made up of hydrocarbons, consisting of molecules made up of carbon and hydrogen. When the candle burns oxygen reacts with the hydrogen to form water and with the carbon to form carbon-dioxide. The hydrogen tends to react slightly quicker so there is a region of the flame with small particles of carbon. When you put something cold in this region these will condense on the surface forming black soot.
Why is the soot so hydrophobic?If you look at this soot on a microscopic scale it is extremely rough. The carbon particles themselves are quite dark but the roughness makes it even darker as any light that reflects from one particle will often hit another and get absorbed.
When you put it into water the soot particles are quite hydrophobic, so the water will only wet the very highest bits of the soot. The surface tension supports the water in between these peaks and you get a layer of air between the water and the soot. The surface of the water reflects light very well due to an effect called total internal reflection (for more look at the water fibre optics experiment), just like when you look up from underwater in a swimming pool and the surface looks like a mirror.
Written by Dave Ansell Nano Diving Boards for BacteriaDr Rachel McKendry, London Centre for NanotechnologyMeera - This week I’m at the London Centre for Nanotechnology which is a joint venture of University College London and imperial College London. I’m here to see a new way of screening antibiotics which could help speed up the search for antibiotics against the ever-increasing hospital superbugs like MRSA. I’m here with Rachel McKendry, a reader in biomechanical nanoscience here at the London centre for nanotechnology and she helped developed this technique. Rachel, how have you been screening the effect of antibiotics against bacteria? Rachel - Well, we’ve been developing a novel nanomechanical approach to study antibiotics and to understand more about their modes of action and the mechanisms of superbug resistance.
Rachel - We use arrays of tiny silicon diving boards called cantilevers which we coat with different peptides found in bacterial cell walls. We then inject different antibiotics in solution and for our studies we focussed on vancomycin which is, in fact, one of the most powerful antibiotics that we have in the battle against resistant superbugs. Meera - How does putting bacterial proteins on a diving board and then putting a solution of antibiotics help you learn about the effect of these antibiotics on the proteins? Rachel - When the antibiotic binds to the peptide on the cantilever it causes the cantilever to bend by a very tiny amount, just a few nanometres. But we can detect this by shining a light on the very end of the cantilever and measuring its position on a photosensitive detector. What we’ve found is the amount of bending is proportional to the concentration of antibiotic in solution. From this we can learn about the strength of the interaction, the binding constant which is a measure of how, essentially how powerful the drug is in the body. Meera - Does this mean that the greater amount of bending you measure the greater the damage to the bacteria? Rachel - Yes, exactly. That’s our concept, that the biding generates huge mechanical consequences on the bacteria. Meera - And just here in front of us we’ve got an example of one of the silicon chips that you used to mount the bacterial proteins onto. It’s tiny but it’s about half a centimetre long so we can actually see it. Rachel - You’re right in the sense. These are relatively large objects. They can be seen with the eye but if you look very closely at the top end you can see the silicon cantilever arrays. These are the diving boards at the end. It’s their thickness that’s the critical factor in determining their properties. They’re 500microns long. That’s half a millimetre long, 100 microns wide – that’s typically the width of a human hair but the thickness is only 900nanometres. This means that it can detect very tiny changes in forces at the surface of the cantilever. Meera - A key part of this experiment was that you used bacterial protein from bacteria that were resistant to antibiotics and also ones that were sensitive so you could see the difference between resistant and sensitive bacterial strains. Rachel - Yes, the peptides differ by a single amino acid mutation and the mutation confers a deceptively simple change in the way that the drug works. It deletes a single hydrogen bond from the pocket between the antibiotic and the peptide and the binding of the antibiotic to the peptide found in drug-resistant bacteria is 1000-fold weaker than those found in drug-sensitive bacteria. This renders the drug therapeutically useless so we’ve been fascinated with understanding this process and essentially hope in the future that we can design new antibiotics that combine to these peptides found in resistant superbugs.
Rachel - Firstly that it’s label-free. This means that you don’t need to use fluorescent or radioactive probes as you might have to with other technologies and this has an advantage in terms of time and cost. But also labels can potentially perturb the way a biomolecule works. Other advantages are that they are immediately compatible with silicon microfabrication technology and what I mean by that is that it’s possible to scale-up the number of cantilevers, readily for high density arrays to screen potentially thousands of drugs per hour. We hope that it will potentially provide a new way to understand how antibiotics work and hopefully develop more antibiotics in the future. February 2009 Rapid DNA Reading with GrapheneDr Henk Postma, CSU NorthridgeBen - As an understanding of our genes and that of our food and everything else becomes more important in knowing what diseases we may develop and, in fact, how to treat them and avoid them – fast an efficient ways to sequence our genome becomes ever more important. Dr Henk Postma for the California State University at Northridge thinks that nanotechnology could have the answer. Hello Henke, thanks for joining us. How would we use nanotechnology to read DNA?
It’s deceptively simple but it turns out it’s actually quite hard to do and people have been trying to do this with big electrodes. If you make electrodes out of gold materials they typically are very thick, let’s say about 20nm thick. Then your DNA molecule has a distance between the different bases of 0.3nm. You would have at any point in time 60 bases in between your electrodes so it’s very hard to resolve any kind of electrical signal due to a single base. Ben - So you’d get an indication of what bases might be between your electrodes but you wouldn’t be able to read each one? Henk - Exactly. You’d get some kind of statistical measure of the average, perhaps. What I’ve been proposing is to use graphene as the electrode. Graphene is a new material that was discovered by Andre Geim in Manchester, in your country, about 5 years ago and it’s a single layer of carbon. It is extremely robust, it is a very good electrical conductor and because it’s a single atom thick if you make electrodes out of those you would be able to resolve the single bases inside the DNA molecule. That's the basic idea of what I'm working on. Ben - It sounds like a deceptively simple idea but you also imply that it's just an idea at the moment. What do you think the challenges will actually be when you can make this happen? Henk - A few of the things have been solved already by several people in the world. One of the things you need to do is you need to be able to make a membrane that can be immersed in a liquid and survive the typical capillary action that is associated with having something as thin as that in the liquid. People have solved that. They've made thin membranes. One of the things you need to do is you need to make a tiny gap and we've identified a few potential technologies that allow us to make a thin gap. That's the first thing that we're actually working on right now. That's the first thing that we need to be able to do.
Henk - Exactly. It has to line up very nicely because if you would even make you gap about one nanometre thicker, wider than it is in the ideal case your current drops by several orders of magnitude. It would be very hard to detect any kind of signal. That would be the first challenge, I would say. Ben - What are the advantages of doing this? How quickly could you actually sequence the human genome? We know there are 24,000-ish genes that actually work and a load of stuff that may or may not be junk. How long do you think it would take? Henk - Well, actually the junk DNA is actually a very interesting issue. We're proposing to sequence the whole thing regardless of whether we consider something junk or not. That is an open question, whether junk DNA ha s some kind of a function. Extrapolating from our read-time for a single base I estimate it will be about 3 micro seconds so, if you would be able to use such a device for one single DNA molecule of the human, it would take about 2 hours to read the whole thing. Ben - That's really incredible. Just one last question, how much is it likely to cost to sequence one human genome? Henke - Well you would have to get some electrical equipment, make some material. Graphene actually is surprisingly cheap. I'm not sure, my lab is very expensive but I presume that if you want to do it again you don't want to make any extra investments. I won't be able to put a number on it! That's something that has to be figured out later but because it's a single device and there's no extra preparation that is needed for the DNA material you can just put it in the liquid and you'll be done with it. You don't need to do any PCR amplification or radio labelling or fluorescent read-out or any gel electrophoresis. All those techniques are not required. It's a very basic experiment, actually.
February 2009 Mothership for NanotechnologyProfessor Michael Sailor, UCSDBen - I caught up with Professor Michael Sailor from the University of California at San Diego, another person enjoying the sun while we're in the snow, to find out how you can convince such tiny particles to be your drug deliverers.
Ben - How does it avoid the processes that usually recycle the fluid in the eye and would usually take away the drug that they'd put in there. Michael - If you had a material that you're putting into the eye and it stayed there even after its effective time was done after it's already delivered its drug then it eventually ends up you're going to start occluding the vision. A real key thing for that was to have these materials definitely dissolve away into nothing. It has to dissolve away slow enough that the drug locked inside is delivered in a fairly smooth and slow fashion. Ben - This should mean that people suffering from AMD would at least have one nanoparticle administered every six months rather than an injection of an excess of drug every month. Michael - Well, we still have to put a lot of drug in the eye so it wouldn't be one nanoparticle. We would be injecting large quantities of nanoparticles: roughly the same volume that the doctor now injects into a patient. They key thing is that when that drug goes in to the 100microlitre injection that's going into the eye it's not all instantly available. Some of it is locked away and it's releasing over a much slower time period.
Michael - That's a really tough question. We would like to get into the clinic within a year. We're at the stage right now where we're doing experiments with rabbits. As you know with any material; nanomatrials in particular we want to be very careful we're not doing more harm than good. The problems that may come up, infections, longer-term issues – do materials really degrade away to nothing, are they getting eliminated completely? There's a lot of work that still needs to be done. One of the real challenges here with the nanomaterial is even if you think it's harmless and I'm sitting here saying these are made of silicon dioxide or iron oxide and that's a material the body can accept and degrade smoothly there are great examples of nanomaterials that are made of things that are completely harmless that are really nasty. For instance, carbon nanotubes do not degrade in the body at all. Unless your body can eliminate them somehow if it gets stuck somewhere it's there forever. If you look at asbestos, the chemical composition of it is quite harmless itself: aluminium, oxygen and some iron initially so kind of the same sort of constituents that we're talking about here. Why is that particular alumino-silicate, that asbestos mineral so harmful? Because it's in a nanostructure that doesn't degrade it's actually quite harmful. Even though its elemental components are not toxic when that material gets into the body and lungs in particular for asbestos it sits there and doesn't go away. The body can't dissolve it and so those fibres will stay lodged in the lungs, make lesions and cause problems. That's a real moral to the story of nanomaterials. It's not good enough to just say the elements are harmless. You've got to know that the material itself will go away. February 2009
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large. The contents of this site are © The Naked Scientists® 2000-2012. The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||