Facebook PixelA network of small intrabody prosthetic nanodevices
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Brainstorming
Create newCreate new
EverythingEverything
Sessions onlySessions only
Ideas onlyIdeas only
Guide
TourRulesAbout
Brainstorming session

A network of small intrabody prosthetic nanodevices

Image credit: K_E_N/shutterstock.com

Loading...
J
Juran Feb 12, 2021
startupsstartup ideasbiotech
5
Creative contributions

Can we use storage cells as specialized sites for the nanobodies integration?

Loading...
Subash Chapagain
Subash Chapagain Feb 15, 2021
Loading...
J
Juran8 days ago
Hi Subash Chapagain! Thank You!

I am sorry for not contributing to your session before. I read and posted my contribution - hope you like it.
The Shubhankar Kulkarni's list is very useful in terms of materials. I will add links to both sessions at the bottom of this one.

The adipose tissue indeed seems suitable for such implants or storage cells. Also, the idea of a "nanoparticle garage" is very cool. It would be awesome if we could control, deploy and recall the nanoparticles whenever we want.
The first solutions that occurred to me are:
1) lipid nanoparticles stored in the adipose tissue; deployed on electrical/hormonal signal
2) nanoparticles from artificial material (metals, polymers) that can be collected in implanted "garage" by changes in charge of the "garage" (stents could also be such "garages" - see my contribution to your session)

The problem you mentioned in the third paragraph is real. This data could be intercepted and used against you if the nanoparticles are so smart. If they are just collecting data (e.g. conjugated antibodies), then they are just reporters and there is no fear. If they are also effectors (affecting the blood content, on-site action, ...), then yes, we have a problem. I guess we can stop it by firewalls that block the outside signal or allow only one "connected" user. But it's a good question, tricky one.


Nanobodies monitoring the function of sensors

Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni Feb 13, 2021
Loading...
J
Juran13 days ago
Hi Shubhankar Kulkarni! Thank You!
That's exactly the idea I was looking for. You highlighted the importance of the already integrated body sensory systems (baroreceptors) and that's, in my opinion, one out of two main approaches. Blood pressure is indeed the biggest problem of today's medicine, so it makes sense to develop such a product.

So, the option could be the implementation of these small nanobodies adjacent to baroreceptors which would then sense the blood pressure the same way as baroreceptors. By going this road, we need to 1) develop the technology that senses the changes in pressure the same way (or more sensitive) as baroreceptors, 2) make the nanobodies from the "body-acceptable" materials, 3) localize them right next to the baroreceptors, and 4) develop the detection system for these nanobodies.

The other way could be to attach small detectors next to the baroreceptors, which would then read and transmit the signal of "natural" baroreceptors. That way the problem of mimicking the baroreceptor sensory mechanism, could be avoided (one step less). The only problem would be the "shelf life" of the baroreceptors.
Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni6 days ago
Juran I like the other way, too. Yes, it saves a big step of detecting the blood pressure and can rely on the natural baroreceptor for that. There is a slight difference in the kind of data we acquire using the two approaches. Using the first approach where the nanobodies sense the blood pressure on their own and transmit these blood pressure values, we have the changed blood pressure data and the therapy can be started immediately. Using the second approach, if the natural baroreceptors stop functioning optimally, they will detect a changed blood pressure value (which is not correct), which will be copied by the nanobody sensor and transmitted to the device/doctor. Now this changed value is not reliable since the natural baroreceptors are not functioning properly. Therefore, before starting any therapy, the then blood pressure will need to be measured. Here is that additional step.
Loading...
J
Juran6 days ago
Shubhankar Kulkarni True, true. A good way of thinking.
I would suggest classical blood pressure measurement either way, but yes, the data should be interpreted differently. Although the first could detect the blood pressure changes and help to act in a timely manner, the second one could be used to detect certain disorders and diseases related to the blood pressure changes.

A potential downside: Carrying a large extra set of equipment

Loading...
Shubhankar Kulkarni
Shubhankar Kulkarni Feb 13, 2021
Loading...
J
Juran13 days ago
It's the real potential threat, I agree, but it depends on the system we choose.

If we develop a network of nanobodies circulating the bloodstream and implanted in certain tissues in large quantities, then we have to deal with this. With the last sentence, you already said the same thing I would say on this. I think the body would get used to it, the same way it gets used to high sugar levels, low iron, high copper, etc. Yes, it can result in certain disorders and yes, it could be lethal and therefore needs to be treated. But by having these sensors, we can treat it in time, and the risk: benefit ratio could be close to one or even smaller, especially in cases of people with serious diseases.

If, on the other hand, we choose to go with a smaller number of wisely-positioned sensors (like mentioned in Biostamp contribution), then we do not need to worry.


A network of wirelessly-powered virus-detecting stents

Loading...
J
Juran Feb 17, 2021

Inter-connected Biostamp patches as a primitive solution

Loading...
J
Juran Feb 12, 2021

Add your creative contribution

0 / 200

Added via the text editor

Sign up or

or

Guest sign up

* Indicates a required field

By using this platform you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

General comments