That agent, called thrombin, is coated onto sponges that can be easily packed by soldiers and field medics (or civilian medical personnel for that matter) and shaped to fit just about any kind of wound. Those pre-coated sponges are a pretty big improvement over tourniquets and gauze, which are limited in their ability to stop every kind of bleeding. Tourniquets obviously can’t be used on many parts of the body (the neck is a good example), and other glues and chemically treated bandages designed for dressing battlefield wounds come with their own complications and shortcomings.

Thrombin, on the other hand, is already used by the body to stop bleeding. Civilian hospitals also use it already, but it’s in liquid form so sponges must be soaked immediately before they are applied to the wound, making them impractical for the battlefield. MIT’s sponge instead uses a spray-on biological nanoscale coating using alternating layers of thrombin and tannic acid, which results in a film that contains a large amount of functional thrombin with a shelf life that makes it feasible to pack them into the field. Both substances are already FDA approved, the researchers say, which means the sponges could quickly find their way into wider use.

That’s good news for soldiers, and potentially good news for anyone who sustains a trauma far from the emergency room. The MIT lab is now working on a sponge that combines a blood-clotting coating with an antibiotic layer in a single sponge to help fight off infection even as a dressing stops the initial bleeding.

It looks like the Star Trek item that we’re the closest to seeing become a reality, however, is the medical tricorder. This May, the X-PRIZE Foundation proposed a US$10 million Tricorder X-PRIZE, with the intention of encouraging the production of consumer devices that can assess a person’s state of health. The first potential contestant, which already has a tricorder in the works, is a tech start-up by the name of Scanadu.

Founded in January 2011, Scanadu is based out of the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View, California, and is headed by CEO and futurist Walter De Brouwer.

Although its inner workings are being kept secret, the Scanadu Tricorder is a small, handheld device, that would be used in conjunction with the processing power and screen of a smartphone. In a non-contact, non-invasive fashion, it would be able to measure vital statistics such as blood pressure, pulmonary function, and body temperature. An onboard hyper-spectral camera and microfluidic lab-on-a-chip would also be able to analyze rashes and infections, and process blood and saliva samples, respectively.

Based on these and other measurements, it could then offer a diagnosis, and advise its user on what course of action should be taken. If a doctor needed to be involved, the patient data on the tricorder could be instantly transferred to them. If it turned out to be something that could be treated at home, then an unnecessary trip to the emergency room or doctor’s office would be avoided.

The first generation of the tricorder will be aimed at parents, for use on their young children. Although it’s hard to know just how far along the device is in its development, Scanadu did recently announce that it had received US$2 million in funding from a group of private investors – that’s certainly going to help.

Other products have already made steps in the direction of smartphone-based tricorders. Melapp and the Handyscope utilize a phone’s camera to assess suspicious skin markings, the iHealth system helps users manage their weight and blood pressure, while iBGStar allows diabetics to measure their blood glucose levels.

Writing in the journal Nature this week, Martin Blaser of NYU’s Langone Medical Center makes the case that antibiotics aren’t just leading to highly resistant superbugs, but that they are permanently altering our bacterial microbiomes, and not for the better.

Our microbiomes are the collection of bacterial microbes that we carry around with us all the time, those symbiotic little bugs that live on our skin and in our esophagi and–very importantly–in our guts. And while we’ve long known that a cycle of antibiotics prescribed to kill off an infection can also kill off some of our most important beneficial microorganisms, the general line of thinking is that once the cycle of antibiotics ends our microbiomes correct themselves and the natural order of things returns.

Blaser presents arguments otherwise in an editorial that suggests that our gut bacteria is permanently affected by a cycle of antibiotics, and that the impact is so profound that it might be time to seriously consider not giving antibiotics to anyone other than very young children and pregnant women. Quoted by Maryn McKenna in Wired:

Early evidence from my lab and others hints that, sometimes, our friendly flora never fully recover. These long-term changes to the beneficial bacteria within people’s bodies may even increase our susceptibility to infections and disease. Overuse of antibiotics could be fueling the dramatic increase in conditions such as obesity, type 1 diabetes, inflammatory bowel disease, allergies and asthma, which have more than doubled in many populations.

He then goes on to present some disconcerting correlations between the absence of certain bacteria and the rise in incidences of things like allergy, asthma, and weight gain. He points to evidence that children are getting too many doses of antibiotics before adulthood and that their microbiomes are never the same for it–specifically that the damage to our gut bacteria populations is permanent from that point forward.

Which leads to an eventual conclusion that when our children are sick we shouldn’t give them what we know will make them better. And that’s a tough pill to swallow.

Breast Cancer Cells Dividing This confocal micrograph shows two human breast cancer cells dividing. The cell at the top is at prophase, showing the condensing chromosomes prior to their separation. The cell at the bottom is in anaphase, where the chromosomes are in the process of pulling apart.

Cancer patients may feel like they have alien creatures or parasites growing inside their bodies, robbing them of health and vigor. According to one cell biologist, that’s exactly right. The formation of cancers is really the evolution of a new parasitic species.

Just as parasites do, cancer depends on its host for sustenance, which is why treatments that choke off tumors can be so effective. Thanks to this parasite-host relationship, cancer can grow however it wants, wherever it wants. Cancerous cells do not depend on other cells for survival, and they develop chromosome patterns that are distinct from their human hosts, according to Peter Duesberg, a molecular and cell biology professor at the University of California-Berkeley. As such, they’re novel species.

He argues that the prevailing theories of carcinogenesis, or cancer formation, are wrong. Rather than springing from a few genetic mutations that spur cells to grow at an uncontrolled pace, cancerous tumors grow from a disruption of entire chromosomes, he says. Chromosomes contain many genes, so mis-copies, breaks and omissions lead to tens of thousands of genetic changes. The result is a cell with completely new traits: A new phenotype.

Cancer as evolution in action, which represents a fundamental re-thinking of the disease, has been proposed before — evolutionary biologist Julian S. Huxley first described autonomously growing tumors as a new species back in 1956, according to a Cal news release. But the prevailing view has long been that cancer is the result of genetic mutations.

Oncologists and pharmaceutical researchers are studying ways to find and block those mutations, aiming to turn off the switch that sparks carcinogenesis. But gene therapy has largely failed to deliver many meaningful results.

Duesberg argues, controversially, that it’s misguided. Chromosomal mutation, called aneuploidy, is the cause instead, and it destabilizes chromosomal patterns. Some of the disrupted chromosomes are able to divide, seeding cancer. The result is a new chromosomal pattern that is distinct from our own. The Cal news office explains this in much greater detail.

Duesberg said he hopes this theory will spark new types of cancer diagnosis and treatment. Chromosomal tests could potentially pick out aneuploidy very early, before the damaged chromosomes have had a chance to divide, for instance. And new treatments could target the chromosomal disruptions, rather than knocking out or switching off genes.

Something to reflect on over your lunch break today: Scientists are developing a new approach for producing human-derived gelatin in large enough quantities to be a commercially viable replacement for the animal-based gelatins used in all kinds of gelatin-like desserts, candies, and other foodstuffs as well as pharmaceuticals and cosmetics. Think about that next time you crack open a mid-afternoon pudding snack.

Gelatin is used as a gelling agent in all kinds of things and is generally derived from the collagen in animal bones and skin (particularly cows and pigs). Broken down, it’s just a mixture of peptides and proteins. But it’s still derived from animals, which means there is a risk, however slight, that it could provoke immune system responses in humans or carry infectious diseases. Moreover, animal gelatin can be inconsistent from batch to batch, giving headaches to quality control managers at production plants. And it’s not vegetarian.

As such, scientists have tried all kinds of ways to create a better gelatin, and they think they may have found it, right here in us. To create the human-derived gelatin, human genes are inserted into yeast strains that are tuned to produce gelatin in specific, controlled ways. That creates for a more consistent gelatin–and also a twinge of nausea.

Is consuming gelatin derived from human genes some kind of indirect cannibalism, you ask? This may be yet another aspect of the commercial food production chain that the consumer may find it most comfortable to just not think about.

This Artificial Rat Brain Has 12 Seconds of Short-term Memory

It’s not artificial intelligence in the Turing test sense, but the technicolor ring you see above is actually an artificial microbrain, derived from rat brain cells–just 40 to 60 neurons in total–that is capable of about 12 seconds of short-term memory.

Developed by a team at the University of Pittsburgh, the brain was created in an attempt to artificially nurture a working brain into existence so that researchers could study neural networks and how our brains transmit electrical signals and store data so efficiently. The did so by attaching a layer of proteins to a silicon disk and adding brain cells from embryonic rats that attached themselves to the proteins and grew to connect with one another in the ring seen above.

But as if the growing of a tiny, functioning, donut-shaped brain in a petri dish wasn’t enough, the team found that when they stimulate the neurons with electricity, the pulse would circulate the microbrain for a full 12 seconds. That’s roughly 12 seconds longer than they thought it would (they expected the pulse to live for about a quarter of a second).

That’s essentially short-term memory. The neurons were relaying the signal in sequence, persistently, mimicking the activity we know as working memory (though admittedly we don’t understand it that well). The brain is basically storing the stimulus long after the stimulus is no more, which is a big deal for a tiny brain grown in a dish.

In a critical first step toward treating nervous system disorders and other degenerative conditions, researchers at Stanford have for the first time transformed human skin cells into functioning neurons. This isn’t stem cell technology–using tissue derived from aborted fetuses and the foreskins of newborns, the researchers were able to create working nerve cells that went on to form synapses with other nerve cells.

This doesn’t mark the first time skin cells have been transformed into other kinds of tissue–in fact, they’ve proven to be particularly good candidates for this kind of science in the past, having been turned into blood cells, liver cells, and heart cells previously. But the breakthrough is significant because skin cells are so plentiful, and the ability to turn them into neurons could create a deep well of tissue for regenerative therapies.

The method relies on a process called transdifferentiation, in which, with a little biological prodding, a cell transforms into a different kind of cell. The team had previously worked out the method by turning cells from a mouse’s tail into mouse neurons, but their attempts at transdifferentiation in human cells hit some initial obstacles. The conversion would take place, but the human nerve cells wouldn’t fire the electrical stimuli needed for cell communication.

The answer was a single gene, delivered via a virus into the cells. The neurons then began firing the necessary electrical signals, and in time began to form synapses with other newly created neurons. While the science is preliminary and the technique still years away from any clinical application, it marks a big step forward for regenerative medicine. Via such a method researchers could eventually treat degenerative conditions like Parkinson’s disease and Alzheimer’s, as well as brain injuries and other ailments of the nervous system.

In the UK, you can get the length of your telomeres measured

Check Those Telomeres Your longevity depends on them.

A new test set to hit the market in Britain in the next year aims to tell patients how long they have to live, and naturally that’s not happening without controversy. The test measures a person’s telomeres, those structures found on the tips of chromosomes. The length of telomeres apparently correlates with how fast a person is aging biologically, and hence researchers want to offer individuals some insight into just how much longer their bodies can hold up.

Well, some researchers do. Others aren’t so sure it’s a great idea. The test, developed at the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre, will be marketed via the company Life Length, which is in talks with medical diagnostics companies across Europe. When it goes on sale next year it will cost roughly $700.

It works pretty simply: provide a blood sample, and the test checks the length of your telomeres, which are basically used to determine your biological age. Research has shown that those with shorter than normal telomeres have shorter average life spans than those with longer telomeres. They also might have a severe case of telomere anxiety that they didn’t know they had previously.

Critics see that as a problem. Aside from the fact that insurance companies might start requiring telomere testing and using it to determine life insurance and health insurance rates, it might also stoke peoples’ fears of death–and open them up to scams and bad medicine purporting to extend their telomeres/lives.

That all sounds like an interesting backdrop for a novel (perhaps one set in a not too distant future dystopian New York and written by Gary Shteyngart), but some are afraid that such a test would open a Pandora’s Box that we couldn’t put the lid back on. The price might be the more controversial part; $700, and let’s face it: no one’s telomeres are going to be quite long enough.

Blood Supply Donor blood goes bad, requires refrigeration, and can carry pathogens. Researchers are seeking synthetic alternatives that are universal to make up for short supplies of the real thing.

A synthetic blood substitute is something of a holy grail in medical research. Many potential synthetics have been tried–DARPA has even put a blood substitute before the FDA–but most have been disappointingly ineffective. So it’s pretty significant that an experimental synthetic blood substitute derived from cow plasma has brought an Australian woman back from the brink of death.

Tamara Coakley arrived at a Melbourne hospital very bad shape. A car accident left her with a damaged spinal cord, collapsed lungs, a fractured skull and various traumatic injuries. It also left her clinging to life with a dangerously low amount of blood in her body, too little to oxygenate her tissues effectively.

Complicating matters further, Coakley’s religion dictated that she could not receive blood transfusions (synthetics, however, do not carry such a taboo). So in an 11th hour bid to save her life, a synthetic known as HBOC201–a hemoglobin-based oxygen-carrying synthetic containing a molecule derived from cow plasma–was flown to Australia from the U.S. and 10 units were injected into Coakley’s body. Against the odds, she recovered.

That’s huge for synthetic blood as a treatment option. Consider: HBOC201 doesn’t require cross-matching or cold storage. It can sit on the shelf for up to three years. And it, or something like it, could go a long way toward solving the periodic blood supply problems that plague hospitals around the world, not to mention provide a blood loss solution in places far from hospitals, like in the third world or on battlefields.

Naturally any synthetic blood that might go into wider use needs to undergo seriously rigorous testing that goes far beyond one singular successful case, but Coakley’s survival marks a huge leap in the right direction in the search for a viable synthetic blood alternative.

A study has shown that more bacteria are present in water dispensed from hands-free electronic-eye faucets, than in that from conventional faucets

Just three years ago, a study conducted by the University of Westminster, London, determined that the "hygenic" warm air hand dryers commonly found in public washrooms actually left users with more bacteria on their hands than if they’d simply used paper towels. Now, it seems that the good name of hands-free electronic-eye faucets is being similarly besmirched – researchers at The Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore have discovered that water coming from such faucets contains more Legionella bacteria than that dispensed by conventional fixtures. Their theory is that the high-tech faucets’ complex inner workings are to blame.

The hands-free faucets use a sensor to detect when a user’s hands are present, at which point the water will automatically come on for a preset amount of time. Given that the whole process involves no touching of anything, it would indeed appear to be more hygienic than a system in which multiple users touch hot and cold water handles with their unwashed hands. The folks at Johns Hopkins and other U.S. hospitals obviously thought so, and proceeded to introduce the faucets in patient care and public areas over a decade ago.

When Johns Hopkins staff were testing how often their water system needed to be flushed, however, they were surprised to discover Legionella growing in 50 percent of the cultured water samples from 20 hands-free faucets, as compared to only 15 percent in samples from 20 manual faucets in the same areas. While Legionella pose little risk to healthy individuals, they can cause serious infections in people with weakened immune systems.

The water from the traditional faucets was also found to contain just half the amount of other types of bacteria.

Although the reasons for the difference are unclear, the researchers suspect that the complex valve components of the newer faucets offer more surface area and hiding places for bacteria, which remain present even after standard hospital water disinfection methods. Conventional faucets, on the other hand, have few internal parts.

Johns Hopkins has since replaced all 20 of its newest hands-free faucets with manual models, and is in the process of replacing 100 similar faucets throughout the hospital. The research team now plans on working with manufacturers of hands-free faucets, to devise new ways of building them so that they can be more easily and thoroughly cleaned.