|
|
GMAT Club Daily Prep
Thank you for using the timer - this advanced tool can estimate your performance and suggest more practice questions. We have subscribed you to Daily Prep Questions via email.
Customized
for You
Track
Your Progress
Practice
Pays
Not interested in getting valuable practice questions and articles delivered to your email? No problem, unsubscribe here.
26 Feb 2024, 14:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Biohybrid microrobots, which merge cellular and synthetic components, represent a cutting-edge development in cancer treatment. Their ability to self-propel, respond to biochemical signals, and transport therapeutic agents are notable advantages. Bacteria-based microrobots are particularly interesting for their immune-modulating capacities and natural inclination to target and colonize tumors. The use of bacteria in cancer treatment is a concept that dates back over a century, with certain strains even advancing to human clinical trials. Yet, challenges such as inadequate tumor colonization have limited their clinical effectiveness. Enhancing bacterial accumulation in tumors through innovative control strategies is crucial for improving therapeutic impact and safety.
One method to address these challenges involves biohybrid microrobots that are remotely controlled by external stimuli, such as magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are ideal for medical use due to their ability to penetrate deep tissue safely. Magnetically responsive bacteria, either artificially attached to magnetic materials or naturally magnetic like magnetotactic bacteria (MTB), are promising in this area. MTB, for instance, can produce magnetite nanocrystals and migrate towards low oxygen zones, often found in tumors. However, the clinical application of magnetic bacteria-based microrobots has been limited. Traditional magnetic control techniques, such as static field gradients, are less effective in deep tumors because of the rapid decline in field strength with distance. Furthermore, directional magnetic fields (DMFs) require precise placement and are unsuitable for systemic administration, restricting their use to superficial tumors.
In this study, a novel hybrid control strategy was developed, combining magnetic torque-driven movement with autonomous taxis-based navigation. This technique employs Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1, a magnetically responsive bacterium, to carry covalently bonded liposomes (MTB-LP). Distinct from other magnetic stimuli, uniform rotating magnetic fields (RMF) can manipulate dispersed microrobots systemically without the need for visual feedback. RMF improves MTB movement through tissue barriers and enhances colonization of target areas, as shown in various models. This method permits real-time monitoring and closed-loop operational refinement because it is compatible with simultaneous actuation and inductive detection. Additionally, selective RMF activation could reduce unintended effects.
Why does the author mention the history of bacteria in cancer treatment in the passage?
A. To highlight the consistent success of bacteria-based treatments across history
B. To underscore the scientific community's long-standing interest in bacteria-based therapies
C. To advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment
D. To detail the specific bacterial strains used in historical treatments
E. To compare past methods with contemporary advancements in microrobotics
One method to address these challenges involves biohybrid microrobots that are remotely controlled by external stimuli, such as magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are ideal for medical use due to their ability to penetrate deep tissue safely. Magnetically responsive bacteria, either artificially attached to magnetic materials or naturally magnetic like magnetotactic bacteria (MTB), are promising in this area. MTB, for instance, can produce magnetite nanocrystals and migrate towards low oxygen zones, often found in tumors. However, the clinical application of magnetic bacteria-based microrobots has been limited. Traditional magnetic control techniques, such as static field gradients, are less effective in deep tumors because of the rapid decline in field strength with distance. Furthermore, directional magnetic fields (DMFs) require precise placement and are unsuitable for systemic administration, restricting their use to superficial tumors.
In this study, a novel hybrid control strategy was developed, combining magnetic torque-driven movement with autonomous taxis-based navigation. This technique employs Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1, a magnetically responsive bacterium, to carry covalently bonded liposomes (MTB-LP). Distinct from other magnetic stimuli, uniform rotating magnetic fields (RMF) can manipulate dispersed microrobots systemically without the need for visual feedback. RMF improves MTB movement through tissue barriers and enhances colonization of target areas, as shown in various models. This method permits real-time monitoring and closed-loop operational refinement because it is compatible with simultaneous actuation and inductive detection. Additionally, selective RMF activation could reduce unintended effects.
Why does the author mention the history of bacteria in cancer treatment in the passage?
A. To highlight the consistent success of bacteria-based treatments across history
B. To underscore the scientific community's long-standing interest in bacteria-based therapies
C. To advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment
D. To detail the specific bacterial strains used in historical treatments
E. To compare past methods with contemporary advancements in microrobotics
26 Feb 2024, 14:02
Kudos
Bookmarks
Official Solution:
Biohybrid microrobots, which merge cellular and synthetic components, represent a cutting-edge development in cancer treatment. Their ability to self-propel, respond to biochemical signals, and transport therapeutic agents are notable advantages. Bacteria-based microrobots are particularly interesting for their immune-modulating capacities and natural inclination to target and colonize tumors. The use of bacteria in cancer treatment is a concept that dates back over a century, with certain strains even advancing to human clinical trials. Yet, challenges such as inadequate tumor colonization have limited their clinical effectiveness. Enhancing bacterial accumulation in tumors through innovative control strategies is crucial for improving therapeutic impact and safety.
One method to address these challenges involves biohybrid microrobots that are remotely controlled by external stimuli, such as magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are ideal for medical use due to their ability to penetrate deep tissue safely. Magnetically responsive bacteria, either artificially attached to magnetic materials or naturally magnetic like magnetotactic bacteria (MTB), are promising in this area. MTB, for instance, can produce magnetite nanocrystals and migrate towards low oxygen zones, often found in tumors. However, the clinical application of magnetic bacteria-based microrobots has been limited. Traditional magnetic control techniques, such as static field gradients, are less effective in deep tumors because of the rapid decline in field strength with distance. Furthermore, directional magnetic fields (DMFs) require precise placement and are unsuitable for systemic administration, restricting their use to superficial tumors.
In this study, a novel hybrid control strategy was developed, combining magnetic torque-driven movement with autonomous taxis-based navigation. This technique employs Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1, a magnetically responsive bacterium, to carry covalently bonded liposomes (MTB-LP). Distinct from other magnetic stimuli, uniform rotating magnetic fields (RMF) can manipulate dispersed microrobots systemically without the need for visual feedback. RMF improves MTB movement through tissue barriers and enhances colonization of target areas, as shown in various models. This method permits real-time monitoring and closed-loop operational refinement because it is compatible with simultaneous actuation and inductive detection. Additionally, selective RMF activation could reduce unintended effects.
Why does the author mention the history of bacteria in cancer treatment in the passage?
A. To highlight the consistent success of bacteria-based treatments across history
B. To underscore the scientific community's long-standing interest in bacteria-based therapies
C. To advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment
D. To detail the specific bacterial strains used in historical treatments
E. To compare past methods with contemporary advancements in microrobotics
A) Incorrect. The passage does not focus on highlighting the success of these treatments historically. Instead, it mentions the historical context as a lead-in to discussing current developments.
B) Correct Answer. The author mentions the history of bacteria in cancer treatment to provide a background and to show that it goes back a long time, over a century ago.
C) Incorrect. The passage does not suggest or advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment. Rather, it discusses how these methods have evolved and been integrated into current technologies.
D) Incorrect. The passage does not focus on detailing specific bacterial strains used historically. It briefly mentions the historical use of bacteria to set the stage for discussing recent advancements in microrobotic technology.
E) Incorrect. The passage does not draw any comparisons between past and modern methods. Instead the reference to the history of bacteria in cancer treatments is brought up to show something historic - to show that this is not a new idea but something that was tried in the past. We don't see any comparisons drawn in terms how a typical comparison would work. If it were a comparison, the passage would usually involve putting past and present methods side by side and pointing out advantages or differences or similarities. Thus we can't call this a comparison in any meaning of that word.
Answer: B
Biohybrid microrobots, which merge cellular and synthetic components, represent a cutting-edge development in cancer treatment. Their ability to self-propel, respond to biochemical signals, and transport therapeutic agents are notable advantages. Bacteria-based microrobots are particularly interesting for their immune-modulating capacities and natural inclination to target and colonize tumors. The use of bacteria in cancer treatment is a concept that dates back over a century, with certain strains even advancing to human clinical trials. Yet, challenges such as inadequate tumor colonization have limited their clinical effectiveness. Enhancing bacterial accumulation in tumors through innovative control strategies is crucial for improving therapeutic impact and safety.
One method to address these challenges involves biohybrid microrobots that are remotely controlled by external stimuli, such as magnetic fields. Magnetic fields are ideal for medical use due to their ability to penetrate deep tissue safely. Magnetically responsive bacteria, either artificially attached to magnetic materials or naturally magnetic like magnetotactic bacteria (MTB), are promising in this area. MTB, for instance, can produce magnetite nanocrystals and migrate towards low oxygen zones, often found in tumors. However, the clinical application of magnetic bacteria-based microrobots has been limited. Traditional magnetic control techniques, such as static field gradients, are less effective in deep tumors because of the rapid decline in field strength with distance. Furthermore, directional magnetic fields (DMFs) require precise placement and are unsuitable for systemic administration, restricting their use to superficial tumors.
In this study, a novel hybrid control strategy was developed, combining magnetic torque-driven movement with autonomous taxis-based navigation. This technique employs Magnetospirillum magneticum strain AMB-1, a magnetically responsive bacterium, to carry covalently bonded liposomes (MTB-LP). Distinct from other magnetic stimuli, uniform rotating magnetic fields (RMF) can manipulate dispersed microrobots systemically without the need for visual feedback. RMF improves MTB movement through tissue barriers and enhances colonization of target areas, as shown in various models. This method permits real-time monitoring and closed-loop operational refinement because it is compatible with simultaneous actuation and inductive detection. Additionally, selective RMF activation could reduce unintended effects.
Why does the author mention the history of bacteria in cancer treatment in the passage?
A. To highlight the consistent success of bacteria-based treatments across history
B. To underscore the scientific community's long-standing interest in bacteria-based therapies
C. To advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment
D. To detail the specific bacterial strains used in historical treatments
E. To compare past methods with contemporary advancements in microrobotics
A) Incorrect. The passage does not focus on highlighting the success of these treatments historically. Instead, it mentions the historical context as a lead-in to discussing current developments.
B) Correct Answer. The author mentions the history of bacteria in cancer treatment to provide a background and to show that it goes back a long time, over a century ago.
C) Incorrect. The passage does not suggest or advocate for the discontinuation of bacterial methods in cancer treatment. Rather, it discusses how these methods have evolved and been integrated into current technologies.
D) Incorrect. The passage does not focus on detailing specific bacterial strains used historically. It briefly mentions the historical use of bacteria to set the stage for discussing recent advancements in microrobotic technology.
E) Incorrect. The passage does not draw any comparisons between past and modern methods. Instead the reference to the history of bacteria in cancer treatments is brought up to show something historic - to show that this is not a new idea but something that was tried in the past. We don't see any comparisons drawn in terms how a typical comparison would work. If it were a comparison, the passage would usually involve putting past and present methods side by side and pointing out advantages or differences or similarities. Thus we can't call this a comparison in any meaning of that word.
Answer: B
