Caltech Researchers Weigh Individual Molecules 130
karvind writes "PhysOrg reports that physicists at the California Institute of Technology have created the first nanodevices capable of weighing individual biological molecules. This technology may lead to new forms of molecular identification that are cheaper and faster than existing methods, as well as revolutionary new instruments for proteomics. The Caltech devices are 'nanoelectromechanical resonators' -- essentially tiny tuning forks about a micron in length and a hundred or so nanometers wide that have a very specific frequency at which they vibrate when excited. Slashdot covered earlier the effort by Cornell for measuring attogram objects which also employs NEMS cantilevers."
Re:Cool tech. Some issues (Score:5, Informative)
Mass spectroscopy (Score:3, Informative)
It's more trial-and-error than TFA, but with a sweep across the calibration settings you get lovely graphs showing how much of a mixture is which compound. It's fast (seconds for a full-range mass chart), which I somehow doubt TFA is quite up to yet - maybe for a single molecule, but something in the description rankles of a slow process.
Re:uhh... so what? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:uhh... so what? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Resolution (Score:2, Informative)
Actually it's called mass spectrometry (Score:1, Informative)
No it's not (Score:5, Informative)
I'm familiar with his research, half my group collaborated with him, and I think I met him once. It's real. MEMS-based cantilever technology has been getting progressively better, this isn't particularly surprising.
I don't know why you're surprised that New Scientist is pseudoscience, but you can find similar results with real science in journals. Look up Roukes, M in "web of science" or something.
Nice troll, but I can't have you confusing the n00bs on matters scientific.
Re:Cool tech. Some issues (Score:2, Informative)
Huh? You're going to have to explain to me how you bonds change the mass of a molecule... Especially decreasing it. I'm really curious where you heard this. Perhaps there is some nuance to this statement that I'm missing? Are you saying that the mass of the constituent atoms is different than that of a molecule? This can certianly be true if electrons are gained or lost, but chemical bonds don't affect anything beyond the valence electrons of the atoms. As for uncertainty - I'm not buying it. Even if there was a teeny tiny mass "change" over time, you'd be hard pressed to observe it, especially when you're talking about molecules weighing thousands of Daltons... The difference in scale would be like trying to measure the mass you loose from expelling carbon dioxide while standing on your bathroom scale - and having to take into account mass loss to water evaporation, skin exfoliation, etc. Macromolecules, especially biological molecules, have static charge build up, hydration, aggregation, etc. all contributing to a very dynamic system.
At any rate the "mass of a molecule" is an average of all the weights based on the natrual abundance of isotopes because that is the only factor that affects the mass of two molecules with the same empirical formula. "Unstable" molecuels loose mass by becoming different molecules. It is incorrect to say that a molecule's weight changes - that is impossible (save radioactive decay) because when the empirical formula changes, you no longer have the same molecule.
At any rate, it is an interesting challenge to identify biological molecules by weighing them one at a time, as the horrific isotope distribution in the mass spec of any macromolecule demonstrates.