Tag Archives: CNRS

Are science cities London, Paris, New York and Tokyo losing prominence?

I am more accustomed to thinking about great art cities than great science cities but it appears I lack imagination if a Dec. 13, 2013 news item on Nanowerk is to be believed (Note: A link has been removed),

The world’s largest scientific centers are losing some of their prominence due to geographical decentralization at the global scale, according to a team of researchers from the LISST (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires, CNRS / Université de Toulouse II-Le Mirail / EHESS) who conducted a systematic statistical analysis of millions of articles and papers published in thousands of scientific reviews between 1987 and 2007. Their project, whose results were recently published on the Urban Studies website (“Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007)”), was the first to focus on the geography of science in all the world’s cities.

Here’s an image illustrating the researchers’ work,

Courtesy o CNRS [downloaded from http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/3353.htm]

Courtesy o CNRS [downloaded from http://www2.cnrs.fr/presse/communique/3353.htm]

The Dec. 10, 2013 CNRS (France’s Centre national de la recherche scientifique) news release, [English language version] [en français]), which originated the news item, provides more details,

Geographic encoding, city by city, of all of the articles listed in the Science Citation Index (SCI) (1) between 1987 and 2007 shows that traditional scientific centers are not as prominent as they used to be: the combined share of the world’s top 10 science cities dropped from 20% in 1987 to 13% in 2007. Researchers at the LISST (Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire Solidarités, Sociétés, Territoires, CNRS /Université de Toulouse II-Le Mirail / EHESS), aided by two collaborators at the CIRST (Centre Interuniversitaire de Recherche sur la Science et la Technologie) in Montreal, concluded that this phenomenon is accompanied by a general trend toward decentralization worldwide, especially in emerging nations. China offers a good illustration: the main provincial capitals are playing a much stronger role than they did in the past, and the skyrocketing development of science in China goes alongside with a geographical realignment. Whereas Beijing and Shanghai together accounted for 52.8% of the articles published by Chinese researchers in the Science Citation Index in 1987, this percentage dropped to 31.9% in 2007. Turkey is another striking example of an emerging nation whose scientific system has seen very rapid growth. In terms of the number of articles published, the country rose from 44th to 16th place worldwide between 1987 and 2007. Over the same period, its two main scientific hubs, Ankara and Istanbul, lost some of their pre-eminence within the country. While these two cities represented more than 60% of Turkey’s scientific production in 1987, they now produce slightly less than half of the articles published by Turkish researchers. And, as in China, growth in scientific activity is accompanied by geographical decentralization: Turkey has more science hubs now than it did two decades ago, and its two traditional scientific capitals play a lesser role.

The US, which remains the world leader in terms of scientific production, is an exceptional case: the number of articles published by American researchers continues to rise steadily, but at a slower pace than in the emerging nations. Consequently, the country’s share of worldwide scientific production is lower than it used to be: in 1987, the US represented 34% of the SCI, but by 2007 this figure had fallen to 25%. Nonetheless, the American scientific scene remains quite stable geographically: the role of its main research centers has not evolved significantly because the US scientific establishment has always been one of the least centralized in the world, with research activities scattered across hundreds of cities of all sizes.

Does this development herald the decline of the great scientific centers? The fact that scientific activity is becoming more geographically decentralized on a worldwide scale does not imply that it is declining in large cities with a strong research tradition. The number of articles published in London, Paris, New York and Tokyo continues to rise every year. But the pace of growth in those traditional centers is slower than in others in the global scientific system. As more research is conducted in an increasing number of cities, the main scientific centers contribute a lesser share to the total.

The findings of this project, funded as part of an ANR program (2010-2013), challenge the assumption that scientific production inevitably tends to be concentrated in a few large urban areas, which therefore should be given priority in the allocation of resources.

(1) The Science Citation Index (or SCI) is a bibliographical database created in the US in 1964 for the purpose of documenting all scientific production worldwide. In its current version (SCI-Expanded), which is part of the Thomson Reuters Web of Science database (WoS), it registers more than one million scientific articles every year, encompassing the experimental sciences and sciences of the universe, medicine, the engineering sciences, etc., but not the humanities and social sciences, which are included in the SSCI. The SCI-Expanded records contain information on the content of each article (title, name of publication, summary, keywords), its author or authors (name, institution, city, country), and the list of references cited in the article.

This is especially fascinating in light of a recently published book claiming that the major city centres for art in the 21st century will shifting to some unexpected places. From Phaidon Press’ Art Cities of the Future webpage,

The volume profiles 12 global cities to watch for exciting contemporary art: Beirut, Bogotá, Cluj, Delhi, Istanbul, Johannesburg, Lagos, San Juan, São Paulo, Seoul, Singapore and Vancouver.

Thankfully, in both the old world and the new, commentators appear to agree. “It’s great to have a look around and discover truly interesting new work,” said Simon Armstrong, book buyer at Tate Modern and Tate Britain, in The Bookseller, “and there are some great examples of emergent artists here in this huge presentation of contemporary art from 12 cities on the fringes of the art map.”

Hannah Clugston, writing in Aesthetica concurred, describing the title as “brilliantly executed” with “stunning images,” and possessing an awareness “of the wider concerns behind the work.”

It appears that the geography of creative endeavours in the arts and the sciences is shifting. For those curious about the science end of things, here’s a link to and a citation for the paper about geography and scientific activity,

Cities and the geographical deconcentration of scientific activity: A multilevel analysis of publications (1987–2007) by Michel Grossetti, Denis Eckert, Yves Gingras, Laurent Jégou, Vincent Larivière, and Béatrice Milard. Urban Studies, 0042098013506047, November 20, 2013, doi:10.1177/0042098013506047

This paper is behind a paywall.

Should October 2013 be called ‘the month of graphene’?

Since the Oct. 10-11, 2013 Graphene Flagship (1B Euros investment) launch, mentioned in my preview Oct. 7, 2013 posting, there’ve been a flurry of graphene-themed news items both on this blog and elsewhere and I’ve decided to offer a brief roundup what I’ve found elsewhere.

Dexter Johnson offers a commentary in the pithily titled, Europe Invests €1 Billion to Become “Graphene Valley,” an Oct. 15, 2013 posting on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website) Note: Links have been removed,

The initiative has been dubbed “The Graphene Flagship,” and apparently it is the first in a number of €1 billion, 10-year plans the EC is planning to launch. The graphene version will bring together 76 academic institutions and industrial groups from 17 European countries, with an initial 30-month-budget of €54M ($73 million).

Graphene research is still struggling to find any kind of applications that will really take hold, and many don’t expect it will have a commercial impact until 2020. What’s more, manufacturing methods are still undeveloped. So it would appear that a 10-year plan is aimed at the academic institutions that form the backbone of this initiative rather than commercial enterprises.

Just from a political standpoint the choice of Chalmers University in Sweden as the base of operations for the Graphene Flagship is an intriguing choice. …

I have to agree with Dexter that choosing Chalmers University over the University of Manchester where graphene was first isolated is unexpected. As a companion piece to reading Dexter’s posting in its entirety and which features a video from the flagship launch, you might want to try this Oct. 15, 2013 article by Koen Mortelmans for Youris (h/t Oct. 15, 2013 news item on Nanowerk),

Andre Konstantin Geim is the only person who ever received both a Nobel and an Ig Nobel. He was born in 1958 in Russia, and is a Dutch-British physicist with German, Polish, Jewish and Ukrainian roots. “Having lived and worked in several European countries, I consider myself European. I don’t believe that any further taxonomy is necessary,” he says. He is now a physics professor at the University of Manchester. …

He shared the Noble [Nobel] Prize in 2010 with Konstantin Novoselov for their work on graphene. It was following on their isolation of microscope visible grapheme flakes that the worldwide research towards practical applications of graphene took off.  “We did not invent graphene,” Geim says, “we only saw what was laid up for five hundred year under our noses.”

Geim and Novoselov are often thought to have succeeded in separating graphene from graphite by peeling it off with ordinary duct tape until there only remained a layer. Graphene could then be observed with a microscope, because of the partial transparency of the material. That is, after dissolving the duct tape material in acetone, of course. That is also the story Geim himself likes to tell.

However, he did not use – as the urban myth goes – graphite from a common pencil. Instead, he used a carbon sample of extreme purity, specially imported. He also used ultrasound techniques. But, probably the urban legend will survive, as did Archimedes’ bath and Newtons apple. “It is nice to keep some of the magic,” is the expression Geim often uses when he does not want a nice story to be drowned in hard facts or when he wants to remain discrete about still incomplete, but promising research results.

Mortelmans’ article fills in some gaps for those not familiar with the graphene ‘origins’ story while Tim Harper’s July 22, 2012 posting on Cientifica’s (an emerging technologies consultancy where Harper is the CEO and founder) TNT blog offers an insight into Geim’s perspective on the race to commercialize graphene with a paraphrased quote for the title of Harper’s posting, “It’s a bit silly for society to throw a little bit of money at (graphene) and expect it to change the world.” (Note: Within this context, mention is made of the company’s graphene opportunities report.)

With all this excitement about graphene (and carbon generally), the magazine titled Carbon has just published a suggested nomenclature for 2D carbon forms such as graphene, graphane, etc., according to an Oct. 16, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

There has been an intense research interest in all two-dimensional (2D) forms of carbon since Geim and Novoselov’s discovery of graphene in 2004. But as the number of such publications rise, so does the level of inconsistency in naming the material of interest. The isolated, single-atom-thick sheet universally referred to as “graphene” may have a clear definition, but when referring to related 2D sheet-like or flake-like carbon forms, many authors have simply defined their own terms to describe their product.

This has led to confusion within the literature, where terms are multiply-defined, or incorrectly used. The Editorial Board of Carbon has therefore published the first recommended nomenclature for 2D carbon forms (“All in the graphene family – A recommended nomenclature for two-dimensional carbon materials”).

This proposed nomenclature comes in the form of an editorial, from Carbon (Volume 65, December 2013, Pages 1–6),

All in the graphene family – A recommended nomenclature for two-dimensional carbon materials

  • Alberto Bianco
    CNRS, Institut de Biologie Moléculaire et Cellulaire, Immunopathologie et Chimie Thérapeutique, Strasbourg, France
  • Hui-Ming Cheng
    Shenyang National Laboratory for Materials Science, Institute of Metal Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 72 Wenhua Road, Shenyang 110016, China
  • Toshiaki Enoki
    Department of Chemistry, Graduate School of Science and Engineering, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Tokyo, Japan
  • Yury Gogotsi
    Materials Science and Engineering Department, A.J. Drexel Nanotechnology Institute, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA
  • Robert H. Hurt
    Institute for Molecular and Nanoscale Innovation, School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912, USA
  • Nikhil Koratkar
    Department of Mechanical, Aerospace and Nuclear Engineering, The Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 110 8th Street, Troy, NY 12180, USA
  • Takashi Kyotani
    Institute of Multidisciplinary Research for Advanced Materials, Tohoku University, 2-1-1 Katahira, Aoba-ku, Sendai 980-8577, Japan
  • Marc Monthioux
    Centre d’Elaboration des Matériaux et d’Etudes Structurales (CEMES), UPR-8011 CNRS, Université de Toulouse, 29 Rue Jeanne Marvig, F-31055 Toulouse, France
  • Chong Rae Park
    Carbon Nanomaterials Design Laboratory, Global Research Laboratory, Research Institute of Advanced Materials, Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-744, Republic of Korea
  • Juan M.D. Tascon
    Instituto Nacional del Carbón, INCAR-CSIC, Apartado 73, 33080 Oviedo, Spain
  • Jin Zhang
    Center for Nanochemistry, College of Chemistry and Molecular Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

This editorial is behind a paywall.

INFERNOS: realizing Maxwell’s Demon

Before getting to the INFERNOS project and its relationship to Maxwell’s demon, I want to share a pretty good example of this ‘demon’ thought experiment which, as recently as Feb. 4, 2013, I featured in a piece about quantum dots,

James Clerk Maxwell, physicist,  has entered the history books for any number reasons but my personal favourite is Maxwell’s demon, a thought experiment he proposed in the 1800s to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Lisa Zyga in her Feb. 1, 2013 article for phys.org provides an explanation,

When you open your door on a cold winter day, the warm air from your home and the cold air from outside begin to mix and evolve toward thermal equilibrium, a state of complete entropy where the temperatures outside and inside are the same. This situation is a rough example of the second law of thermodynamics, which says that entropy in a closed system never decreases. If you could control the air flow in a way that uses a sufficiently small amount of energy, so that the entropy of the system actually decreases overall, you would have a hypothetical mechanism called Maxwell’s demon.

An Oct. 9, 2013 news item on Nanowerk ties together INFERNOS and the ‘demon’,

Maxwell’s Demon is an imaginary creature that the mathematician James Clerk Maxwell created in 1897. The creature could turn heat into work without causing any other change, which violates the second law of thermodynamics. The primary goal of the European project INFERNOS (Information, fluctuations, and energy control in small systems) is to realize experimentally Maxwell’s Demon; in other words, to develop the electronic and biomolecular nanodevices that support this principle.

The Universitat de Barcelona (University of Barcelona) Oct. 7, 2013 news release, which originated the news item, provides more details about the project,

Although Maxwell’s Demon is one of the cornerstones of theoretical statistical mechanisms, little has been done about its definite experimental realization. Marco Ribezzi, researcher from the Department of Fundamental Physics, explains that “the principal novelty of INFERNOS is to bring a robust and rigorous experimental base for this field of knowledge. We aim at creating a device that can use information to supply/extract energy to/from a system”. In this sense, the UB group, in which researcher Fèlix Ritort from the former department also participates, focuses their activity on understanding how information and temperature changes are used in individual molecules manipulation.

From the theory side, researchers will work in order to develop a theory of the fluctuation processes in small systems, which would then facilitate efficient algorithms for the Maxwell’s Demon operation.

INFERNOS is a three-year European project of the programme Future and Emerging Technologies (FET). Besides the University of Barcelona, INFERNOS partners are: Aalto University (Finland), project coordinator, Lund University (Sweden), the University of Oslo (Norway), Delf University of Technology (Netherlands), the National Center for Scientific Research (France) and the Research Foundation of State University of New York.

I like the INFERNOS logo, demon and all,

Logo of the European project INFERNOS (Information, fluctuations, and energy control in small systems).

Logo of the European project INFERNOS (Information, fluctuations, and energy control in small systems).

The INFERNOS project website can be found here.

And for anyone who finds that music is the best way to learn, here are Flanders & Swann* performing ‘First and Second Law’ from a 1964 show,


* ‘Swan’ corrected to ‘Swann’ on April 1, 2014.

The yin and the yang of carbon nanotubes and toxicity


Illustration courtesy of the University College of London (UCL). Downloaded from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0113/130115-chemistry-resolves-toxic-concerns-about-carbon-nanotubes

Illustration courtesy of the University College of London (UCL). Downloaded from http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0113/130115-chemistry-resolves-toxic-concerns-about-carbon-nanotubes

Researchers at the University College of London (UCL), France’s Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), and Italy’s University of Trieste have determined that carbon nanotube toxicity issues can be addressed be reducing their length and treating them chemically. From the Jan. 15,2013 news item on ScienceDaily,

In a new study, published January 15 [2013] in the journal Angewandte Chemie, evidence is provided that the asbestos-like reactivity and pathogenicity reported for long, pristine nanotubes can be completely alleviated if their surface is modified and their effective length is reduced as a result of chemical treatment.

First atomically described in the 1990s, carbon nanotubes are sheets of carbon atoms rolled up into hollow tubes just a few nanometres in diameter. Engineered carbon nanotubes can be chemically modified, with the addition of chemotherapeutic drugs, fluorescent tags or nucleic acids — opening up applications in cancer and gene therapy.

Furthermore, these chemically modified carbon nanotubes can pierce the cell membrane, acting as a kind of ‘nano-needle’, allowing the possibility of efficient transport of therapeutic and diagnostic agents directly into the cytoplasm of cells.

Among their downsides however, have been concerns about their safety profile. One of the most serious concerns, highlighted in 2008, involves the carcinogenic risk from the exposure and persistence of such fibres in the body. Some studies indicate that when long untreated carbon nanotubes are injected to the abdominal cavity of mice they can induce unwanted responses resembling those associated with exposure to certain asbestos fibres.

In this paper, the authors describe two different reactions which ask if any chemical modification can render the nanotubes non-toxic. They conclude that not all chemical treatments alleviate the toxicity risks associated with the material. Only those reactions that are able to render carbon nanotubes short and stably suspended in biological fluids without aggregation are able to result in safe, risk-free material.

Here’s a citation and link for this latest  research, from the ScienceDaily news item where you can also read the lead researcher’s comments about carbon nanotubes, safety, and unreasonable proposals to halt production,

Hanene Ali-Boucetta, Antonio Nunes, Raquel Sainz, M. Antonia Herrero, Bowen Tian, Maurizio Prato, Alberto Bianco, Kostas Kostarelos. Asbestos-like Pathogenicity of Long Carbon Nanotubes Alleviated by Chemical Functionalization. Angewandte Chemie International Edition, 2013; DOI: 10.1002/anie.201207664

The article is behind a paywall. I have mentioned long carbon nanotubes and their resemblance to asbestos fibres in several posts. The  Oct. 26, 2009 posting [scroll down about 1/3 of the way] highlights research which took place after the study where mice had carbon nanotubes injected into their bellies; in this second piece of research they inhaled the nanotubes.

ETA Jan. 21, 2013: Dexter Johnson gives context and commentary about this latest research into long multiwalled nanotubes (MWNTs) which he sums up as the answer to this question “What if you kept the MWNTs short?”  in a Jan. 18, 2013 posting on his Nanoclast blog (on the IEEE [Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers] website)

Where do buckyballs come from?

I’ve always wondered where buckyballs come from (as have scientists for the last 25 years) and now there’s an answer of sorts  (from the July 31, 2012 Florida State University news release Note: I have removed some links),

“We started with a paste of pre-existing fullerene molecules mixed with carbon and helium, shot it with a laser, and instead of destroying the fullerenes we were surprised to find they’d actually grown,” they wrote. The fullerenes were able to absorb and incorporate carbon from the surrounding gas.

By using fullenes  that contained heavy metal atoms in their centers, the scientists showed that the carbon cages remained closed throughout the process.

“If the cages grew by splitting open, we would have lost the metal atoms, but they always stayed locked inside,” Dunk [Paul Dunk, a doctoral student in chemistry and biochemistry at Florida State and lead author of the study published in Nature Communications] noted.

The researchers worked with a team of MagLab chemists using the lab’s 9.4-tesla Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometer to analyze the dozens of molecular species produced when they shot the fullerene paste with the laser. The instrument works by separating molecules according to their masses, allowing the researchers to identify the types and numbers of atoms in each molecule. The process is used for applications as diverse as identifying oil spills, biomarkers and protein structures.

Dexter Johnson in his Aug. 6, 2012 posting on the Nanoclast blog on the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) provides some context and commentary (Note: I have removed a link),

When Richard Smalley, Robert Curl, James Heath, Sean O’Brien, and Harold Kroto prepared the first buckminsterfullerene (C60) (or buckyball), they kicked off the next 25 years of nanomaterial science.

Here’s an artist’s illustration of  what these scientists have achieved, fullerene cage growth,

An artist’s representation of fullerene cage growth via carbon absorption from surrounding hot gases. Some of the cages contain lanthanum metal atoms. (Image courtesy National Science Foundation) [downloaded from Florida State University website]

 As I noted earlier I’m not alone in my fascination (from the news release),

Many people know the buckyball, also known by scientists as buckminsterfullerene, carbon 60 or C60, from the covers of their school chemistry textbooks. Indeed, the molecule represents the iconic image of “chemistry.” But how these often highly symmetrical, beautiful molecules with  fascinating properties form in the first place has been a mystery for a quarter-century. Despite worldwide investigation since the 1985 discovery of C60, buckminsterfullerene and other, non-spherical C60 molecules — known collectively as fullerenes — have kept their secrets. How? They’re born under highly energetic conditions and grow ultra-fast, making them difficult to analyze.

“The difficulty with fullerene formation is that the process is literally over in a flash — it’s next to impossible to see how the magic trick of their growth was performed,” said Paul Dunk, a doctoral student in chemistry and biochemistry at Florida State and lead author of the work.

There’s more than just idle curiosity at work (from the news release),

The buckyball research results will be important for understanding fullerene formation in extraterrestrial environments. Recent reports by NASA showed that crystals of C60 are in orbit around distant suns. This suggests that fullerenes may be more common in the universe than previously thought.

“The results of our study will surely be extremely valuable in deciphering fullerene formation in extraterrestrial environments,” said Florida State’s Harry Kroto, a Nobel Prize winner for the discovery of C60 and co-author of the current study.

The results also provide fundamental insight into self-assembly of other technologically important carbon nanomaterials such as nanotubes and the new wunderkind of the carbon family, graphene.

H/T to Nanowerk’s July 31, 2012 news item titled, Decades-old mystery how buckyballs form has been solved. In addition to Florida State University, National High Magnetic Field Laboratory (or MagLab), the CNRS  (Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)Institute of Materials in France and Nagoya University in Japan were also involved in the research.

French scientists focus optical microscopes down to 30 nm

In fact, the French scientists are using two different imaging techniques to arrive at a resolution of 30 nm for their optical microscopes, according to the May 18, 2012 news item on Nanowerk.

Researchers from the Institut Pasteur and CNRS [Centre national de la recherche scientifique] have set up a new optical microscopy approach that combines two recent imaging techniques in order to visualize molecular assemblies without affecting their biological functions, at a resolution 10 times better than that of traditional microscopes. Using this approach, they were able to observe the AIDS virus and its capsids (containing the HIV genome) within cells at a scale of 30 nanometres, for the first time with light.

More specifically,

A study coordinated by Dr Christophe Zimmer (Institut Pasteur/CNRS), in collaboration with Dr Nathalie Arhel within the lab headed by Pr Pierre Charneau (Institut Pasteur/CNRS), shows that the association of two recent imaging techniques helps obtain unique images of molecular assemblies of HIV-1 capsids, with a resolution around 10 times better than that of traditional microscopes. This new approach, which uses super-resolution imaging and FlAsH labeling, does not affect the virus’ ability to self-replicate. It represents a major step forward in molecular biology studies, enabling the visualisation of microbial complexes at a scale of 30 nm without affecting their function.

The newly developed approach combines super-resolution PALM imaging and fluorescent FlAsH labeling. PALM imaging relies on the acquisition of thousands of low-resolution images, each of which showing only a few fluorescent molecules. The molecular positions are then calculated with high accuracy by computer programs and compiled into a single high-resolution image. FlAsH labeling involves the insertion of a 6-amino-acid peptide into the protein of interest. The binding of the FlAsH fluorophore to the peptide generates a fluorescent signal, thereby enabling the visualization of the protein. For the first time, researchers have combined these two methods in order to obtain high-resolution images of molecular structures in either fixed or living cells.

The researchers have supplied an image illustrating the difference between the conventional and new techniques will allow them to view (from the May 16, 2012 press release  [communiqué de presses] on the CNRS website),

© Institut Pasteur Reconstruction optique super-résolutive de la morphologie du VIH. L'image du dessous montre la distribution moyenne de l'enzyme intégrase observée par FlAsH-PALM. La résolution de cette technique (~30 nm) permet de retrouver la taille et la forme conique de la capside. Pour comparaison, la résolution de la microscopie conventionnelle (~200-300 nm), illustrée par l'image du dessus, ne permet pas une description détaillée de cette structure.

The conventional 200 – 300 nm resolution is shown at the top while the new 30 nm resolution achieved by combining the new techniques is shown below. This new technique has already allowed scientists to disprove a popular theory about the AIDS virus, from the May 18, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

This new method has helped researchers visualise the AIDS Virus and localise its capsids in human cells, at a scale of 30 nm. Capsids are conical structures which contain the HIV genome. These structures must dismantle in order for the viral genome to integrate itself into the host cell’s genome. However, the timing of this disassembly has long been debated. According to a prevailing view, capsids disassemble right after infection of the host cell and, therefore, do not play an important role in the intracellular transport of the virus to the host cell’s nucleus. However, the results obtained by the researchers of the Institut Pasteur and CNRS indicate that numerous capsids remain unaltered until entry of the virus into the nucleus, confirming and strengthening earlier studies based on electron microscopy. Hence, capsids could play a more important role than commonly assumed in the replication cycle of HIV.

I gather excitement about this development is high as the scientists are suggesting that ‘microscopy’ could be known as ‘nanoscopy’ in the future.