Tag Archives: Quebec

Montreal Neuro goes open science

The Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) in Québec, Canada, known informally and widely as Montreal Neuro, has ‘opened’ its science research to the world. David Bruggeman tells the story in a Jan. 21, 2016 posting on his Pasco Phronesis blog (Note: Links have been removed),

The Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) at McGill University announced that it will be the first academic research institute to become what it calls ‘Open Science.’  As Science is reporting, the MNI will make available all research results and research data at the time of publication.  Additionally it will not seek patents on any of the discoveries made on research at the Institute.

Will this catch on?  I have no idea if this particular combination of open access research data and results with no patents will spread to other university research institutes.  But I do believe that those elements will continue to spread.  More universities and federal agencies are pursuing open access options for research they support.  Elon Musk has opted to not pursue patent litigation for any of Tesla Motors’ patents, and has not pursued patents for SpaceX technology (though it has pursued litigation over patents in rocket technology). …

Montreal Neuro and its place in Canadian and world history

Before pursuing this announcement a little more closely, you might be interested in some of the institute’s research history (from the Montreal Neurological Institute Wikipedia entry and Note: Links have been removed),

The MNI was founded in 1934 by the neurosurgeon Dr. Wilder Penfield (1891–1976), with a $1.2 million grant from the Rockefeller Foundation of New York and the support of the government of Quebec, the city of Montreal, and private donors such as Izaak Walton Killam. In the years since the MNI’s first structure, the Rockefeller Pavilion was opened, several major structures were added to expand the scope of the MNI’s research and clinical activities. The MNI is the site of many Canadian “firsts.” Electroencephalography (EEG) was largely introduced and developed in Canada by MNI scientist Herbert Jasper, and all of the major new neuroimaging techniques—computer axial tomography (CAT), positron emission tomography (PET), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) were first used in Canada at the MNI. Working under the same roof, the Neuro’s scientists and physicians made discoveries that drew world attention. Penfield’s technique for epilepsy neurosurgery became known as the Montreal procedure. K.A.C. Elliott identified γ-aminobutyric acid (GABA) as the first inhibitory neurotransmitter. Brenda Milner revealed new aspects of brain function and ushered in the field of neuropsychology as a result of her groundbreaking study of the most famous neuroscience patient of the 20th century, H.M., who had anterograde amnesia and was unable to form new memories. In 2007, the Canadian government recognized the innovation and work of the MNI by naming it one of seven national Centres of Excellence in Commercialization and Research.

For those with the time and the interest, here’s a link to an interview (early 2015?) with Brenda Milner (and a bonus, related second link) as part of a science podcast series (from my March 6, 2015 posting),

Dr. Wendy Suzuki, a Professor of Neural Science and Psychology in the Center for Neural Science at New York University, whose research focuses on understanding how our brains form and retain new long-term memories and the effects of aerobic exercise on memory. Her book Healthy Brain, Happy Life will be published by Harper Collins in the Spring of 2015.

  • Totally Cerebral: Untangling the Mystery of Memory: Neuroscientist Wendy Suzuki introduces us to scientists who have uncovered some of the deepest secrets about our brains. She begins by talking with experimental psychologist Brenda Milner [interviewed in her office at McGill University, Montréal, Quebéc], who in the 1950s, completely changed our understanding of the parts of the brain important for forming new long-term memories.
  • Totally Cerebral: The Man Without a Memory: Imagine never being able to form a new long term memory after the age of 27. Welcome to the life of the famous amnesic patient “HM”. Neuroscientist Suzanne Corkin studied HM for almost half a century, and gives us a glimpse of what daily life was like for him, and his tremendous contribution to our understanding of how our memories work.

Brief personal anecdote
For those who just want the science, you may want to skip this section.

About 15 years ago, I had the privilege of talking with Mary Filer, a former surgical nurse and artist in glass. Originally from Saskatchewan, she, a former member of Wilder Penfield’s surgical team, was then in her 80s living in Vancouver and still associated with Montreal Neuro, albeit as an artist rather than a surgical nurse.

Penfield had encouraged her to pursue her interest in the arts (he was an art/science aficionado) and at this point her work could be seen many places throughout the world and, if memory serves, she had just been asked to go MNI for the unveiling of one of her latest pieces.

Her husband, then in his 90s, had founded the School of Architecture at McGill University. This couple had known all the ‘movers and shakers’ in Montreal society for decades and retired to Vancouver where their home was in a former chocolate factory.

It was one of those conversations, you just don’t forget.

More about ‘open science’ at Montreal Neuro

Brian Owens’ Jan. 21, 2016 article for Science Magazine offers some insight into the reason for the move to ‘open science’,

Guy Rouleau, the director of McGill University’s Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) and Hospital in Canada, is frustrated with how slowly neuroscience research translates into treatments. “We’re doing a really shitty job,” he says. “It’s not because we’re not trying; it has to do with the complexity of the problem.”

So he and his colleagues at the renowned institute decided to try a radical solution. Starting this year, any work done there will conform to the principles of the “open-
science” movement—all results and data will be made freely available at the time of publication, for example, and the institute will not pursue patents on any of its discoveries. …

“It’s an experiment; no one has ever done this before,” he says. The intent is that neuroscience research will become more efficient if duplication is reduced and data are shared more widely and earlier. …”

After a year of consultations among the institute’s staff, pretty much everyone—about 70 principal investigators and 600 other scientific faculty and staff—has agreed to take part, Rouleau says. Over the next 6 months, individual units will hash out the details of how each will ensure that its work lives up to guiding principles for openness that the institute has developed. …

Owens’ article provides more information about implementation and issues about sharing. I encourage you to read it in its entirety.

As for getting more research to the patient, there’s a Jan. 26, 2016 Cafe Scientifique talk in Vancouver (my Jan. 22, 2016 ‘Events’ posting; scroll down about 40% of the way) regarding that issue although there’s no hint that the speakers will be discussing ‘open science’.

Promising new technique for controlled fabrication of nanowires

This research is the result of a collaboration between French, Italian, Australian, and Canadian researchers. From a Jan. 5, 2016 news item on *phys.org,

An international team of researchers including Professor Federico Rosei and members of his group at INRS (Institut national de la recherche scientifique) has developed a new strategy for fabricating atomically controlled carbon nanostructures used in molecular carbon-based electronics. An article just published in the prestigious journal Nature Communications presents their findings: the complete electronic structure of a conjugated organic polymer, and the influence of the substrate on its electronic properties.

A Jan. 5, 2016 INRS news release by Gisèle Bolduc, which originated the news item, indicates this is the beginning rather than an endpoint (Note: A link has been removed),

The researchers combined two procedures previously developed in Professor Rosei’s lab—molecular self-assembly and chain polymerization—to produce a network of long-range poly(para-phenylene) (PPP) nanowires on a copper (Cu) surface. Using advanced technologies such as scanning tunneling microscopy and photoelectron spectroscopy as well as theoretical models, they were able to describe the morphology and electronic structure of these nanostructures.

“We provide a complete description of the band structure and also highlight the strong interaction between the polymer and the substrate, which explains both the decreased bandgap and the metallic nature of the new chains. Even with this hybridization, the PPP bands display a quasi one-dimensional dispersion in conductive polymeric nanowires,” said Professor Federico Rosei, one of the authors of the study.

Although further research is needed to fully describe the electronic properties of these nanostructures, the polymer’s dispersion provides a spectroscopic record of the polymerization process of certain types of molecules on gold, silver, copper, and other surfaces. It’s a promising approach for similar semiconductor studies—an essential step in the development of actual devices.

The results of the study could be used in designing organic nanostructures, with significant potential applications in nanoelectronics, including photovoltaic devices, field-effect transistors, light-emitting diodes, and sensors.

About the article

This study was designed by Yannick Fagot-Revurat and Daniel Malterre of Université de Lorraine/CNRS, Federico Rosei of INRS, Josh Lipton-Duffin of the Institute for Future Environments (Australia), Giorgio Contini of the Italian National Research Council, and Dmytro F. Perepichka of McGill University. […]The researchers were generously supported by Conseil Franco-Québécois de coopération universitaire, the France–Italy International Program for Scientific Cooperation, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, Fonds québécois de recherche – Nature et technologies, and a Québec MEIE grant (in collaboration with Belgium).

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Quasi one-dimensional band dispersion and surface metallization in long-range ordered polymeric wires by Guillaume Vasseur, Yannick Fagot-Revurat, Muriel Sicot, Bertrand Kierren, Luc Moreau, Daniel Malterre, Luis Cardenas, Gianluca Galeotti, Josh Lipton-Duffin, Federico Rosei, Marco Di Giovannantonio, Giorgio Contini, Patrick Le Fèvre, François Bertran, Liangbo Liang, Vincent Meunier, Dmitrii F. Perepichka. Nature Communications 7, Article number:  10235 doi:10.1038/ncomms10235 Published 04 January 2016

This is an open access paper.

*’ScienceDaily’ corrected to ‘phys.org’ on Tues., Jan. 5, 2016 at 1615 PST.

Quebecol, a maple syrup-based molecule, could be used as an anti-inflammatory

I think this is the first time I’ve had any research from Université Laval (Québec; Laval University) and it seems fitting that it would involve maple syrup. From a Dec. 22, 2015 Université Laval news release on EurekAlert,

Arthritis and other inflammatory diseases could someday be treated with medication containing a molecule from maple syrup. Université Laval researchers demonstrated in a recent study that quebecol, a molecule found in maple syrup, has interesting properties for fighting the body’s inflammatory response.

Discovered in 2011, quebecol is the result of chemical reactions during the syrup-making process that transform the naturally occurring polyphenols in maple sap. After successfully synthesizing quebecol and its derivatives, Université Laval researchers under the supervision of Normand Voyer, a chemist with the Faculty of Science and Engineering, evaluated its anti-inflammatory properties. They called on colleague Daniel Grenier of the Faculty of Dentistry, who developed an in vitro model for determining the anti-inflammatory potential of natural molecules. “We take blood cells called macrophages and put them with bacterial toxins,” explained Professor Grenier. “Macrophages usually react by triggering an inflammatory response. But if the culture medium contains an anti-inflammatory molecule, this response is blocked.”

The researchers carried out tests that showed quebecol curbs the inflammatory response of macrophages, and some derivatives are even more effective than the original molecule. “The most powerful derivative has a simpler structure and is easier to synthesize than quebecol,” said Normand Voyer. “This paves the way for a whole new class of anti-inflammatory agents, inspired by quebecol, that could compensate for the low efficacy of certain treatments while reducing the risk of side effects.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Anti-inflammatory properties of quebecol and its derivatives by Sébastien Cardinal, Jabrane Azelmat, Daniel Grenier, Normand Voyer. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry Letters         doi:10.1016/j.bmcl.2015.11.096 Available online 27 November 2015

This paper is behind a paywall.

Québec’s second edition of its Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace

Lynn Bergeson’s Dec. 16, 2015 posting on Nanotechnology Now highlights Québec’s second edition of its guide to best practices for handling nanomaterials in the workplace,

On December 11, 2015, the Institut de recherche Robert-Sauvé en santé et en sécurité du travail (IRSST), a leading occupational health and safety research center in Canada, published the second edition of its Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace.

… IRSST intends the Guidance to support the safe development of nanotechnologies in Québec by bringing together current scientific knowledge on hazard identification, strategies for determining nanomaterial levels in different work environments, risk assessment, and the application of various risk management approaches. IRSST states that the Guidance provides practical information and prevention tools for the safe handling of nanomaterials in laboratories and pilot plants, as well as industrial facilities that produce or incorporate them. The Guidance recommends a preventive approach designed to minimize occupational exposure to nanomaterials. According to IRSST, given the different exposure pathways, the many factors that can affect nanomaterial toxicity and the health risks, its approach “is essentially based on hazard identification, different risk assessment strategies and a hierarchy of control measures, incorporating knowledge specific to nanomaterials when available.” The second edition of the Guidance incorporates new information in the scientific literature. In addition, IRSST has included appendices describing initiatives in Québec workplaces; examples of at-risk situations described in the literature; preventive measures and data on their relative efficacy; and the implementation of measures to control exposure. ,,,

The Best Practices Guidance for Nanomaterial Risk Management in the Workplace can be found here on the IRSST website where you’ll also find this description,

Today’s nanotechnologies can substantially improve the properties of a wide range of products in all sectors of activity, from the manufacture of materials with ground-breaking performance to medical diagnostics and treatment—yet they raise major technological, economic, ethical, social and environmental questions. Some of the spinoffs we can expect include the emergence of new markets, job creation, improvements in quality of life and contributions to protection of the environment. The impact of nanotechnologies is already being felt in sectors as diverse as agroprocessing, cosmetics, construction, healthcare and the aerospace industry. Most universities in Québec and many research centres are working to design new applications. Many companies have projects in the start-up phase, while others are already producing nanomaterials or have incorporated them in their processes to improve product performance, a trend expected to accelerate over the coming years. These new developments, which could mean exposure of a growing number of workers to these infinitesimally small particles, are of particular concern to workers in industry and staff in research laboratories. It is estimated that in 2015 about 10% of manufacturing jobs worldwide will be associated with nanotechnologies, [emphasis mine] and more than 2,000 commercial products will contain nanomaterials.

Given our fragmentary knowledge of the health and safety risks for workers and the environment, the handling of these new materials with their unique properties raises many questions and concerns. In fact, many studies have already demonstrated that the toxicity of certain nanomaterials differs from that of their bulk counterparts of the same chemical composition. Nanomaterials enter the body mainly through inhalation but also through the skin and the GI tract. Animal studies have demonstrated that certain nanomaterials can enter the blood stream through translocation and accumulate in different organs. Animal studies also show that certain nanomaterials cause more inflammation and more lung tumours on a mass-for-mass basis than the same substances in bulk form, among many other specific effects documented. In addition, research has shown that the physicochemical characteristics of nanomaterials (size, shape, specific surface area, charge, solubility and surface properties) play a major role in their impact on biological systems, including their ability to generate oxidative stress. It is thus crucial that risks be assessed and controlled to ensure the safe handling of nanomaterials. As with many other chemicals, a risk assessment and management approach must be developed on a case-by-case basis.

There is still no consensus, however, on a measurement method for characterizing occupational exposure to nanomaterials, making quantitative risk assessment difficult if not impossible in many situations. As a result, a precautionary approach is recommended to minimize worker exposure. In Québec, the employer is responsible for providing a safe work environment, and preventive measures must be applied by employees. Accordingly, preventive programs that take into account the specific characteristics of nanomaterials must be developed in all work environments where nanomaterials are handled, so that good work practices can be established and preventive procedures tailored to the risks of the particular work situation can be introduced.

Fortunately, current scientific knowledge, though partial, makes it possible to identify, assess and effectively manage these risks. This best practices guide is meant to support the safe development of nanotechnologies in Québec by bringing together current scientific knowledge on hazard identification, strategies for determining nanomaterial levels in different work environments, risk assessment and the application of various risk management approaches. Some knowledge of occupational hygiene is required to use this guide effectively. Designed for all work environments that manufacture or use nanomaterials, this guide provides practical information and prevention tools for the safe handling of nanomaterials in laboratories and pilot plants as well as industrial facilities that produce or incorporate them. To be effective, risk management must be an integral part of an organization’s culture, and health and safety issues must be considered when designing the workplace or as far upstream as possible. This is crucial for good organizational governance. In practice, risk management is an iterative process implemented as part of a structured approach that fosters continuous improvement in decision-making and can even promote better performance. The purpose of this guide is to contribute to the implementation of such an approach to the prevention of nanomaterial-related risks only. Depending on the process, other risks (associated with exposure to solvents, gas, heat stress, ergonomic stress, etc.) may be present, but they are not addressed in this guide.

I wonder where they got these numbers, “It is estimated that in 2015 about 10% of manufacturing jobs worldwide will be associated with nanotechnologies, and more than 2,000 commercial products will contain nanomaterials.” Given that many companies don’t like to disclose whether or not they’re using nanomaterials and most countries don’t insist on an inventory (there are voluntary inventories, which generally speaking have not been successful), bringing me back to the question: where did these numbers come from?

As for the guide itself, Canadians have been very involved with the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and its ‘nanomaterial safety’ working group and, I understand, have provided leadership on occasion. The guide, which is available in both French and English, is definitely worth checking out.

SeeThruEquity sees through Lomiko Metals

The headline is a play on words. Lomiko Metals is in the graphene business (it owns graphite mines which can be turned into graphene and has part ownership of a number graphene-related businesses) and the material, graphene, could lead the way to transparent electronics. When you add an equity firm known as SeeThruEquity issuing a news release about Lomiko, well, the headline wrote itself.

A Dec. 14, 2015 SeeThruEquity news release on Yahoo Finance shares (pun!) the latest doings at Lomiko along with a stock price recommendation (Note: Links have been removed),

SeeThruEquity, a leading New York City based independent equity research and corporate access firm focused on smallcap and microcap public companies, today announced that it has issued an update note on Lomiko Metals, Inc. (TSXV: LMR.V, OTCQX: LMRMF).

The note is available here: LMR December 2015 Update. SeeThruEquity is an approved equity research contributor on Thomson First Call, Capital IQ, FactSet, and Zack’s. The report will be available on these platforms. The firm also contributes its estimates to Thomson Estimates, the leading estimates platform on Wall Street.

Based in Vancouver, BC, Lomiko Metals, Inc. (TSXV: LMR.V. OTCQX: LMRMF, “Lomiko”) is an exploration-stage company engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of resource properties that contain minerals for the new green economy, specifically graphite. In addition to developing high quality graphite plays, including the La Loutre Crystalline Flake Graphite Property and the Quatre Milles Graphite Properties in Quebec, Lomiko is pursuing synergistic growth opportunities in the technology and new energy markets, which leverage its position in the manufacturing graphene, a graphite derivative up to 200x stronger than structural steel that also possesses very high thermal and electrical conductivity properties. These opportunities include the 3D printing, lithium ion battery, LED drivers and power conversion products.

Promising results from infill drilling at La Loutre

As part of a drilling campaign leading to a 43-101 resource estimate, Lomiko intersected 21.55 meters of 11.58%, 57.95 meters of 3.36% including 6.10 meters of 13.66% and 28.75 meters at 4.44% flake graphite at the La Loutre. On December 4, 2015, Lomiko announced that they had intersected 37.40 meters of 4.41% including 10.25 meters of 5.62%, and 48.05 meters of 3.12% including 8.90 meters of 6.13% flake graphite at their 2,867.29 hectare La Loutre Crystalline Flake Graphite Property. A Drill Map is available on the Lomiko web site under quicklinks.

Lomiko management indicated that the results showed “excellent” data including near-surface, high grade flake graphite, helping further define the play’s potential. Lomiko acquired a 40% interest in this promising crystalline flake graphite play in September 2014, and has acquired another 40% interest since we initiated coverage on the company. As we indicated in our initiation of Lomiko, there are several long-term demand catalysts for high grade graphite, including from the lithium ion battery industry, automotive demand from projects similar to the Tesla Gigafactory — which promises to have 35GWh/year of production, as well as potential new applications of graphite derivative graphene, among others.

Launch of Spider Charger(TM) moving towards collaboration

Lomiko’s wholly owned subsidiary, Lomiko Technologies, appears to be nearing commercialization for its innovative new Spider Charger, which has been developed by the company as a result of technology acquired through Lomiko’s December 2014 licensing agreement with Megahertz Power Systems Ltd. The Spider Charger(TM) is an in-wall USB charging device that employs a sleek design while improving energy efficiency for customers and allowing up to eight electronic devices (two standard, 6 via USB ports) to charge safely at one time. Lomiko completed a prototype for the Spider Charger(TM) in November and has manufactured 250 units for use for demonstration with new potential commercial customers. There is clearly a large market potential for the Spider Charger(TM), which has applications for residential and commercial builders, airlines, schools, and businesses with clientele seeking charging stations for their portable electronic devices – such as coffee houses. Lomiko recently initiated a Kickstarter campaign to fund safety and green certifications for commercial use.

Maintain price target of C$0.19

We are maintaining our price target of C$0.19 for Lomiko Metals at this time. We see the company as an intriguing, speculative investment in the graphite and graphene markets.

Please review important disclosures at www.seethruequity.com.

About Lomiko Metals, Inc.

Lomiko Metals Inc. is a Canada-based, exploration-stage company. The Company is engaged in the acquisition, exploration and development of resource properties that contain minerals for the new green economy. Its mineral properties include the La Loutre, Lac Des Iles, Quatre Milles Graphite Properties and the Vines Lake property which all have had major mineral discoveries.

Lomiko also has a 100% interest in its wholly owned subsidiary Lomiko Technologies Inc., an investor in graphene technology and manufacturer of electronic products.

For more information, visit www.lomiko.com.

About Lomiko Technologies Inc.

Lomiko Technologies was established in April, 2014 and currently holds 4.4 million shares of Graphene 3D Lab (www.Graphene3DLab.com), 40% Of Graphene Energy Storage Devices (www.Graphene-ESD.com), and a license for the manufacture and sale of three products from Megahertz.

Lomiko Technology owns 4.4 million shares of Graphene 3D Lab (TSXV: GGG, OTCQB: GPHBF ), 40% of Graphene ESD Corp and has licenses to produce three electronic products.

About SeeThruEquity

SeeThruEquity is an equity research and corporate access firm focused on companies with less than $1 billion in market capitalization. The research is not paid for and is unbiased. The company does not conduct any investment banking or commission based business. SeeThruEquity is approved to contribute its research to Thomson One Analytics (First Call), Capital IQ, FactSet, Zacks, and distribute its research to its database of opt-in investors. The company also contributes its estimates to Thomson Estimates, the leading estimates platform on Wall Street.

For more information visit www.seethruequity.com.

Please note, I’m not endorsing either the analysis or Lomiko Metals. That said, Lomiko Metals has made some interesting moves in attempts to develop applications for graphene. It’s all very well to have deposits of graphite flakes that can be turned into graphene but if there’s no market for graphene (applications for it) then who cares about the deposits? So, good on Lomiko for its development efforts.

One final comment, for those who do not know, graphene is the focus of much international interest in a race to find applications that utilize it. For example, the European Union has a 1B Euro research fund (the Graphene Flagship) being disbursed over a 10 year period.

Ceapro (a Canadian biotech company) and its pressurized gas expanded technology with a mention of cellulose nanocrystals

At the mention of cellulose nanocrystals (CNC), my interest was piqued. From a Nov. 10, 2015 news item on Nanotechnology Now,

Ceapro Inc. (TSX VENTURE:CZO) (“Ceapro” or the “Company”), a growth-stage biotechnology company focused on the development and commercialization of active ingredients for healthcare and cosmetic industries, announced that Bernhard Seifried, Ph.D., Ceapro’s Senior Research Scientist and a co-inventor of its proprietary Pressurized Gas Expanded Technology (PGX) will present this morning [Nov. 10, 2015] at the prestigious 2015 Composites at Lake Louise engineering conference.

A Nov. 10, 2015 Ceapro press release, which originated the news item, describes the technology in a little more detail and briefly mentions cellulose nanocrystals (Note: A link has been removed),

Dr. Seifried will make a podium presentation entitled, “PGX – Technology: A versatile technology for generating advanced biopolymer materials,” which will feature the unique advantages of Ceapro’s enabling technology for processing aqueous solutions or dispersions of high molecular weight biopolymers, such as starch, polysaccharides, gums, pectins or cellulose nanocrystals, into open-porous morphologies, consisting of nano-scale particles and pores.

Gilles Gagnon, M.Sc., MBA, President and CEO of Ceapro, stated, “Our disruptive PGX enabling technology facilitates biopolymer processing at a new level for generating unique highly porous biopolymer morphologies that can be impregnated with bioactives/APIs or functionalized with other biopolymers to generate exfoliated nano-composites and novel advanced material. We believe this technology will provide transformational solutions not only for our internal programs, but importantly, can be applied much more broadly for Companies with whom we intend to partner globally.”

Utilizing its PGX technology, Ceapro successfully produces its bioactive pharmaceutical grade powder formulation of beta glucan, which is an ingredient in a number of personal care cosmeceutical products as well as a therapeutic agent used for wound healing and a lubricative agent integrated into injectable systems used to treat conditions like urinary incontinence. The Company is developing its enabling PGX platform at the commercial scale level. In order to fully exploit the use of this innovative technology, Ceapro has recently decided to further expand its new world-class manufacturing facility by 10,000 square feet.

“The PGX platform generates unique morphologies that are not possible to produce with other conventional drying systems,” Mr. Gagnon continued. “The ultra-light, highly porous polymer structures produced with PGX have a huge potential for use in an abundant number of applications ranging from functional foods, nutraceuticals, drug delivery and cosmeceuticals, to advanced technical applications.”

Ceapro’s novel PGX Technology can be utilized for a wide variety of bio-industrial processing applications including:

  • Dry aqueous solutions or dispersions of polymers derived from agricultural and/or forestry feedstock, such as polysaccharides, gums, biopolymers at mild processing conditions (40⁰C).
  • Purify biopolymers by removing lipids, salts, sugars and other contaminants, impurities and odours during the precipitation and drying process.
  • Micronize the polymer to a matrix consisting of highly porous fibrils or spherical particles having nano-scale features depending on polymer molecular structure.
  • Functionalize the polymer matrix by generating exfoliated nano-composites of various polymers forming fibers and/or spheres simply by mixing various aqueous polymer solutions/dispersions prior to PGX processing.
  • Impregnate the polymer matrix homogeneously with thermo-sensitive bioactives and/or hydrophobic modifiers to tune solubility of the final polymer bioactive matrix all in the same processing equipment at mild conditions (40⁰C).
  • Extract valuable bioactives at mild conditions from fermentation slurries, while drying the residual biomass.

The highly tune-able PGX process can generate exfoliated nano-composites and highly porous morphologies ranging from sub-micron particles (50nm) to micron-sized granules (2mm), as well as micro- and nanofibrils, granules, fine powders and aerogels with porosities of >99% and specific surface areas exceeding 300 m2/gram. The technology is based on a spray drying method, operating at mild temperatures (40°C) and moderate pressures (100-200 bar) utilizing PGX liquids, which is comprised of a mixture of food grade, recyclable solvents, generally regarded as safe (GRAS), such as pressurized carbon dioxide and anhydrous ethanol. The unique properties of PGX liquids afford single phase conditions and very low or vanishing interfacial tension during the spraying process. This then allows the generation of extremely fine particle morphologies with high porosity and a large specific surface area resulting in favorable solubilisation properties. This platform drying technology has been successfully scaled up from lab scale to pilot scale with a processing capacity of about 200 kg/hr of aqueous solutions.

Ceapro is based in Edmonton in the province of Alberta. This is a province with a CNC (cellulose nanocrytals) pilot production plant as I noted in my Nov. 10, 2013 posting where I belatedly mentioned the plant’s September 2013 commissioning date. The plant was supposed to have had a grand opening in 2014 according to a Sept. 12, 2013 Alberta Innovates Technology Futures [AITF] news release,

“Alberta Innovates-Technology Futures is proud to host and operate Western Canada’s only CNC pilot plant,” said Stephen Lougheed, AITF’s President and CEO. “Today’s commissioning is an important milestone in our ongoing efforts to provide technological know-how to our research and industry partners in their continued applied R&D and commercialization efforts. We’re able to provide researchers with more CNC than ever before, thereby accelerating the development of commercial applications.”

Members of Alberta’s and Western Canada’s growing CNC communities of expertise and interest spent the afternoon exploring potential commercial applications for the cellulose-based ‘wonder material.’

The CNC Pilot Plant’s Grand Opening is planned for 2014. [emphasis mine]

I have not been able to find any online trace of the plant’s grand opening. But I did find a few things. The AITF website has a page dedicated to CNC and its pilot plant and there’s a slide show about CNC and occupational health and safety from members of Alberta’s CNC Pilot Plant Research Team for their project, which started in 2014.

No mention in the Alberta media materials is ever made of CelluForce, a CNC production plant in the province of Québec, which predates the Alberta plant by more than 18 months (my Dec. 15, 2011 posting).

One last comment, CNC or cellulose nanocrystals are sometimes called nanocrystalline cellulose or NCC. This is a result of Canadians who were leaders at the time naming the substance NCC but over time researchers and producers from other countries have favoured the term CNC. Today (2015), the NCC term has been trademarked by Celluforce.

Science panel on CBC (radio) Quirks & Quarks plus more

Science panel or is it a debate?

Kudos to the Quirks & Quarks team for pulling together a science panel/debate on their CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) Radio One broadcast for the 2015 Canadian federal election. First, the tweet,

Many thanks for today’s election science panel: you were all great. Airs on Oct 10

Then, there’s the description from the Quirks & Quarks This week programme page,

This Week: Our All-Party Election Science Panel

Science and environmental issues have not been mentioned much in this long election campaign. So we thought we’d correct that by holding our own debate with candidates from all the major federal parties. [emphasis mine] We’ve gathered together:

– Lynne Quarmby, Green Party candidate in Burnaby-North, and  professor and Chair of the Department of Molecular Biology and Biochemistry at Simon Fraser University
– Gary Goodyear, Conservative Party candidate in Cambridge, Ontario, and former Minister of State for Science and Technology
– Marc Garneau, Liberal Party candidate in NDG-Westmount, and a former Canadian astronaut
– Megan Leslie, NDP candidate in Halifax and her party’s environment critic

The panel or debate will be broadcast on Saturday, Oct. 10, 2015 at 12 noon (rebroadcast on Monday, Oct. 12, 2015 at 11 pm and, in some markets, on Wednesday, Oct. 14, 2015 at 3 pm and made available at some point as a podcast). The panel/debate will be moderated by Bob McDonald, host for Quirks & Quarks, CBC Radio One.

I have a few comments about the panel. I’m surprised they didn’t mention that Lynne Quarmby is the Greens’ science shadow minister (also known as, the science policy critic); Marc Garneau once wrote his own Liberal science policy (mentioned in my Jan. 22, 2010 posting; scroll down about 50% of the way) when the Liberals were less interested in science although they did evince more interest by appointing Ted Hsu, a physicist and MP as their most recent science shadow minister [unfortunately he’s not running in this election]); I’m not familiar with Megan Leslie as Kennedy Stewart is the NDP’s science shadow minister; and Gary Goodyear in addition to being the former Minister of State for Science and Technology is a chiropractor known for his response to a question about evolution. It ran something along the lines of, “I don’t answer questions about my religion.” As the howling died down, he tried again with something like this, “Evolution is like having a pair of shoes that don’t fit. Over time your feet and/or the shoes adapt.” It’s not entirely wrong but it does leave out significant and important aspects of evolution as we currently understand it. In any event, muffled weeping could be heard across the nation. Those were his only serious missteps. Of course, most of his subsequent comments were scripted.

I trust it will be an interesting and dynamic discussion.

Science & Policy Exchange (SPE)/Dialogue sciences et politiques interviews

New post SPE Interviews Science and Technology Critic [Liberal] and Deputy Critic [NDP], Ted Hsu and Laurin Liu

Ted Hsu (Liberal shadow science minister)

Laurin Liu (NDP deputy shadow science minister)

For those interested in the Science & Policy Exchange, there’s more on their Who we are webpage,

We are a team of volunteer graduate students and post-doctoral fellows convinced that science and policy must communicate to better serve society. We aim to make this conference the premier forum for stakeholders to discuss the future of the knowledge economy in Quebec. Science & Policy Exchange is one of the few bilingual student led initiatives directly engaging Québec’s political scene and effectively bridging the gap between academia, industry and government leaders. If you are a student in the sciences and are interested in joining the conference organization committee or to volunteer for our organization please contact us.

The Science & Policy Exchange is a registered charity organization (Canada Revenue Agency) and listed in the Registraire des Entreprises du Québec.

also available in French

Based on the copyright notice at the bottom of the Who we are webpage, I believe this organization has been in place since 2010.

Final comments

It is exciting to see science becoming part of the election conversation. So, despite quibbles about who is or isn’t on the Quirks & Quarks science panel and the inability to phone in and ask questions along with the fear that ‘science muzzles’ will dominate discussion to the exclusion of much else, this panel and the SPE interviews are a huge step forward and kudos are owed to all involved.

Science blogging session at 2015 Canadian Science Policy Conference? Hmmm. Really, really really?

Who can resist a Carly Rae Jepsen reference (specifically, the “I really like you” song with its over 60 instances of the word, ‘really’)? Not me.

I have a few things to say about the Science Blogging: The Next Generation session organized by Science Borealis (?) for the Seventh Canadian Science Policy Conference, being held in Ottawa, Ontario from Nov. 25 – 27, 2015 at the Delta Ottawa City Centre Hotel.

First, congratulations to the session organizer(s) for a successful conference submission. (A few years ago I chatted with someone from an institution that I thought would gain almost automatic acceptance whose submission had been rejected. So, there is competition for these spots.) Second, I know it’s tough to pull a panel together. The process can range from merely challenging to downright hellacious.

That said, I have a few comments and suggestions. There seem to be a few oddities regarding the blogging session. Let’s start with the biographies where you’d expect to see something about science blogging credentials, i.e., the name of his or her science blog, how long they’ve publishing/writing, their topics, etc.

Brian Owens [moderator]
General Science editor, Research Canada/Science Borealis
Brian is an experienced science policy journalist. He is editor of Research Canada, the newest publication of the international science policy publisher Research Professional. He is also General Science editor of Science Borealis.

Our moderator does not mention having a blog or writing for one regularly although he does edit for Science Borealis (a Canadian science blog aggregator). How long has he been doing that and how do you edit a science blog aggregator?

Moving on, Owens’ LinkedIn profile indicates he returned to Canada from  the UK in November 2012. So, by the time the conference rolls round, he will have been back in the country three years. (Shades of Michael Ignatieff!) It’s possible he’s kept up with Canada’s science policy while he was in London but he does seem to have held a high pressure job suggesting he wouldn’t have had the bandwidth to regularly keep up with the Canadian science policy scene.

His LinkedIn profile shows this experience,

Online news editor
Nature Publishing Group
January 2011 – November 2012 (1 year 11 months)London, United Kingdom

Responsible for all online news and blog content, including running daily news meetings, assigning stories, editing copy and managing an international team of staff and freelance reporters. Also led on developing Nature’s social media strategy. [emphasis mine]

It’s always good to have Nature on your résumé, although the journal has a somewhat spotty reputation where social media is concerned. Perhaps he helped turn it around?

So, how does guy who’s never had a blog (editing is not the same thing) and has about three years experience back home in New Brunswick after several years abroad moderate a Canadian science blogging panel with a policy focus?

Given the information at hand, it seems a little sketchy but doable provided your panel has solid experience.

Let’s check out the panel (Note: All the excerpts come from this session description):

Amelia Buchanan
blogger, Journalism student at Algonquin College
A recent convert to science communication, Amelia Buchanan is a journalism student with a Bachelor’s degree in biology. She writes stories about science and technology at school and blogs about urban wildlife in her spare time.

What’s Buchanan’s blog called? After searching, I found this, lab bench to park bench. Her blog archives indicate that she started in April 2014. Unless she’s owned other blogs, she will have approximately 18 months experience writing about the natural world, for the most part, when the conference session takes place.

That’s not much experience although someone with a fresh perspective can be a good addition to panels like this. Let’s see who’s next.

Chris Buddle
Associate Professor and Associate Dean at McGill University’s Macdonald Campus, University of Montreal/Science Borealis
Dr. Chris Buddle is an Associate Professor and Associate Dean at McGill University’s Macdonald Campus. He is an enthusiastic and devoted science communicator and blogger, and a member of the Science Borealis board of directors.

What is his blog called? It turns out to be, Arthropod Ecology. The earliest date I could find for any mention of it was in 2012. Unfortunately, the About this blog description is relatively uninformative with regard to its inception so I’m stuck with that one reference to a 2012 posting on Buddle’s blog. This one, too, focuses on the natural world.

So, Buddle has possibly three years experience. He does write more extensive pieces but, more frequently, he illustrates* his posts liberally with images while making extensive use of bullet points and links elsewhere. He’s mixing two styles for his postings, ‘illustrated essay writing’ and ‘picture book with lots of linked resources’. It can be a way to address different audiences and attention spans.

***ETA: Aug. 20, 2015: Chris Buddle has kindly provided more information about his blog via twitter:

@CMBuddle
Aug 20
@frogheart yes it is called “arthropod ecology”, I post 1-2 times per week, since 2012. Some posts are ‘link-fests’ hence the bullets 3/n

@frogheart many other posts are long-form research blogging. Had about 300K + unique visitors, & avg b/w 600-900 visits per day 4/n

@frogheart audience is other scientists, students, colleagues, broader public. Try to write in ‘plain language’ to make accessible

Thank you, Chris for providing more details about your blog and passing on a link to this posting with its criticisms and suggestions to the session organizers.***

* ‘illustrate’ changed to ‘illustrates’ Aug. 20, 2015.

The fourth panelist in this group is,

Sabrina Doyle
Canadian Geographic
Sabrina Doyle is the new media editor at Canadian Geographic. She is fascinated by arctic exploration, enjoys triathlons, and has a deep fondness for all things edible. Hates dirt under her fingernails but loves activities that get it there. Tweet her at @sab_jad |

I gather this bio is something she uses elsewhere. Unfortunately, it doesn’t answer the question: what is she doing on this panel?

It turns out she writes the posts for the Canadian Geographic Compass Blog. From her LinkedIn profile, she’s been working for Canadian Geographic since July 2013 and became responsible for the blog in Oct. 2014. She doesn’t seem to have blogged prior to that time, which gives her approximately 13 months experience once she’s at the science blogging session in November 2015. While she, too, writes much about the natural world, she offers the most diverse range of topics amongst the panelists.

There is one more panelist,

Paul Dufour
Principal/adjunct professor, PaulicyWorks/University of Ottawa
Paul Dufour is Principal of PaulicyWorks, a science and technology policy consulting firm based in Gatineau, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at the University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science, Society and Policy.

Dufour does not seem to own and/or write a blog and, as far as I’m aware, has no media background of any kind (Dufour’s LinkedIn profile). He seems to a science policy wonk which makes sense for the conference but leaves the question: what he is doing on this panel? Other media experience might have given him some comparative insight into how blogs have affected the science media and science policy spaces. But perhaps he reads blogs and is going to share how they’ve influenced his work in science policy?

Here’s what they’re supposed to be talking about, from the session description,

Science blogs serve many communities, including research, policy, the mainstream media and the public at large. They validate successful science, challenge weak conclusions, and are an increasingly important tool for providing valuable context and understanding of research via an open and public forum that encourages debate. Further, science blogging fills the void left by the changing media landscape with fewer resources invested in science writing and reporting. Policy makers are looking to trusted blogs and social channels for insight and information.

This session will provide an in-depth and hands-on look at science blogging and its impact on the Transformation of Science, Society and Research in the Digital Age. With a particular focus on tools and platforms, best practices, the current Canadian blogging landscape, and some predictions for the future, this interactive session will demonstrate how blogs are a platform for engagement, discussion and sharing of science.

Canada has many talented science bloggers, representing both the science reporting and documentary approaches. Our science blogging community has strengthened and grown in recent years, with Science Borealis, launched at the 2013 CSPC, providing a cohesive platform for discussion, discovery and delivery. The proposed panel will address how science blogs are useful for both policymakers and scientists.

Tapping into the power of the crowd, the session will interactively engage the audience in the creation of a quality, high-impact, policy-oriented blog post that will later be published on Science Borealis. The panel will provide audience members with hands-on experience in good blogging practice: goals, approaches, dos and don’ts — and more — to create a well-designed post accessible to government, the broader scientific community, industry and the public.

The panel will discuss the current state of science blogging in Canada showcasing best examples and demonstrating their impacts on the public perception of science and the transformation of science and research and. It will briefly explore this type of digital engagement with an eye to the future. [this para seems redundant]

The validity of at least some of the assertions in the first paragraph are due to work by researchers such as Dominique Brossard and Dietram Sheufele (New media landscapes and the science information consumer) at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. It would have been nice to have seen a few citations (I’d really like to see the research supporting the notion that policymakers read and are influenced by science bloggers) replacing that somewhat redundant final paragraph.

I highlighted a number of words and terms, “platform,” “engagement,” “interactive,” “high-impact,” and “Tapping into the power of the crowd,” which I imagine helped them sell this panel to the organizers.

Despite some statements suggesting otherwise, it seems the main purpose of this session is to focus on and write a science policy posting, “the session will interactively engage the audience in the creation of a quality, high-impact, policy-oriented blog post .” That should be an interesting trick since none of the panelists write that type of blog and the one science policy type doesn’t seem to write for any kind of blog. I gather the panelists are going to tap into ‘the power of each other’. More puzzling, this session seems like a workshop not a panel. Just how are the participants going to have a “hands-on” experience of “interactively writing up a science policy blog post?” There aren’t that many ways to operationalize this endeavour. It’s either a session where people have access to computers and collectively write and post individual pieces under one banner or they submit their posts and someone edits in real time or someone is acting as secretary taking notes from the discussion and summarizing it in a post (not exactly hands-on for anyone except the writer).

As for the ‘tips and tricks’ to be offered by the panelists, is there going to be a handout and/or accessible webpage with the information? I also don’t see any mention about building an audience for your work, search engine optimization, and/or policies for your blog (e.g., what do you do when someone wants to send you a book for review? how do you handle comments [sometimes people get pretty angry]?).

I hope there’s an opportunity to update the bios. in the ways I’ve suggested: list your blog, explain what you write, how long you’ve been posting, how you’ve built up your audience, etc. For the participants who don’t have blogs perhaps they could discuss how blogs have affected their work, or not. In any event, I wish the organizers and panelists good luck. Especially since the session is scheduled for the very end of the conference. (I’ve been in that position; everyone at that conference laughed when they learned when my session was scheduled.)

7th (2015) Canadian Science Policy Conference line-up

The Seventh Canadian Science Policy Conference, being held in Ottawa, Ontario from Nov. 25 – 27, 2015 at the Delta Ottawa City Centre Hotel, has announced its programme and speakers in a July 16, 2015 Canadian Science Policy Centre newsletter,

Presentations

Theme 1: Transformative and Converging Technologies on
Private Sector Innovation and Productivity

New technologies, from 3D printing to quantum computing, present risks and opportunities for Canadian industries and the economy. Join CSPC 2015 in a discussion of how Canada’s mining industry and digital economy can best take advantage of these technological innovations.

Challenges Associated with Transferring New Technologies to the Mining Industry,
Centre for Excellence in Mining Innovation

Creating Digital Opportunity for Canada: challenges and emerging trends,
Munk School of Global Affairs

Disruptive Technologies,
Ryerson University

Theme 2: Big Science in Canada – Realizing the Benefits

ENCode, the LHC, the Very Large Array: Big Science is reshaping modern research and with it, Canada’s scientific landscape. Join the conversation at CSPC 2015 on how Canada navigates those vast new waters.

Science Without Boundaries,
TRIUMF

Are we Jupiters in the celestial field of science? How ‘Big Science’ and major facilities influence Canadian Science Culture,
SNOLAB

Theme 3: Transformation of Science, Society and Research
in the Digital Age: Open science, participation, security and
confidentiality

The digital age has brought important changes to the Canadian scientific landscape. Come discuss and think about the effects of those changes on our society.

The Role of Innovation in Addressing Antimicrobial Resistance,
Industry Canada

Digital Literacy: What is going to make the real difference?,
Actua

Science Blogging: The Next Generation,
Science Borealis

Proposals for Advancing Canadian Open Science Policy,
Environment Canada

Theme 4: Science and Innovation for Development

Innovation and sciences are among the key driver of development. Come and find out how Canadian creativity creates unique opportunities.

Role of Open Science in Innovation for Development,
International Development Research Centre (IDRC)

Learning Creativity in STEM Education,
University of Calgary

Theme 5: Evidence-Based Decision Making: The challenge
of connecting science and policy making

GMOs, climate change, energy: Many of the big major issues facing Canada fall at the nexus of science and policymaking. Join CSPC 2015 in a discussion of the role of big data and evidence-based decision-making in government.

Beating Superbugs: Innovative Genomics and Policies to Tackle AMR,
Genome Canada

Addressing Concerns Over GMOs – Striking the Right Balance,
Agriculture and Agri-food Canada

Who Should be the Voice for Science Within Government?,
Evidence for Democracy

Data Driven Decisions: Putting IoT, Big Data and Analytics to Work For Better Public Policy,
Cybera

The future of university support for Canada’s Science, Technology & Innovation Strategy,
York University

Please note, there will be more panels announced soon.

Keynote Session

Science Advice to Governments
Innovation, science and technologies never had a more critical role in decision making than today. CSPC 2015 keynote session will address the importance and role of the input from the scientific world to decision making in political affairs.

Speakers:

Sir Peter Gluckman,
Chief Science Adviser to New Zealand Government

Rémi Quirion,
Chief Scientist, Quebec

Arthur Carty,
Executive Director, Inst. Nanotechnology U Waterloo, Former science adviser to PM Paul Martin [emphasis mine]

I have a few comments. First, I’m glad to see the balance between the “money, money, money” attitude and more scholarly/policy interests has been evened out somewhat as compared to last year’s conference in Halifax (Nova Scotia). Second, I see there aren’t any politicians listed as speakers in the website’s banner as is the usual case (Ted Hsu, Member of Parliament and current science critic for the Liberal Party, is on the speaker list but will not be running in the 2015 election). This makes some sense since there is a federal election coming up in October 2015 and changes are likely. Especially, since it seems to be a three-horse race at this point. (For anyone unfamiliar with the term, it means that any one of the three main political parties could win and lead should they possess a majority of the votes in the House of Commons. There are other possibilities such as a minority government led by one party (the Harper Conservatives have been in that situation). Or, should two parties, with enough combined votes to outnumber the third party, be able to agree, there could be a coalition government of some kind.) As for other politicians at the provincial and municipal levels, perhaps it’s too early to commit? Third, Arthur Carty, as he notes, was a science advisor to Prime Minister Paul Martin. Martin was the leader of the country for approximately two years from Dec. 2003 – Nov. 2005 when a motion of non confidence was passed in Parliament (more about Paul Martin and his political career in his Wikipedia entry) an election was called for January 2006 when Stephen Harper and the conservatives were voted in to form a minority government. Arthur Carty’s tenure as Canada’s first science advisor began in 2004 and ended in 2008, according to Carty’s Wikipedia entry. It seems Carty is not claiming to have been Stephen Harper’s science advisor although arguably he was the Harper government’s science advisor for the same amount of time. This excerpt from a March 6, 2008 Canada.com news item seems to shed some light on why the Harper sojourn is not mentioned in Cary’s conference biography,

The need for a national science adviser has never been greater and the government is risking damage to Canada’s international reputation as a science leader by cutting the position, according to the man who holds the job until the end of the month.

Appearing before a Commons committee on Thursday, Arthur Carty told MPs that he is “dismayed and disappointed” that the Conservative government decided last fall to discontinue the office of the national science adviser.

“There are, I think, negative consequences of eliminating the position,” said Carty. He said his international counterparts have expressed support for him and that Canada eliminating the position has the “potential to tarnish our image,” as a world leader in science and innovation.

Carty was head of the National Research Council in 2004 when former prime minister Paul Martin asked him to be his science adviser.

In October 2006, [months] after Prime Minister Stephen Harper was elected, Carty’s office was shifted to Industry Canada. After that move, he and his staff were “increasingly marginalized,” Carty told the industry, science and technology committee, and they had little input in crafting the government’s new science and technology strategy.

But Conservative members of the committee questioned whether taxpayers got their money’s worth from the national adviser and asked Carty to explain travel and meal expenses he had claimed during his time in the public service, including lunch and dinner meetings that cost around $1,000 each. Some of the figures they cited were from when Carty was head of the National Research Council.

The suggestions that Carty took advantage of the public purse prompted Liberal MP Scott Brison to accuse the Tories of launching a “smear campaign” against Carty, whom he described as a “great public servant.”

“I have never overcharged the government for anything,” Carty said in his own defence.

The keynote has the potential for some liveliness based on Carty’s history as a science advisor but one never knows.  It would have been nice if the organizers had been able to include someone from South Korea, Japan, India, China, etc. to be a keynote speaker on the topic of science advice. After all, those countries have all invested heavily in science and made some significant social and economic progress based on those investments. If you’re going to talk about the global science enterprise perhaps you could attract a few new people (and let’s not forget Latin America, Africa, and the Middle East) to the table, so to speak.

You can find out more about the conference and register (there’s a 30% supersaver discount at the moment) here.

Customizing DNA nanotubes quickly and cheaply

Building on some work published earlier this year, scientists from McGill University (Montréal, Québec) created a new technique for building DNA nanotubes block by block (my March 2, 2015 posting) and, now, the newest research from the McGill team features a way of making long DNA strands with that technique, as mentioned in a May 7, 2015 news item on Azonano,

Imagine taking strands of DNA – the material in our cells that determines how we look and function – and using it to build tiny structures that can deliver drugs to targets within the body or take electronic miniaturization to a whole new level.

While it may still sound like science fiction to most of us, researchers have been piecing together and experimenting with DNA structures for decades. And, in recent years, work by scientists such as McGill University chemistry professor Hanadi Sleiman has moved the use of man-made DNA structures closer to a variety of real-world applications.

But as these applications continue to develop, they require increasingly large and complex strands of DNA. That has posed a problem, because the automated systems used for making synthetic DNA can’t produce strands containing more than about 100 bases (the chemicals that link up to form the strands). It can take hundreds of these short strands to assemble nanotubes for applications such as smart drug-delivery systems.

Here’s a video featuring one of the researchers taking about this latest work from McGill University,

A May 6, 2015 McGill University news release, which originated the news item, describes the long DNA nanotubes in more detail,

In new research published May 5 in Nature Communications, however, Sleiman’’s team at McGill reports that it has devised a technique to create much longer strands of DNA, including custom-designed sequence patterns. What’s more, this approach also produces large amounts of these longer strands in just a few hours, making the process potentially more economical and commercially viable than existing techniques.

The new method involves piecing together small strands one after the other, so that they attach into a longer DNA strand with the help of an enzyme known as ligase.  A second enzyme, polymerase, is then used to generate many copies of the long DNA strand, yielding larger volumes of the material. The polymerase process has the added advantage of correcting any errors that may have been introduced into the sequence, amplifying only the correctly sequenced, full-length product.

Designer DNA materials

The team used these strands as a scaffold to make DNA nanotubes, demonstrating that the technique allows the length and functions of the tubes to be precisely programmed. “In the end, what we get is a long, synthetic DNA strand with exactly the sequence of bases that we want, and with exactly as many repeat units as we want,” explains Sleiman, who co-authored the study with Graham Hamblin, who recently completed his doctorate, and PhD student Janane Rahbani.

“This work opens the door toward a new design strategy in DNA nanotechnology,” Sleiman says. “This could provide access to designer DNA materials that are economical and can compete with cheaper, but less versatile technologies. In the future, uses could range from customized gene and protein synthesis, to applications in nanoelectronics, nano-optics, and medicine, including diagnosis and therapy.”

Here’s a link to and a citation for the paper,

Sequential growth of long DNA strands with user-defined patterns for nanostructures and scaffolds by Graham D. Hamblin, Janane F. Rahbani, & Hanadi F. Sleiman. Nature Communications 6, Article number: 7065 doi:10.1038/ncomms8065 Published 05 May 2015

This article is behind a paywall.