Norwegian researchers reviewed large clinical trials of six common cancer screenings, including clinical laboratory tests, but some experts question the findings
Cancer screenings are a critical tool for diagnosis and treatment. But how much do they actually extend the lives of patients? According to researchers at the University of Oslo in Norway, not by much. They recently conducted a review and meta-analysis of 18 long-term clinical trials, five of the six most commonly used types of cancer screening—including two clinical laboratory tests—and found that with few exceptions, the screenings did not significantly extend lifespans.
The 18 long-term clinical trials included in the study were randomized trials that collectively included a total of 2.1 million participants. Median follow-up periods of 10 to 15 years were used to gauge estimated lifetime gain and mortality.
“The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that current evidence does not substantiate the claim that common cancer screening tests save lives by extending lifetime, except possibly for colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy,” the researchers wrote in their published paper.
The researchers noted, however, that their analysis does not suggest all screenings should be abandoned. They also acknowledged that some lives are saved by screenings.
“Without screening, these patients may have died of cancer because it would have been detected at a later, incurable stage,” the scientists wrote, MedPage Today reported. “Thus, these patients experience a gain in lifetime.”
Still, some independent experts questioned the validity of the findings.
Gastroenterologist Michael Bretthauer, MD, PhD (above), a professor at the University of Oslo in Norway led the research into cancer screenings. In their JAMA Internal Medicine paper, he and his team wrote, “The findings of this meta-analysis suggest that colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy may extend life by approximately three months; lifetime gain for other screening tests appears to be unlikely or uncertain.” How their findings might affect clinical laboratory and anatomic pathology screening for cancer remains to be seen. (Photo copyright: University of Oslo.)
Pros and Cons of Cancer Screening
The clinical trials, according to MedPage Today and Oncology Nursing News covered the following tests:
Mammography screening for breast cancer (two trials).
As reported in these trials, “colorectal cancer screening with sigmoidoscopy prolonged lifetime by 110 days, while fecal testing and mammography screening did not prolong life,” the researchers wrote. “An extension of 37 days was noted for prostate cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen testing and 107 days with lung cancer screening using computed tomography, but estimates are uncertain.”
The American Cancer Society (ACS) recommends certain types of screening tests to detect cancers and pre-cancers before they can spread, thus improving the chances for survival.
The ACS advises screenings for breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer regardless of whether the individual is considered high risk. Lung cancer screenings are advised for people with a history of smoking. Men who are 45 to 50 or older should discuss the pros and cons of prostate cancer screening with their healthcare providers, the ACS states.
A CNN report about the University of Oslo study noted that the benefits and drawbacks of cancer screening have long been well known to doctors.
“Some positive screening results are false positives, which can lead to unnecessary anxiety as well as additional screening that can be expensive,” CNN reported. “Tests can also give a false negative and thus a false sense of security. Sometimes too, treatment can be unnecessary, resulting in a net harm rather than a net benefit, studies show.”
In their JAMA paper, the University of Oslo researchers wrote, “The critical question is whether the benefits for the few are sufficiently large to warrant the associated harms for many. It is entirely possible that multicancer detection blood tests do save lives and warrant the attendant costs and harms. But we will never know unless we ask,” CNN reported.
Hidden Impact on Cancer Mortality
ACS Chief Scientific Officer William Dahut, MD, told CNN that screenings may have an impact on cancer mortality in ways that might not be apparent from randomized trials. He noted that there’s been a decline in deaths from cervical cancer and prostate cancer since doctors began advising routine testing.
“Cancer screening was never really designed to increase longevity,” Dahut said. “Screenings are really designed to decrease premature deaths from cancer.” For example, “if a person’s life expectancy at birth was 80, a cancer screening may prevent their premature death at 65, but it wouldn’t necessarily mean they’d live to be 90 instead of the predicted 80,” CNN reported.
Dahut told CNN that fully assessing the impact of cancer screenings on life expectancy would require a clinical trial larger than those in the new study, and one that followed patients “for a very long time.”
“From its title, one would have expected this paper to be based on analysis of individual lifetime data. However, it is not,” he wrote in a compilation of expert commentary from the UK’s Science Media Center. “The paper’s conclusions are based on arithmetic manipulation of relative rates of all-cause mortality in some of the screening trials. It is therefore difficult to give credence to the claim that screening largely does not extend expected lifetime.”
He also questioned the inclusion of one particular trial in the University of Oslo study—the Canadian National Breast Screening Study—“as there is now public domain evidence of subversion of the randomization in this trial,” he added.
Another expert, Leigh Jackson, PhD, of the University of Exeter in the UK, described the University of Oslo study as “methodologically sound with some limitations which the authors clearly state.”
But he observed that “the focus on 2.1 million individuals is slightly misleading. The study considered many different screening tests and 2.1 million was indeed the total number of included patients, however, no calculation included that many people.”
Jackson also characterized the length of follow-up as a limitation. “This may have limited the amount of data included and also not considering longer follow-up may tend to underestimate the effects of screening,” he said.
This published study—along with the range of credible criticisms offered by other scientists—demonstrates how analysis of huge volumes of data is making it possible to tease out useful new insights. Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists can expect to see other examples of researchers assembling large quantities of data across different areas of medicine. This huge pools of data will be analyzed to determine the effectiveness of many medical procedures that have been performed for years with a belief that they are helpful.
FDA says the move will make it easier to gain authorization for other clinical laboratory tests to utilize at-home collection kits
In another sign of how diagnostic testing is responding to changing consumer preferences, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted marketing authorization to LetsGetChecked for the company’s Simple 2 test for chlamydia and gonorrhea, which includes at-home collection of samples sent to the test developer’s clinical laboratories in the US and in Ireland.
This marks the first time the FDA has cleared a diagnostic test for either condition in which samples are collected at home. It’s also the first test with at-home sample collection to be authorized for any sexually transmitted infection (STI) other than HIV, the FDA said in a new release.
Samples are collected through a vaginal swab or urine sample. “Results are delivered online in approximately 2-5 days with follow-up virtual consultations and treatment available if needed,” the company press release states.
Previously authorized tests for the conditions required sample collection at the point of care. The company also offers telehealth and online pharmacy services.
“This authorization marks an important public health milestone, giving patients more information about their health from the privacy of their own home,” said Jeff Shuren, MD, JD (above), Director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We are eager to continue supporting greater consumer access to diagnostic tests, which helps further our goal of bringing more healthcare into the home.” With this emphasis on at-home testing from the FDA, clinical laboratories in the US and Ireland will likely be processing more at-home collected samples. (Photo copyright: FDA.)
Simple 2 Process and Costs
Prior to collecting the sample, the user goes online to complete a questionnaire and activate the kit, the FDA news release notes.
LetsGetChecked, headquartered in New York City and Dublin, Ireland, says its US labs are CLIA– and CAP-certified. The company currently offers more than 30 at-home tests covering STIs, men’s health, women’s health, and COVID-19, at prices ranging from $89 to $249 per test.
The Simple 2 test costs $99, and is not covered by insurance, Verywell Health reported. Consumers can get discounts by subscribing to quarterly, semiannual, or annual tests.
New Regulatory Pathway
The FDA said it reviewed the test under its De Novo regulatory pathway, which is intended for “low- to moderate-risk devices of a new type,” according to the news release.
“Along with this De Novo authorization, the FDA is establishing special controls that define the requirements related to labeling and performance testing,” the agency stated. “When met, the special controls, in combination with general controls, provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness for tests of this type.”
This creates a new regulatory classification, the agency said, that will make it easier for similar devices to obtain marketing authorization.
Citing data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the FDA news release states that chlamydia and gonorrhea are the most common bacterial STIs in the US. The CDC estimates that there were 1.6 million cases of chlamydia and more than 700,000 cases of gonorrhea in 2021.
“Typically, both infections can be easily treated, but if left untreated, both infections can cause serious health complications for patients, including infertility,” the news release states. “Expanding the availability of STI testing can help patients get quicker results and access to the most appropriate treatment, ultimately helping to curb the rising rates of STIs.”
Experts Praise the FDA’s Authorization of the Lab Test
STI experts contacted by STAT said they welcomed the FDA’s move.
“There are many people who would like to be tested for STIs who may not know where to go or who have barriers to accessing medical care,” said Jodie Dionne, MD, Associate Professor of Medicine in the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) Division of Infectious Diseases. “If we are going to do a better job of reaching more sexually active people for STIs … we need to be creative about how to get them tested and treated in a way that is highly effective and works for them.”
Family physician Alan Katz, MD, a professor at the University of Hawaii John A Burns School of Medicine, told STAT that the Hologic assay is also used by clinicians who treat people in remote locations to diagnose STIs and is regarded as being highly accurate.
“This option is exceptionally useful for individuals who live in rural areas or are geographically distanced from a clinic where STI testing can be done and there is no telehealth option available,” he told STAT.
With this latest move, the FDA is recognizing that it is time to give consumers more control over their healthcare. This is a signal to clinical laboratories that they should be developing their own strategies and offerings that serve consumers who want to order their own tests. Of course, many states still require a physician’s signature on lab test orders, but that is likely to change over time.
Scientists believe useful new clinical laboratory assays could be developed by better understanding the huge number of ‘poorly researched’ genes and the proteins they build
Researchers have added a new “-ome” to the long list of -omes. The new -ome is the “unknome.” This is significant for clinical laboratory managers because it is part of an investigative effort to better understand the substantial number of genes, and the proteins they build, that have been understudied and of which little is known about their full function.
The Unknome Database includes “thousands of understudied proteins encoded by genes in the human genome, whose existence is known but whose functions are mostly not,” according to a news release.
The database, which is available to the public and which can be customized by the user, “ranks proteins based on how little is known about them,” the PLOS Biology paper notes.
It should be of interest to pathologists and clinical laboratory scientists. The fruit of this research may identify additional biomarkers useful in diagnosis and for guiding decisions on how to treat patients.
“These uncharacterized genes have not deserved their neglect,” said Sean Munro, PhD (above), MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, in a press release. “Our database provides a powerful, versatile and efficient platform to identify and select important genes of unknown function for analysis, thereby accelerating the closure of the gap in biological knowledge that the unknome represents.” Clinical laboratory scientists may find the Unknome Database intriguing and useful. (Photo copyright: Royal Society.)
Risk of Ignoring Understudied Proteins
Proteomics (the study of proteins) is a rapidly advancing area of clinical laboratory testing. As genetic scientists learn more about proteins and their functions, diagnostics companies use that information to develop new assays. But did you know that researchers tend to focus on only a small fraction of the total number of protein-coding DNA sequences contained in the human genome?
The study of proteomics is primarily interested in the part of the genome that “contains instructions for building proteins … [which] are essential for development, growth, and reproduction across the entire body,” according to Scientific American. These are all protein-coding genes.
Proteomics estimates that there are more than two million proteins in the human body, which are coded for 20,000 to 25,000 genes, according to All the Science.
To build their database, the MRC researchers ranked the “unknome” proteins by how little is known about their functions in cellular processes. When they tested the database, they found some of these less-researched proteins important to biological functions such as development and stress resistance.
“The role of thousands of human proteins remains unclear and yet research tends to focus on those that are already well understood,” said Sean Munro, PhD, MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, in the news release. “To help address this we created an Unknome database that ranks proteins based on how little is known about them, and then performed functional screens on a selection of these mystery proteins to demonstrate how ignorance can drive biological discovery.”
In the paper, they acknowledged the human genome encodes about 20,000 proteins, and that the application of transcriptomics and proteomics has “confirmed that most of these new proteins are expressed, and the function of many of them has been identified.
“However,” the authors added, “despite over 20 years of extensive effort, there are also many others that still have no known function.”
They also recognized limited resources for research and that a preference for “relative safety” and “well-established fields” are likely holding back discoveries.
The researchers note “significant” risks to continually ignoring unexplored proteins, which may have roles in cell processes, serve as targets for therapies, and be associated with diseases as well as being “eminently druggable,” Genetic Engineering News reported.
Setting up the Unknome Database
To develop the Unknome Database, the researchers first turned to what has already come to fruition. They gave each protein in the human genome a “knownness” score based on review of existing information about “function, conservation across species, subcellular localization, and other factors,” Interesting Engineering reported.
It turns out, 3,000 groups of proteins (805 with a human protein) scored zero, “showing there’s still much to learn within the human genome,” Science News stated, adding that the Unknome Database catalogues more than 13,000 protein groups and nearly two million proteins.
The researchers then tested the database by using it to determine what could be learned about 260 “mystery” genes in humans that are also present in Drosophila (small fruit flies).
“We used the Unknome Database to select 260 genes that appeared both highly conserved and particularly poorly understood, and then applied functional assays in whole animals that would be impractical at genome-wide scale,” the researchers wrote in PLOS Biology.
“We initially selected all genes that had a knownness score of ≤1.0 and are conserved in both humans and flies, as well as being present in at least 80% of available metazoan genome sequences. … After testing for viability, the nonessential genes were then screened with a panel of quantitative assays designed to reveal potential roles in a wide range of biological functions,” they added.
“Our screen in whole organisms reveals that, despite several decades of extensive genetic screens in Drosophila, there are many genes with essential roles that have eluded characterization,” the researchers conclude.
Clinical Laboratory Testing Using the Unknome Database
Future use of the Unknome Database may involve CRISPR technology to explore functions of unknown genes, according to the PLOS Biology paper.
Munro told Science News the research team may work with other research efforts aimed at understanding “mysterious proteins,” such as the Understudied Proteins Initiative.
The Unknome Database’s ability to be customized by others means researchers can create their own “knownness” scores as it applies to their studies. Thus, the database could be a resource in studies of treatments or medications to fight diseases, Chemistry World noted.
According to a statement prepared for Healthcare Dive by SomaLogic, a Boulder, Colorado-based protein biomarker company, diagnostic tests that measure proteins can be applied to diseases and conditions such as:
“The 27-protein model has potential as a ‘universal’ surrogate end point for cardiovascular risk,” the researchers wrote in Science Translational Medicine.
Proteomics definitely has its place in clinical laboratory testing. The development of MRC-LMB’s Unknome Database will help researchers’ increase their knowledge about the functions of more proteins which should in turn lead to new diagnostic assays for labs.
Device is latest example that wearable healthcare devices are moving past simple biomarker monitoring and into the area of assisting in rehab
Companies unrelated to traditional clinical laboratory medicine continue to develop wearable devices that enable individuals to monitor their health while also alerting physicians and caregivers in real time when certain biomarkers are out of range.
One recent example is US biotechnology company STAT Health Informatics in Boston, which has developed a wearable device that monitors blood flow to the ear and face “to better understand symptoms such as dizziness, brain fog, headaches, fainting, and fatigue that occur upon standing,” according to a press release. The tiny device is worn in the ear and connects wirelessly to a smartphone app.
Johns Hopkins University clinically tested the STAT device, and according to Medical Device Network, “It can predict a person fainting minutes before it happens and can be worn with more than 90% of devices that go in or around the ear. It can also be left in while sleeping and showering, meaning less likelihood of removing the device and forgetting to replace it.”
Another notable aspect of this invention is that it’s an example of how the ongoing miniaturization of various technologies makes it possible to invent smaller devices but with greater capabilities. In the case of the STAT device, it combines tiny sensors, Bluetooth, and an equally tiny battery to produce a device that fits in the ear and can function for up to three days before needing a recharge.
It’s easy to imagine these technologies being used for other types of diagnostic testing devices that could be managed by clinical laboratories.
“It’s well understood that the ear is a biometric gold mine because of its close proximity to the brain and major arteries. This allows for new biometrics … to be possible,” said Daniel Lee (above), co-founder and CEO of STAT Health, in a press release. “In addition, the ear is largely isolated from data corruption caused by arm motion—a problem that plagues current wearables and prevents them from monitoring heart metrics during many daily tasks. The ear is really the ideal window into the brain and heart.” Clinical laboratory managers may want to watch how this technology is further developed to incorporate other biomarkers for diseases and health conditions. (Photo copyright: STAT Health.)
How STAT Works
Every time the wearer stands, the STAT device tracks the change in response of blood pressure, heart rate, and blood flow to the head. “The device distills all this information into an ‘Up Score’ to track time spent upright. Its ‘Flow Score’ helps users pace their recovery by watching for blood flow abnormalities,” MassDevice reported.
According to the company’s website, STAT is intended for use in individuals who have been diagnosed with conditions known to suffer from drops in blood flow to the head, such as:
As an individual continues to use the device, STAT “learns about each user’s unique body to provide personalized coaching for healthy lifestyle choices,” MassDevice reported.
Another key factor is the technology built into the device. An optical sensor was chosen over ultrasound because STAT Health felt it was both easy to use and provided precise measurements accessing the shallow ear artery, MassDevice reported.
“Despite its small scale, the device incorporates advanced optical sensors, an accelerometer, a pressure sensor, temperature sensors, artificial intelligence (AI)-edge computing, three-day battery life (or more), and a micro solar panel,” Medical Device Network noted.
STAT’s image above demonstrates how truly minute the company’s wearable device is, even though it monitors blood flow to the face and ear looking for signs that the wearer is about to suffer bouts of dizziness or lightheadedness due to a drop in blood flow. (Photo copyright: STAT Health Informatics Inc.)
STAT’s Impact on Users’ Health
STAT’s developers intend the device to help individuals stay on track with their health. “The target population can navigate their condition better. If they’re not standing when they can, they will become deconditioned. This product encourages standing and being upright where possible, as part of rehab,” Lee told Medical Device Network.
Lee has been developing wearable in-ear devices for many years.
“Nobody has realized the ear’s true potential due to the miniaturization and complex systems design needed to make a practical and user-friendly ear wearable,” he told MassDevice. “After multiple engineering breakthroughs, we’ve succeeded in unlocking the ear to combine the convenience and long-term nature of wearables with the high fidelity nature of obtrusive clinical monitors. No other device comes close along the axis of wearability and cardiac signal quality, which is why we believe STAT is truly the world’s most advanced wearable.”
For clinical laboratories, though STAT is not a diagnostic test, it is the latest example of how companies are developing wearable monitoring devices intended to allow individuals to monitor their health. It moves beyond the simple monitoring of Apple Watch and Fitbit. This device can aid individuals during rehab.
Wearable healthcare devices will continue to be introduced that are smaller, allow more precise measurements of target biomarkers, and alert wearers in real time when those markers are out of range. Keeping in tune with the newest developments will help clinical laboratories and pathologists find new ways to support healthcare providers who recommend these devices for monitoring their patients conditions.
Research could lead to improvements in gene therapy and antiviral resistance medications while also possibly leading to a new class of clinical laboratory tests
Scientists at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC) have discovered what may be the scariest virus of all—the Vampire Virus. It’s a term that may inspire “Walking Dead” level horror in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, and though virologists and microbiologists might be tempted to dismiss them as imaginary, they are all too real. Even more apropos to the Dracula saga, the UM scientists found them in a soil sample. Yikes!
Happily, this ghoulish discovery could have positive implications for gene editing, gene therapy, and the development of new antiviral medications, according to The Conversation. In turn, these positive implications may eventually trigger the need to create new diagnostic tests that clinical laboratories can offer to physicians.
The image above, taken from a University of Maryland news release, shows the satellite virus “latched onto its helper virus.” Discovery of vampire-like viruses that attach at the “neck” of other viruses may lead to important discoveries in the development of gene editing and antiviral therapies. Might clinical laboratories one day collect samples for pharmaceutical developers engaged in combating antiviral drug resistance? (Photo copyright: University of Maryland.)
Spotting a Vampire Virus
According to IFLScience, these tiny vampire viruses were first discovered by undergraduates who believed they were looking at sample contamination when analyzing sequences of bacteriophages from environmental soil samples. But upon repeating the experiment they realized it was no mistake.
In the UMBC news release, bioinformatician Ivan Erill, PhD, Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Maryland, noted that “some viruses, called satellites, depend not only on their host organism to complete their life cycle, but also on another virus, known as a helper.
“The satellite virus needs the helper either to build its capsid, a protective shell that encloses the virus’ genetic material, or to help it replicate its DNA,” he added. “These viral relationships require the satellite and the helper to be in proximity to each other at least temporarily, but there were no known cases of a satellite actually attaching itself to a helper—until now.”
Although scientists have witnessed viruses working together before, this is the first known instance of a virus directly latching onto another virus’ capsid—rather like a vampire going for the neck.
“When I saw it, I was like, I can’t believe this,” said Tagide deCarvalho, PhD, Assistant Director of Natural and Mathematical Sciences at the University of Maryland and first author of the study, in a UM news release, “No one has ever seen a bacteriophage—or any other virus—attach to another virus.”
“Not everyone has a TEM at their disposal. [With the TEM] I’m able to follow up on some of these observations and validate them with imaging. There’s elements of discovery we can only make using the TEM,” said deCarvalho in the UMBC news release.
Using Vampire Viruses to Develop Better Gene Therapies
Spookily, the comparisons to Dracula and his parasitic brethren do not stop with their freeloading tendencies. The researchers found that some viruses without a satellite attached still showed signs of having been leeched onto before. Those viruses had the equivalent of “bite marks” showing evidence of encountering vampiric viruses in the past.
“It’s possible that a lot of the bacteriophages that people thought were contaminated were actually these satellite-helper systems,” said deCarvalho in the ISME paper.
But what does UMBC’s breakthrough mean for the greater scientific and medical community? Do we need to arm host viruses with silver crosses and necklaces of garlic? Jokes aside, this discovery could lead to further development in research of how to genetically alter viruses and deliver therapeutic elements into cells.
According to Healthline, some gene therapy or “gene editing” already involves the use of viruses. Scientists switch out the programming on a virus and trick it into healing, instead of harming the cells it infiltrates. Therefore, UMBC’s discovery could lead to new breakthroughs battling deadly viruses by using their own parasitic tricks to infiltrate other viruses.
Although groundbreaking and extremely interesting, the research is still in early stages. Any developments from this discovery aren’t likely to impact clinical laboratories any time soon. But after the past few years of battling the COVID-19 variants, this exciting discovery could help find new ways to prevent the next pandemic.
Biobattery might one day power clinical laboratory testing devices designed to function in vivo to measure and wirelessly report certain biomarkers
Clinical laboratories may one day regularly process biomarker data sent by ingested medical devices from inside the human body, such as the colon and intestines. But powering such devices remains a challenge for developers. Now, researchers at Binghamton University in New York have developed a biobattery that derives its power based on pH reactions when it comes in contact with acids inside the gut.
The battery uses “bacteria to create low levels of electricity that can power sensors and Wi-Fi connections as part of the Internet of Things,” according to a Binghamton University news release.
The biobattery uses microbial fuel cells with spore-forming bacteria for power and it remains inactive until it reaches the small intestine.
Ingestible devices, such as wireless micro cameras, are being utilized more frequently to investigate a myriad of activities that occur in vivo. But traditional batteries that power ingestible diagnostic gadgets can be potentially harmful and are less reliable.
In addition, the small intestine in humans is typically between 10 and 18 feet in length and it folds several times to fit the abdomen. Thus, the inside area can be very difficult to reach for diagnostic purposes.
“There are some regions in the small intestine that are not reachable, and that is why ingestible cameras have been developed to solve this issue,” said Seokheun “Sean” Choi, PhD (above), Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Binghamton University, in a news release. “They can do many things, such as imaging and physical sensing, even drug delivery. The problem is power. So far, the electronics are using primary batteries that have a finite energy budget and cannot function for the long term.” As these technologies develop, clinical laboratories may play a role in collecting biomarker data from these devices interpretation by physicians. (Photo copyright: Binghamton University/Jonathan Cohen.)
How Binghamton Researchers Developed Their Biobattery
The dime-sized fuel cell assembly is then sealed with a piece of Kapton tape, which can withstand temperatures from -500 to 750 degrees Fahrenheit. When the tape is removed, moisture mixes with a chemical germinant that causes the bacteria to begin manufacturing spores.
The biobattery generates around 100 microwatts per square centimeter of power density, but it can take up to an hour to germinate completely. After one hour, the energy generated from the device can power an LED light, a small clock, or a digital hygrometer, as well as a micro camera for in vivo use.
“We wanted to make these bio-batteries for portable, storable, and on-demand power generation capabilities,” Choi said in the news release.
“The problem is, how can we provide the long-term storage of bacteria until used? And if that is possible, then how would you provide on-demand battery activation for rapid and easy power generation? And how would you improve the power?” Choi added.
Heating the fuel cell decreased the time it took to reach full power to 20 minutes, and increasing the humidity resulted in higher electrical output.
Potential for Long-term Power Storage
In addition, after a week of being stored at room temperature, the activated battery had only lost 2% of its power. The researchers also believe that the device could function properly in an inactivate state for up to 100 years, provided there is enough moisture to activate the bacteria after the Kapton tape is removed.
“The overall objective is to develop a microbial fuel cell that can be stored for a relatively long period without degradation of bio-catalytic activity, and also can be rapidly activated by absorbing moisture from the air,” said Choi in the news release.
More research and studies are needed to confirm the biobattery performs properly and is feasible for general use. This experimentation would require both animal and human testing, along with biocompatibility studies.
“I think this is a good start,” Choi added. “Hopefully, we can make a commercial product using these ideas.”
If the biobattery can power an ingestible medical device for a reasonable period of time, then this invention may be able to power a clinical laboratory testing device that could function in vivo to measure and wirelessly report certain biomarkers inside the body.
