this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2025
217 points (98.7% liked)

Technology

76138 readers
4011 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

UMass Amherst engineers have built an artificial neuron powered by bacterial protein nanowires that functions like a real one, but at extremely low voltage. This allows for seamless communication with biological cells and drastically improved energy efficiency. The discovery could lead to bio-inspired computers and wearable electronics that no longer need power-hungry amplifiers.

all 22 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] IcedRaktajino@startrek.website 80 points 4 days ago (1 children)

This allows for seamless communication with biological cells

Smartphones in 2040:

Whatever. As long as I can run LineageOS or Debian on it.

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 33 points 4 days ago (1 children)

noooo deeebiiiian, juuusst caaaandy cruuuush

[–] MadMadBunny@lemmy.ca 12 points 4 days ago
[–] Neuromancer49@midwest.social 49 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Credentials: I published in this field, but I don't have time to read the entire paper right now.

This is exciting work. Based on the key highlights, it sounds like their work focuses on how plausible it is to construct the bio-artificial neuron, and they have done so with great success.

What I would like to learn about is what advantages this technology has compared to just cultivating neurons on a microelectrode array. Are the artificial cells easier to maintain? Do they interface with electrodes without developing glial scarring like our brains do? Can they bio-engineer special proteins (e.g. optogenetic channels) easier in these cells than in mouse lines?

The discussion section is fairly anemic. The authors say this will "spearhead" additional development but I was disappointed the authors didn't clarify what will be additionally developed.

Until these advantages are spelled out, it feels like we're re-invented the biological wheel. We already have cells that can integrate and fire at low voltages. They're called neurons. Why did we need artificial ones?

[–] shrugs@lemmy.world 17 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Thanks for the insight. Lemmy starts to feel like reddit in the past were some specialist or the author of the paper chimed in on the discussion.

[–] Neuromancer49@midwest.social 9 points 4 days ago

By the time I finished graduate school, reddit was dead so I never bothered getting verified on the Science subreddits. It was a bummer!

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago (2 children)

sounds like saying “we already have a lung in our body why make an iron lung.”

Like I know obviously it’s not like plug this into your spine and cure paralysis but I could definitely be very useful.

[–] Neuromancer49@midwest.social 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Not quite, an iron lung replaces a dysfunctional organ. I'm saying we can already grow neurons onto circuits, and it's difficult (not impossible) to implant neurons into a body. I don't easily see how these bio-engineered neurons make those processes easier.

[–] TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip 4 points 4 days ago

Fair, I suppose I understand the idea but like... idk I can think of MANY reasons (patent bullshit, could be useful, or prove to be cheaper, or developed further into something better) why having something similar to an already existing process is still good. Look at Sodium batteries potentially now being 10% of the cost of lithium ones, even if they're a similar but generally worse storage technology. I don't think it should be a requirement that a new process or discovery have an inherent reason/advantage. Shit like that is how we end up with leaded gasoline.

[–] null@lemmy.nullspace.lol 2 points 4 days ago

It's more like saying, "we can already grow new lungs, why make an iron lung?"

[–] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 7 points 4 days ago (2 children)

Hah, how cool is this?! I just started reading Dan Brown’s new book that is largely about this same thing.

[–] Dirac@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

What’s the book called, and is it a Langdon book?

[–] CatsGoMOW@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago

Yes, Langdon. The Secret of Secrets.

[–] d3lta19@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago

I just finished it. Very interesting topic

[–] dipdowel@feddit.nl 4 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Is it naive to assume that this could potentially simplify building brain-computer interfaces? Or at least make them safer?

[–] crimsonpoodle@pawb.social 2 points 4 days ago

Maybe. If you’re talking about the invasive forms of BCI (ie not EEG) then it could be better. Biocompatibility is difficult, the article doesn’t go super in depth, but assuming they don’t get attacked by the immune system then maybe. But you still have to implant them by opening up the skull so there is that.

[–] TuffNutzes@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)
[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 4 points 4 days ago

I've seen this movie. Run, Tuvix! Run for your life!

[–] PattyMcB@lemmy.world 3 points 4 days ago

Janeway called and wants more coffee

[–] echodot@feddit.uk 0 points 4 days ago

Good. There are certain people that need an injection of more neurones, perhaps there is hope for humanity yet.