Yanking Pathogens Out of Blood with Magnets

Germ-grabbing magnetic beads that can be pulled from the blood

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Using a magnetic field to literally pull diseases from the bloodstream sounds like a sci-fi dream. But scientists may have found a way to do just that, at least for sepsis, a potentially lethal blood infection that can lead to multiple-organ failure.

Biologist Donald E. Ingber of Harvard Medical School, his postdoctoral fellow Chong Wing Yung and their colleagues have devised a way to filter pathogens from the blood of septic patients using micron-size magnetic beads. In their model system, beads coated with an antibody that binds to sepsis-causing bacteria or fungi mix with blood drawn from a patient. After the antibody-coated magnets have bound with the pathogen, they are pulled via a magnetic field into a saline solution that flows alongside the blood and sweeps them away. The filtered blood goes back into the patient. In tests using 10 to 20 milliliters of blood, the method removed 80 percent of the pathogens.

A key reason for the successful filtration was the size of the beads, which are about one-eighth the diameter of red blood cells. They are small enough that the flow of saline solution remains smooth; turbulence would end up mixing the solution with the blood and make separation of the germs and blood more difficult.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Ingber thinks a more advanced version of his system, which he described in the May 7 Lab on a Chip, could solve a headache for intensive care units that must determine whether a sepsis case stems from a bacterium or a fungus. Because fungal medications can be toxic, they are ordinarily withheld until a diagnosis confirms the pathogen type. Such a diagnosis takes time, however, which could jeopardize a rapidly declining patient. Ingber hopes to incorporate different kinds of sticky proteins on the beads to pull out several types of microbes at once, without having to make a diagnosis.

He also thinks it is not necessary to remove all the germs. “What we’re trying to do is establish a tipping point,” Ingber says, referring to the amount of pathogens in the body. His theory is that lowering the number of bacteria or fungi will enable the antibiotics or fungicides to work more efficiently.

“It’s a very elegant, very new theory,” comments Tonse Raju, a neonatologist at Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. “My hat’s off to them for thinking differently.” But, he notes, the theory has a major problem: namely, there is no proof yet that thinning the pathogen ranks will help medications work better. Besides, much of the damage from sepsis comes from the body’s own inflammatory response, not the germs. Another problem, Raju points out, is that some bacteria and fungi can hide in pus pockets or in areas of low blood supply such as the peritoneal cavity and thus could avoid the blood cleansing.

Still, Ingber remains undaunted. He has begun preliminary testing on rabbits, because they are about the size of premature infants, who have very high rates of sepsis. Ingber acknowledges the practical roadblocks ahead but hopes that with further study magnetic stripping of disease will not be just science fiction.

Note: This article was originally published with the title, "A Bead on Disease".

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe