Daily Protein Science: Search results for Approach

(Image: First Light Fusion)

British inertial fusion energy developer First Light Fusion has presented the first commercially viable, reactor-compatible path to 'high gain' fusion, which it says would drastically reduce the cost of what the company says is a limitless clean energy source.

In its white paper published today, First Light Fusion (FLF) outlines a novel and scientifically grounded approach to fusion energy called FLARE – Fusion via Low-power Assembly and Rapid Excitation. While the conventional inertial fusion energy (IFE) approach is to compress and heat the fuel at the same time to achieve ignition, FLARE splits this process into two: first compressing the fuel in a controlled and highly efficient manner and then using a separate process to ignite the compressed fuel, generating a massive surplus of energy, a concept known as 'fast ignition'.

FLARE leverages over 14 years of First Light's inertial fusion experience and its unique controlled-amplification technology, creating a system capable of reaching the high gain levels needed for cost competitive energy production. This new approach "would underpin the design for commercial reactors that can be based on much lower power systems that already exist today, opening up an opportunity for partners to build those systems, using FLF's technology as the fuel, and to roll it out worldwide," according to the company.

Gain - the ratio of energy output to energy input in a fusion reaction – is the critical metric determining commercial viability. The current record gain level stands at 4, achieved at the US Department of Energy's National Ignition Facility (NIF) in May of this year.

"The FLARE concept, as detailed in today's white paper, could produce an energy gain of up to 1000. FLF's economic modelling suggests that a gain of at least 200 is needed for fusion energy to be commercially competitive, while a gain of 1000 would enable very low-cost power," the company said.

According to FLF, an experimental gain scale facility is expected to cost one-twentieth that of NIF and could be built using existing, proven technologies. Due to the lower energy and power requirements provided by the FLARE technology, future commercial power plants would have significantly lower capital costs than other plausible IFE schemes, with lower complexity and core components such as the energy delivery system costing one-tenth of the capital cost of previous fast ignition schemes.

"By building on existing technology, First Light's approach takes the brakes off inertial fusion deployment as it has the potential to leverage existing supply chains, significantly reduce capital expenditure, speed up planning approvals and reduce regulatory hurdles in the deployment of commercial fusion plants," it said.

"This is a pivotal moment not just for First Light, but for the future of energy," said First Light Fusion CEO Mark Thomas. "With the FLARE approach, we've laid out the world's first commercially viable, reactor-compatible pathway to high gain inertial fusion - and it's grounded in real science, proven technologies, and practical engineering.

"A pathway to a gain of 1000 puts us well beyond the threshold where fusion becomes economically transformative. Through our approach, we're opening the door to a new industrial sector - and we want to bring others with us."

First Light Fusion was founded by Yiannis Ventikos of the Mechanical Engineering Department at University College, London, and Nicholas Hawker, formerly an engineering lecturer at Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford. The company was spun out from the University of Oxford in July 2011, with seed capital from IP Group plc, Parkwalk Advisors Ltd and private investors. Invesco and OSI provided follow-on capital.In February, Oxfordshire-based First Light Fusion announced it will focus on commercial partnerships with other fusion companies who want to use its amplifier technology, as well as with non-fusion applications such as NASA seeking to replicate potential high-velocity impacts in space. By dropping its plans for a fusion power plant, and instead targeting commercial partnerships with others, it aims to "capitalise on the huge inertial fusion energy market opportunities enabling earlier revenues and lowering the long-term funding requirement". First Light Fusion presents novel approach to fusion

Read More........→October 06, 2025 Categories: Britain,Energy,Science-Technology

Justin Stebbing, Anglia Ruskin University

Imagine a world where bacteria, typically feared for causing disease, are turned into powerful weapons against cancer. That’s exactly what some scientists are working on. And they are beginning to unravel the mechanisms for doing so, using genetically engineered bacteria to target and destroy cancer cells.

Using bacteria to fight cancer dates back to the 1860s when William B. Coley, often called the father of immunotherapy, injected bacteria called streptococci into a young patient with inoperable bone cancer. Surprisingly, this unconventional approach led to the tumour shrinking, marking one of the first examples of immunotherapy.

Over the next few decades, as head of the Bone Tumour Service at Memorial Hospital in New York, Coley injected over 1,000 cancer patients with bacteria or bacterial products. These products became known as Coley’s toxins.

Despite this early promise, progress in bacteria-based cancer therapies has been slow. The development of radiation therapy and chemotherapy overshadowed Coley’s work, and his approach faced scepticism from the medical community.

However, modern immunology has vindicated many of Coley’s principles, showing that some cancers are indeed very sensitive to an enhanced immune system, an approach we can often capture to treat patients.

How bacteria-based cancer therapies work

These therapies take advantage of the unique ability of certain bacteria to proliferate inside tumours. The low oxygen, acidic and dead tissue in the area around the cancer – the tumour “microenvironment” (an area I am especially interested in) – create an ideal niche for some bacteria to thrive. Once there, bacteria can, in theory, directly kill tumour cells or activate the body’s immune responses against the cancer. However, several difficulties have hindered the widespread adoption of this approach.

Safety concerns are paramount because introducing live bacteria into a patient’s body can cause harm. Researchers have had to carefully attenuate (weaken) bacterial strains to ensure they don’t damage healthy tissue. Additionally, controlling the bacteria’s behaviour within the tumour and preventing them from spreading to other parts of the body has been difficult.

Bacteria live inside us, known as the microbiome, and treatments, disease and, of course, new bacteria that are introduced can interfere with this natural environment. Another significant hurdle has been our incomplete understanding of how bacteria interact with the complex tumour microenvironment and the immune system.

Questions remain about how to optimise bacterial strains for maximum anti-tumour effects while minimising side-effects. We’re also not sure of the dose – and some approaches give one bacteria and others entire colonies and multiple bug species together.

Recent advances

Despite these challenges, recent advances in scientific fields, such as synthetic biology and genetic engineering, have breathed new life into the field. Scientists can now program bacteria with sophisticated functions, such as producing and delivering specific anti-cancer agents directly within tumours.

This targeted approach could overcome some limitations of traditional cancer treatments, including side-effects and the inability to reach deeper tumour tissues.

Emerging research suggests that bacteria-based therapies could be particularly promising for certain types of cancer. Solid tumours, especially those that have a poor blood supply and are resistant to conventional therapies, might benefit most from this approach.

Colon cancer, ovarian cancer and metastatic breast cancer are among the high-mortality cancers that researchers are targeting with these innovative therapies. One area we have the best evidence for is that “bug drugs” may help the body fight cancer by interacting with routinely used immunotherapy drugs.

Recent studies have shown encouraging results. For instance, researchers have engineered strains of E coli bacteria to deliver small tumour protein fragments to immune cells, effectively training them to recognise and attack cancer cells. In lab animals, this approach has led to tumour shrinkage and, sometimes, complete elimination.

By exploiting these mechanisms, bacterial therapies can selectively colonise tumours while largely sparing healthy tissues, potentially overcoming limitations of conventional cancer treatments.

Ultimately, we need human trials to give us the answer about whether this works, by controlling or eradicating cancer and, of course, if there are side-effects, its toxicity.

In one study I worked on, we showed that part of a bacterial cell wall, when injected into patients, could safely help control melanoma – the most deadly form of skin cancer.

While we’re still in the early stages, the potential of bacteria-based cancer therapies is becoming increasingly clear. As our understanding of tumour biology and bacterial engineering improves, we may be on the cusp of a new era in cancer treatment.

Bacterial-based cancer therapies take advantage of several unique mechanisms to specifically target tumour cells. As a result, these therapies could offer a powerful new tool in our arsenal against cancer, working in synergy with existing treatments like immunotherapy and chemotherapy. And, as we look to the future, bacteria-based cancer therapies represent a fascinating convergence of historical insight and groundbreaking science.

While challenges remain, the progress in this field offers hope for more effective, targeted treatments that could significantly improve outcomes for cancer patients.

Justin Stebbing, Professor of Biomedical Sciences, Anglia Ruskin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.