journal article·2008-10-23

Self‐assembly of Protein Nanoarrays on Block Copolymer Templates

K. H. Aaron Lau, Joona Bang, Dong Ha Kim, Wolfgang Knoll

Advanced Functional Materials· Volume 18· Issue 20
Publisher page

Abstract

Abstract There is considerable interest in developing functional protein arrays on the nanoscale for high‐throughput protein‐based array technology, and for the study of biomolecular and cell interactions at the physical scale of the biomolecules. To these ends, self‐assembly based techniques may be desirable for the nanopatterning of proteins on large sample areas without the use of lithography equipment. We present a fast, general approach for patterning proteins (and potentially other biomolecules) on the nanoscale, which takes advantage of the ability of block copolymers to self‐assemble into ordered surface nanopatterns with defined chemical heterogeneity. We demonstrate nanoarrays of immunoglobulin and bovine serum albumin on polystyrene‐block‐poly(methyl methacrylate) templates, and illustrate the applicability of our technique through immunoassays and DNA sensing performed on the protein nanoarrays. Furthermore, we show that the pattern formation mechanism is a nanoscale effect originating from a combination of fluid flow forces and geometric restrictions templated by an underlying nanopattern with a difference in protein adsorption behavior on adjacent, chemically distinct surfaces. This understanding may provide a framework for extending the patterning approach to other proteins and material systems.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Nanofabrication and Lithography Techniques · Block Copolymer Self-Assembly · Polymer Surface Interaction Studies

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (83)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1073/pnas.93.20.1061410.1073/pnas.93.20.10614 ↗
2. 10.1038/3501570110.1038/35015701 ↗
3. 10.1155/S111072430320922010.1155/S1110724303209220 ↗
4. 10.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.16151110.1146/annurev.biochem.72.121801.161511 ↗
5. 10.1021/la036251d10.1021/la036251d ↗
6. 10.1016/S1367-5931(01)00281-210.1016/S1367-5931(01)00281-2 ↗
7. 10.1002/anie.20039015010.1002/anie.200390150 ↗
8. 10.1002/pmic.20030070110.1002/pmic.200300701 ↗
9. 10.1021/nl049002y10.1021/nl049002y ↗
10. 10.1002/pmic.20050039210.1002/pmic.200500392 ↗
11. 10.1002/978352761038910.1002/9783527610389 ↗
12. 10.1126/science.106717210.1126/science.1067172 ↗
13. 10.1021/ja043656r10.1021/ja043656r ↗
14. 10.1002/cphc.20030101410.1002/cphc.200301014 ↗
15. 10.1016/S0040-4020(01)85612-X10.1016/S0040-4020(01)85612-X ↗
16. 10.1126/science.289.5485.176010.1126/science.289.5485.1760 ↗
17. 10.1126/science.106219110.1126/science.1062191 ↗
18. 10.1021/ja01734610.1021/ja017346 ↗
19. 10.1021/ja058701p10.1021/ja058701p ↗
20. 10.1126/science.199043810.1126/science.1990438 ↗
21. 10.1021/nl025736410.1021/nl0257364 ↗
22. Lee H. · Appl. Phys. Lett. · 2006 · 89
23. 10.1002/smll.20060023510.1002/smll.200600235 ↗
24. 10.1021/ja031742610.1021/ja0317426 ↗
25. 10.1002/smll.20050011610.1002/smll.200500116 ↗
26. 10.1021/nl060403i10.1021/nl060403i ↗
27. 10.1146/annurev.matsci.31.1.32310.1146/annurev.matsci.31.1.323 ↗
28. 10.1088/0957-4484/14/10/20110.1088/0957-4484/14/10/201 ↗
29. 10.1002/adma.20030038210.1002/adma.200300382 ↗
30. 10.1016/j.mser.2004.12.00310.1016/j.mser.2004.12.003 ↗
31. 10.1146/annurev.ms.26.080196.00244110.1146/annurev.ms.26.080196.002441 ↗
32. 10.1126/science.290.5499.212610.1126/science.290.5499.2126 ↗
33. 10.1021/la046812g10.1021/la046812g ↗
34. 10.1126/science.276.5317.140110.1126/science.276.5317.1401 ↗
35. 10.1002/adma.20050017010.1002/adma.200500170 ↗
36. 10.1021/jp063046910.1021/jp0630469 ↗
37. 10.1002/adma.20029001810.1002/adma.200290018 ↗
38. 10.1006/jcis.1999.647910.1006/jcis.1999.6479 ↗
39. 10.1016/S0003-2697(02)00442-610.1016/S0003-2697(02)00442-6 ↗
40. 10.1016/S1367-5931(02)00362-910.1016/S1367-5931(02)00362-9 ↗
41. 10.1021/jp053816110.1021/jp0538161 ↗
42. 10.1016/j.jim.2006.03.00710.1016/j.jim.2006.03.007 ↗
43. 10.1093/nar/28.2.e310.1093/nar/28.2.e3 ↗
44. 10.1038/nbt0302-27510.1038/nbt0302-275 ↗
45. 10.1021/la971331110.1021/la9713311 ↗
46. 10.1039/b614085h10.1039/b614085h ↗
47. 10.1021/jp062442o10.1021/jp062442o ↗
48. 10.1016/j.elspec.2004.02.15810.1016/j.elspec.2004.02.158 ↗
49. 10.1021/la050331v10.1021/la050331v ↗
50. 10.1021/jp068509p10.1021/jp068509p ↗
51. 10.1002/smll.20060000510.1002/smll.200600005 ↗
52. 10.1126/science.110660410.1126/science.1106604 ↗
53. 10.1063/1.48081110.1063/1.480811 ↗
54. 10.1063/1.47548710.1063/1.475487 ↗
55. 10.1146/annurev.matsci.27.1.17510.1146/annurev.matsci.27.1.175 ↗
56. 10.1021/ma970350e10.1021/ma970350e ↗
57. 10.1016/j.apsusc.2005.02.03410.1016/j.apsusc.2005.02.034 ↗
58. 10.1063/1.185885410.1063/1.1858854 ↗
59. 10.1016/S0032-3861(01)00376-710.1016/S0032-3861(01)00376-7 ↗
60. The flat topography was captured only during the initial scan using a Si‐AFM cantilever of low spring constant (2 N m−1). Repeated scanning of an area using these tips or using cantilevers of higher spring constants induced deformation and nanoscale height differences. See also [39].
61. 10.1016/S0065-3233(08)60640-310.1016/S0065-3233(08)60640-3 ↗
62. 10.1016/S0006-3495(01)76211-X10.1016/S0006-3495(01)76211-X ↗
63. 10.1038/360369a010.1038/360369a0 ↗
64. The number of IgG to each cluster could not be directly counted because AFM only provides a top view and although both BSA and IgG only form monolayers when adsorbed under our conditions [7 45 47] tip convolution also limits the spatial definition of the measured features. By considering the PS nanodomain diameter and assuming that each IgG occupied an area equivalent to a circle with the IgG's longest axis as the diameter we arrive at a lower bound estimate of five IgGs per nanoclusters.
65. 10.1163/15685620332259975210.1163/156856203322599752 ↗
66. 10.1021/la00042a01510.1021/la00042a015 ↗
67. 10.1016/S1389-1723(01)80127-410.1016/S1389-1723(01)80127-4 ↗
68. 10.1006/jcis.1996.458610.1006/jcis.1996.4586 ↗
69. 10.1021/la001778110.1021/la0017781 ↗
70. 10.1021/la049454q10.1021/la049454q ↗
71. 10.1529/biophysj.103.03007210.1529/biophysj.103.030072 ↗
72. 10.1002/mabi.20060027810.1002/mabi.200600278 ↗
73. We also measured static water contact angles of 88+/−1 ° and 60.4+/−2.1 ° on our PS and PMMA surfaces respectively.
74. 10.1146/annurev.physchem.49.1.56910.1146/annurev.physchem.49.1.569 ↗
75. Although Figure 3B D and F on their own cannot prove that IgG had selectively adsorbed on PS a series of samples prepared with shorter immersion times than shown in Figure 3 showed the segregation of proteins on PS domains by revealing at the same time the phase contrast pattern between PS and PMMA (see Supporting Information.).
76. 10.1016/S0927-7757(99)00409-410.1016/S0927-7757(99)00409-4 ↗
77. 10.1021/ja028987n10.1021/ja028987n ↗
78. 10.1021/la051641g10.1021/la051641g ↗
79. 10.1021/la063535010.1021/la0635350 ↗
80. 10.1021/la052593310.1021/la0525933 ↗
81. 10.1093/nar/gnh17510.1093/nar/gnh175 ↗
82. Ethylene glycol bis(succinimidyl succinate) (EGS) purchased from Pierce Biotechnology Rockford USA was dissolved at a concentration of 2 mM in a sulfoNHS‐1‐ethyl‐3‐(3‐dimethylaminopropyl)carbodiimide hydrochloride (EDC) amine coupling solution mixture purchased from Biacore (GE Healthcare Europe Freiburg Germany). The as purchased amine coupling mixture consisted of 750 mg EDC 115 mgN‐hydroxysuccinimide (NHS) 10.5 mL 1.0 M ethanolamine‐HCl pH 8.5. To perform the crosslinking the sample was immersed in 500 µL of the mixture for 90 min then rinsed in deionzed water.
83. 10.1063/1.46544710.1063/1.465447 ↗