4.8 Article

Nonspecific Colloidal-Type Interaction Explains Size-Dependent Specific Binding of Membrane-Targeted Nanoparticles

Journal

ACS NANO
Volume 10, Issue 11, Pages 9974-9982

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b04160

Keywords

targeted nanoparticles; lipid-membrane interaction; DLVO interaction; single-particle imaging; light-scattering; quartz crystal microbalance

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council [2013-7421, 2014-5557]
  2. Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research [RMA11-0104]
  3. European Research Council [310034]
  4. EMRP - EMRP within EURAMET [HLT04]
  5. EMRP - European Union [HLT04, 217257]
  6. European Research Council (ERC) [310034] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Emerging biomedical applications such as molecular imaging and drug delivery often require directed binding of nanoparticles to cell-membrane receptors. The specific apparent affinity of such ligand-functionalized particles is size-dependent, an observation so far solely attributed to multivalent receptor ligand interaction. We question the universality of this explanation by demonstrating that the binding kinetics also depends on weak, attractive colloidal-type interaction between nanoparticles and a lipid membrane. Applying label-free single-particle imaging, we correlate binding of nanoparticles targeted to a cell-mimetic lipid membrane with the distribution of nontargeted particles freely diffusing close to the membrane interface. This analysis shows that already a weak, k(B) T-scale attraction present between 50 nm gold nanoparticles and the membrane renders these particles an order of magnitude higher avidity compared to 20 nm particles. A stronger emphasis on nonspecific particle membrane interaction might thus be required to accurately predict nanoparticle targeting and other similar processes such as cellular uptake of exosomes and viruses.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available