4.2 Article

Uni-molecular detection and quantification of selected β-lactam antibiotics with a hybrid α-hemolysin protein pore

期刊

JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR RECOGNITION
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 199-207

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/jmr.1038

关键词

protein pores; biosensors; cyclodextrins; electrophysiology; antibiotics; non-covalent biomolecular interactions

资金

  1. Romanian Ministry of Research and Technology [PN-2 61-16, PN-2 62-061]
  2. Alexandru I. Cuza University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Single-nanopores have recently been used to electrically detect a wide range of analytes. Similarly, using electrophysiology, we demonstrate how a system comprised of an ion channel formed by alpha-hemolysin (alpha-HL) and single-cyclic gamma-cyclodextrin (gamma-CD) molecule permits the detection of, and differentiation between three different antibiotics from the beta-lactam family. Specifically, histograms of the time between the successive binding events, and the residence time distributions of the antibiotic in the gamma-CD molecular adapter vary with the antibiotic type. The results show that the association times of amoxicillin, azlocillin, and ampicillin are tau(on) = 2.1 +/- 0.2, 2.2 +/- 0.3, and 3.1 +/- 0.4 ms, respectively. Interestingly, we found that the residence time of the bulkier and negatively charged azlocillin (tau(off) = 0.008 +/- 0.0005 ms) is much less than that of ampicillin (tau(off) = 0.07 +/- 0.005 ms) and amoxicillin (tau(off)-0.1 +/- 0.02 ms), even though the gamma-CD-alpha-HL complex is anionic selective. The data were also used to estimate the standard free energy of binding between ampicillin to gamma-CDs binding (-12 kcal mol(-1)). The difference in association times might be due to gamma-CDs-imposed steric hindrance or an energetically more expensive desolvation step for the antibiotics to gain access to the binding site in the CD. We suggest that this technique may be used to detect other analytes used in pharmaceutical applications. Copyright (C) 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据