4.7 Article

Magnetic boronate modified molecularly imprinted polymers on magnetite microspheres modified with porous TiO2 (Fe3O4@pTiO(2)@MIP) with enhanced adsorption capacity for glycoproteins and with wide operational pH range

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 185, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-018-3092-z

关键词

Magnetic separation; Boronate-affinity; Moderate acidic conditions; Horseradish peroxidase; MALDI-TOF MS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21575150, 21775153]
  2. Scholar Program of West Light Project, Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Boronate-affinity based molecularly imprinted polymers (MIPs) are beset by the unsatisfied adsorption capacity and narrow working pH ranges. A magnetic molecularly imprinted polymer containing phenylboronic acid groups was placed on the surface of Fe3O4 (magnetite) microspheres coated with porous TiO2 (Fe3O4@pTiO(2)@MIP). In contrast to its silica analog (Fe3O4@SiO2@MIP), the flowerlike Fe3O4@pTiO(2) offers more binding sites for templates. Thus, the adsorption capacity of the Fe3O4@pTiO(2)@MIP is strongly enhanced. The strong electron-withdrawing effects of Ti(IV) enable the boronic acid of the MIP to have better affinity for glycoproteins at a wide pH range from 6.0 to 9.0. Consequently, the Fe3O4@pTiO(2)@MIP exhibits higher adsorption for glycoproteins than Fe3O4@SiO2@MIP in both basic and acidic medium. The Fe3O4@pTiO(2)@MIPs were eluted with 5% acetic acid aqueous solution containing 30% acetonitrile, and the eluate was analyzed by MALDI-TOF MS. The method was applied to the selective extraction and quantitation of horseradish peroxidase (HRP) in spiked fetal bovine serum (FBS). The linear range is 0.40-10gmL(-1) with the limit of detection of 0.31gmL(-1). In our perception, this work has a wide scope in that is paves the way to a more widespread application of boronate affinity based MIPs for analysis of glycoproteins and related glyco compounds even at moderately acidic pH values.

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

4.7
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