4.8 Article

Vesicle Impact Electrochemical Cytometry to Determine Carbon Nanotube-Induced Fusion of Intracellular Vesicles

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 93, 期 39, 页码 13161-13168

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.analchem.1c01462

关键词

-

资金

  1. European Research Council [787534]
  2. Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation
  3. Swedish Research Council (VR) [2017-04366]
  4. Sweden's Innovation Agency (Vinnova)
  5. Swedish Strategy Group for EU-coordination
  6. Swedish Research Council [2017-04366] Funding Source: Swedish Research Council
  7. European Research Council (ERC) [787534] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The presence of carbon nanotubes on electrodes significantly increases the number of catecholamines in vesicles and enhances current intensity, indicating strong interaction between carbon nanotubes and vesicles.
Carbon nanotube (CNT)-modified electrodes are used to obtain new measurements of vesicle content via amperometry. We have investigated the interaction between CNTs and isolated adrenal chromaffin vesicles (as a model) by vesicle impact electrochemical cytometry. Our data show that the presence of CNTs not only significantly increased the vesicular catecholamine number from 2,250,000 +/- 112,766 molecules on a bare electrode to 3,880,000 +/- 686,573 molecules on CNT/carbon fiber electrodes but also caused an enhancement in the maximum intensity of the current, which implies the existence of strong interactions between vesicle biolayers and CNTs and an altered electroporation process. We suggest that CNTs might perturb and destabilize the membrane structure of intracellular vesicles and cause the aggregation or fusion of vesicles into new vesicles with larger size and higher content. Our findings are consistent with previous computational and experimental results and support the hypothesis that CNTs as a mediator can rearrange the phospholipid bilayer membrane and trigger homotypic fusion of intracellular vesicles.

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

4.8
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