4.6 Article

Magnesium-Free Immobilization of DNA Origami Nanostructures at Mica Surfaces for Atomic Force Microscopy

期刊

MOLECULES
卷 26, 期 16, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/molecules26164798

关键词

DNA origami; DNA nanotechnology; adsorption; mica; atomic force microscopy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated three approaches for efficiently immobilizing DNA origami nanostructures (DONs) on mica surfaces under essentially Mg2+-free conditions, finding that pre-adsorption of different multivalent cations can replace Mg2+ and successfully immobilize DONs.
DNA origami nanostructures (DONs) are promising substrates for the single-molecule investigation of biomolecular reactions and dynamics by in situ atomic force microscopy (AFM). For this, they are typically immobilized on mica substrates by adding millimolar concentrations of Mg2+ ions to the sample solution, which enable the adsorption of the negatively charged DONs at the like-charged mica surface. These non-physiological Mg2+ concentrations, however, present a serious limitation in such experiments as they may interfere with the reactions and processes under investigation. Therefore, we here evaluate three approaches to efficiently immobilize DONs at mica surfaces under essentially Mg2+-free conditions. These approaches rely on the pre-adsorption of different multivalent cations, i.e., Ni2+, poly-l-lysine (PLL), and spermidine (Spdn). DON adsorption is studied in phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and pure water. In general, Ni2+ shows the worst performance with heavily deformed DONs. For 2D DON triangles, adsorption at PLL- and in particular Spdn-modified mica may outperform even Mg2+-mediated adsorption in terms of surface coverage, depending on the employed solution. For 3D six-helix bundles, less pronounced differences between the individual strategies are observed. Our results provide some general guidance for the immobilization of DONs at mica surfaces under Mg2+-free conditions and may aid future in situ AFM studies.

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

4.6
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