4.5 Article

Interaction and energy transfer studies between bovine serum albumin and CdTe quantum dots conjugates: CdTe QDs as energy acceptor probes

期刊

LUMINESCENCE
卷 32, 期 4, 页码 631-639

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/bio.3231

关键词

bovine serum albumin; CdTe QDs; enthalpy; entropy; FRET; Gibb's free energy; spectral overlap

资金

  1. University Grants Commission, New Delhi under Centre with Potential for Excellence (CPEPA)
  2. University Grants Commission, New Delhi under Centre of Advanced Studies (CAS-II)
  3. Department of Atomic Energy
  4. Karnatak University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper, a systematic investigation of the interaction of bovine serum albumin (BSA) with water-soluble CdTe quantum dots (QDs) of two different sizes capped with carboxylic thiols is presented based on steady-state and time-resolved fluorescence measurements. Efficient Forster resonance energy transfer (FRET) was observed to occur from BSA donor to CdTe acceptor as noted from reduction in the fluorescence of BSA and enhanced fluorescence from CdTe QDs. FRET parameters such as Forster distance, spectral overlap integral, FRET rate constant and efficiency were determined. The quenching of BSA fluorescence in aqueous solution observed in the presence of CdTe QDs infers that fluorescence resonance energy transfer is primarily responsible for the quenching phenomenon. Bimolecular quenching constant (k(q)) determined at different temperatures and the time-resolved fluorescence data provide additional evidence for this. The binding stoichiometry and various thermodynamic parameters are evaluated by using the van t Hoff equation. The analysis of the results suggests that the interaction between BSA and CdTe QDs is entropy driven and hydrophobic forces play a key role in the interaction. Binding of QDs significantly shortened the fluorescence lifetime of BSA which is one of the hallmarks of FRET. The effect of size of the QDs on the FRET parameters are discussed in the light of FRET parameters obtained.

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

4.5
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