4.5 Article

Elucidating the binding mechanism between bovine serum albumin and TiO2 nanoparticles with diverse properties: Insights from spectroscopic methods and molecular docking simulation

期刊

CHEMICAL PHYSICS
卷 573, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.chemphys.2023.111993

关键词

TiO2; Surface modification; BSA; Hydrophobicity; Conformational influence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction mechanism between bovine serum albumin (BSA) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles of different shapes, surface charges, and hydrophobic properties was studied. The results showed that the binding capacities of the nanoparticles with BSA varied, with spherical TiO2 > rod-shaped TiO2 > positively charged TiO2 > hydrophobic TiO2. The conformation of BSA was minimally affected by spherical, rod-shaped, and positively charged TiO2, while hydrophobic TiO2 had a greater effect. Molecular docking and MD simulations indicated that the content of hydroxyl groups played a key role in the binding capacity.
The interaction mechanism between bovine serum albumin (BSA) and titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles with different shapes, surface charge and hydrophobic properties was studied using multiple spectral methods and molecular docking simulation. UV-vis spectra showed that when BSA interacted with the four TiO2 NPs, the TiO2 nanoparticles and BSA formed a stable ground state complex. Fluorescence spectra showed that the binding capacities of four different types of TiO2 nanoparticles with BSA are as follows: spherical TiO2 (s-TiO2) > rodshaped TiO2 (r-TiO2) > positively charged TiO2 (c-TiO2) > hydrophobic TiO2 (h-TiO2). The results of synchronous fluorescence, circular dichroism (CD) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy revealed that sTiO2, r-TiO2, and c-TiO2 have a weak effect on the conformation of BSA, whereas h-TiO2 has a greater effect. Molecular docking and MD simulations results show that the content of hydroxyl groups plays a key role in the binding capacity.

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