4.6 Article

Impact of multiple quaternary ammonium salts on dynamic properties of BSA adsorption layer at different pH values

期刊

SOFT MATTER
卷 13, 期 40, 页码 7273-7282

出版社

ROYAL SOC CHEMISTRY
DOI: 10.1039/c7sm01607g

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21403017, 21473125]
  2. Bagui Scholar Program of Guangxi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The interaction mechanism of multiple quaternary ammonium salts (MQAS) with bovine serum albumin (BSA) was examined by the fluorescence quenching method and circular dichroism (CD) spectra. Moreover, the effects of MQAS on the dynamic properties of BSA adsorption layers at different pH values were investigated using dilational interfacial rheology. Results show that the quenching constants increase with an increase in pH values and decrease with an increase in the experiment temperature at pH 5.3. The quenching mechanism is static quenching, and the electrostatic force dominates the interaction between MQAS and BSA at pH 5.3. Due to three positive head groups, MQAS can significantly affect the dynamic interfacial activity of BSA molecules at a relatively low concentration. At pH 4.3, the electrostatic repulsion is unfavorable for the formation of MQAS/BSA complexes. Consequently, MQAS molecules will replace BSA molecules from the interface by competitive adsorption. At the pH value above the isoelectric point of BSA, the electrostatic attraction is better for the formation of MQAS/BSA complexes, which exhibit a rapid adsorption rate and an enhanced interfacial activity. Moreover, the kinetic dependencies of interfacial dilational elasticity for the MQAS/BSA mixtures become nonmonotonous. The appearance of the maximum interfacial elasticity values can be attributed to the formation of tails and loops, which suggests that the addition of MQAS destroys the secondary and tertiary structure of protein in the bulk phase. In addition, the effects of MQAS on the secondary structure of protein were demonstrated by CD spectra.

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