4.7 Article

Silicon nanoparticles coated with an epitope-imprinted polymer for fluorometric determination of cytochrome c

期刊

MICROCHIMICA ACTA
卷 185, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SPRINGER WIEN
DOI: 10.1007/s00604-018-2724-7

关键词

Composite; Fluorescence quenching; Dual epitope imprinting; Recognition; Molecularly imprinted polymer; Chelation; Discrimination ability; Fixation methods

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [21275078, 21475069, 21775077]
  2. Tianjin Natural Science Foundation [16JCZDJC37200]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The authors describe a composite consisting of silicon nanoparticles that were first coated with SiO2 and then with a molecularly imprinted polymer (SiNP@SiO2@MIP). The MIP was generated by dual epitope imprinting such that it can recognize cytochrome c (Cyt c). The MIP on the NPs was prepared from the functional monomer zinc(II) acrylate (ZnA), the crosslinker ethylene glycol dimethacrylate and the initiator 2,2'-azoisobutyronitrile. Dual epitope templates for Cyt c included (a) a C-terminal nonapeptide (AYLKKATNE), and (b) an N-terminal nonapeptide (GDVEKGKKI). The chelation between Zn(II) of ZnA and the amino groups or hydroxy groups of the template nonapeptides warrants good recognition and capture of Cyt c. The fluorescence originating from SiNPs has excitation/emission peaks at 360/480 nm and is quenched by Cyt c in the 0.50-40.0 mu M concentration range. The correlation coefficient for the calibration plot of the imprinted NPs is 0.9937. The detection limit is 0.32 +/- 0.01 mu M, the precisions of six replicate detections at levels of 0.5, 20 and 40 mu MCyt c are 3.2, 2.7 and 2.8%, respectively, and the imprinting factor is 2.43. Compared to single epitope template imprinting, dual epitope imprinting results in improved selectivity. The imprinted nanoparticles can discriminate Cyt c even if one amino acid is mismatched. The method was applied to the determination of Cyt c in spiked diluted human serum and gave recoveries between 94.0 and 107.5%.

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

4.7
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