4.8 Article

Superhydrophobic effect on the adsorption of human serum albumin

期刊

ACTA BIOMATERIALIA
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 1389-1398

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.actbio.2008.11.003

关键词

Protein adsorption; Interphase; Surface; Radiometry; Depletion

资金

  1. National Institute of Health [R21 EB006093, 2R01HL069965]
  2. American Chemical Society Petroleum Research Fund [44523-AC5]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analytical protocol greatly influences the measurement of human serum albumin (HSA) adsorption to commercial expanded polytetrafluororethylene (ePTFE) exhibiting superhydrophobic wetting properties. Degassing of buffer solutions and evacuation of ePTFE adsorbent to remove trapped air immediately prior to contact with protein solutions are shown to be essential. Results obtained with ePTFE as a prototypical superhydrophobic test material suggest that vacuum degassing should be applied in the measurement of protein adsorption to any surface exhibiting superhydrophobicity. Solution depletion quantified using radiometry (I-125-labeled HSA) or electrophoresis yield different measures of adsorption, with nearly 4-fold higher surface concentrations of unlabeled HSA measured by the electrophoresis method. This outcome is attributed to the influence of the radiolabel on HSA hydrophilicity which decreases radiolabeled-HSA affinity for a hydrophobic adsorbent in comparison to unlabeled HSA. These results indicate that radiometry underestimates the actual amount of protein adsorbed to a particular material. Removal of radiolabeled HSA adsorbed to ePTFE by 3x serial buffer rinses also shows that the remaining bound fraction was about 35% lower than the amount measured by radiometric depletion. This observation implies that measurement of protein bound after surface rinsing significantly underestimates the actual amount of protein concentrated by adsorption into the surface region of a protein-contacting material. (c) 2008 Acta Materialia Inc. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.8
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