4.8 Article

Functional-Group Specific Aptamers Indirectly Recognizing Compounds with Alkyl Amino Group

期刊

ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY
卷 84, 期 17, 页码 7323-7329

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/ac300281u

关键词

-

资金

  1. Grant 973 Program [2011CB935800, 2011CB911000]
  2. NSF of China [21075124, 20805049]
  3. 863 Program [2008AA02Z206]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aptamers are usually generated against a specific molecule. Their high selectivity makes them only suitable for studying specific targets. Since it is nearly impossible to generate aptamers for every molecule, it can be of great interest to select aptamers recognizing a common feature of a group of molecules in many applications. In this paper, we describe the selection of aptamers for indirect recognition of alkyl amino groups. Because amino groups are small and positive charged, we introduced a protection group, p-nitrobenzene sulfonyl (p-nosyl) to convert them into a form suitable for aptamer selection. Taking N-epsilon-p-nosyl-L-lysine (PSL) as a target, we obtained a group of aptamers using the SELEX technique. Two optimized aptamers, M6b-M14 and M13a exhibit strong affinity to PSL with the K-d values in the range of 2-5 mu M. They also show strong affinity to other compounds containing p-nosyl-protected amino groups except those also possessing an alpha-carboxyl group. Both aptamers adopt an antiparallel G-quadruplex structure when binding to targets. An aptamer beacon based on M6b-M14 showed good selectivity toward the reaction mixture of p-nosyl-Cl and alkyl amino compounds, and could recognize lysine from amino acid mixtures indirectly, suggesting that aptamers against a common moiety of a certain type of molecules can potentially lead to many new applications. Through this study, we have demonstrated the ability to select aptamers for a specific part of an organic compound, and the chemical conversion approach may prove to be valuable for aptamer selection against molecules that are generally difficult for SELEX.

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