![]() | ![]() |
Formats:
|
||||||||||||||||
Electrical characterization of protein molecules by a solid-state nanopore Department of Physics, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 a)Department of Biological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701. b)Author to whom correspondence should be addressed; electronic mail: jialili/at/uark.edu Abstract The authors measured ionic current blockages caused by protein translocation through voltage-biased silicon nitride nanopores in ionic solution. By calculating the mean amplitude, time duration, and the integral of current blockages, they estimated the relative charge and size of protein molecules at a single molecule level. The authors measured the change in protein charge of bovine serum albumin (BSA) protein induced by pH variation. They also confirmed that BSA molecules indeed traverse nanopores using an improved chemiluminescent analysis. They demonstrated that a larger protein fibrinogen could be distinguished from BSA by a solid-state nanopore measurement. Measuring the charge and structural properties of individual protein molecules as well as the distribution of these properties in their native environment is currently a great challenge. Ionic current blockages measured in voltage biased nanofabricated pores have been used to sense nanoparticles and molecules of protein and DNA,1–7 inspired by the pioneer work on measuring single polymers in protein channels.8,9 There has been remarkable progress in the study of polymer translocation in protein pores and a recent study shows that polymer size can be resolved at high resolution.10 However, the ionic current signature and the dynamics of a charged protein molecule moving in a solid-state nanopore need to be studied. In this letter, we report our observations of well-defined current blockage signals due to single protein molecules traversing silicon nitride nanopores. We measured the changes of bovine serum albumin (BSA) as a function of pH, and studied how the protein size and structure affect the blockage signal by comparing a larger fibrinogen protein with BSA. These studies are important milestones in the development of solid-state nanopore devices for fast protein characterization. The main component of a nanopore sensing system [Fig. 1(a)
BSA (66 430 Da, Sigma) has an isoelectric point (PI) ranging from pH 5.1 to 5.5;11 thus the protein has an overall negative charge (−18e) at pH 7. Applying 120 mV voltage to an ~16 nm diameter pore in a solution of 0.4M KCl at pH 7.0, I0~7.4 nA was measured. After addition of BSA to the negatively biased cis chamber, downward blockage events occurred [Fig. 1(b) When the pH of the chamber solution was lowered to acidic conditions (pH<5), current blockages disappeared if the trans chamber remained positively biased. However, when the trans chamber was switched to negatively biased, current blockages appeared again, as shown in Fig. 1(c) If the dimensions of a protein molecule are close to that of a nanopore, dm~Dp and lm~Heff, where dm and lm are the diameter and length of the protein molecule and Dp and Heff are the diameter and the effective membrane thickness of the pore; theoretical description for the resistance change of the pore caused by the protein molecule translocation is complicated. However, we neglect the interaction between a protein molecule and the nanopore (free translocation); based on Ohm's law and the work by DeBlois and Bean,13 the parameters of ΔIb, td, and Aecd can be approximately described below,
If we assume that a BSA molecule in a nanopore is a rigid particle diffusing in one dimension under the influence of an electric force F=QV/Heff with an average drift velocity νBSA=Heff/td using Einstein relation, the effective diffusion constant was estimated to be Deff=(kBT) νBSA/F~10−10 cm2/s. This value is three orders of magnitude smaller than it is in bulk solution (D~10−7 cm2/s).15 The estimated characteristic time for a BSA molecule to diffuse a length of Heff would be τeff=(Heff)2/Deff~10 ms in a nanopore. Comparing to td~102 μs for BSA measured at pH 7, this analysis suggests that there is a strong confinement for a BSA molecule in a nanopore. To confirm the current blockages observed were due to BSA molecules translocating from the cis to the trans chamber via a nanopore, the trans chamber solution was collected after a BSA translocation experiment and subsequently used for an improved chemiluminescent BSA enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (supplemental materials). An 18 nm diameter pore with 200 mV bias voltage and an increased concentration of BSA protein (100 μM) in the cis chamber were used to increase the rate of blockage events. The translocation experiment lasted ~50 h and the estimated number of blockages was ~2×107. The event trigger level was set so that cluster 2 events were not counted. An immunoenzymetric assay kit (Cygnus Technologies, Catalog No. F030) and a chemiluminescent substrate (Lumigen PS-atto, Lumigen) were used to quantify the amount of BSA in the trans sample. The luminescence signal generated from the reaction of the substrate with the horse radish peroxidase (HRP) on the anti-BSA/HRP-labeled antibody was measured. The chemiluminescent intensity analysis (Fig. 3
To characterize how the size (M) and the structure of protein molecules change current blockages, fibrinogen, a protein with charge (−16e) similar to BSA but larger in size (340 000 Da, Sigma) was studied. A schematic model of the fibrinogen structure16 describes it as an elongated molecule ~47.5 nm long, featuring three nodule regions, as illustrated in Fig. 4(a)
A larger ΔIb for fibrinogen can be attributed to a larger d2mlm as indicated in Eq. (1), although when lmHeff, Eq. (1) is not accurate. A longer td was expected based on Eq. (2) because the ratio of M/Q is about five times larger for fibrinogen than BSA. Considering the charge distribution and the structure [Fig. 4(a) In summary, by measuring the change in current caused by protein molecules traversing a nanopore, this work demonstrated that the relative charge and size of protein molecules could be estimated based on the values of ΔIb, td, and Aecd. This nanopore technique can measure properties of individual protein molecules sequentially and would allow one to determine the distribution of these properties in real time and under natural conditions. The results presented here suggest that by using a marker protein with a known charge, conformation, and size, a solid-state nanopore can be used to characterize unknown proteins. Furthermore, if the spatial and temporal resolutions of the nanopore sensing system can be improved, structural features of protein molecules could be measured in more detail. Acknowledgments The authors thank J. Golovchenko for the assistance of focused ion beam hole preparation and valuable comments in this letter, and M. Xiao, S. Singh, and Ryan Rollings for helpful comments. This work was supported by NSF/MRSEC under Contract Nos. 0080054, ABI-PT06, and NIH1R21HG003290. 2 Click here to view.(91K, pdf) References 1. Han A, Schurmann G, Mondin G, Bitterli RA, Hegelbach NG, de Rooij NF, Staufer U. Appl. Phys. Lett. 2006;88:093901. 2. Ito T, Sun L, Crooks RM. Anal. Chem. 2003;75:2399. [PubMed] 3. Saleh OA, Sohn LL. Nano Lett. 2003;3:37. 4. Li J, Gershow M, Stein D, Brandin E, Golovchenko JA. Nat. Mater. 2003;2:611. [PubMed] 5. Heng JB, Ho C, Kim T, Timp R, Aksimentiev A, Grinkova YV, Sligar S, Schulten K, Timp G. Biophys. J. 2004;87:2905. [PubMed] 6. Fologea D, Gershow M, Ledden B, McNabb DS, Golovchenko JA, Li J. Nano Lett. 2005;5:1905. [PubMed] 7. Storm AJ, Chen JH, Zandbergen HW, Dekker C. Phys. Rev. E. 2005;71:051903. 8. Bezrukov SM, Vodyanoy I, Parasegian VA. Nature (London). 1994;370:279. [PubMed] 9. Kasianowicz JJ, Brandin E, Branton D, Deamer DW. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 1996;93:13770. [PubMed] 10. Robertson JWF, Rodrigues CG, Stanford VM, Rubinson LA, Krasilinikov OV, Kasianowicz JJ. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2007;104:8207. [PubMed] 11. Peters TJ. Adv. Protein Chem. 1985;37:161. [PubMed] 12. Collins BE, Dancil K-PS, Abbi G, Sailor MJ. Adv. Funct. Mater. 2002;12:187. 13. DeBlois RW, Bean CP. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 1970;41:909. 14. Bloomfield V. Biochemistry. 1966;5:684. [PubMed] 15. Krougova T, Vercammen J, Engelborghs Y. Biophys. J. 2004;87:2635. [PubMed] 16. Fuss C, Palmaz JC, Sprague EA. J. Vasc. Interv. Radiol. 2001;12:677. [PubMed] |
PubMed related articles
Your browsing activity is empty. Activity recording is turned off. |
|||||||||||||||
Nature. 1994 Jul 28; 370(6487):279-81.
[Nature. 1994]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996 Nov 26; 93(24):13770-3.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1996]Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007 May 15; 104(20):8207-11.
[Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007]Nano Lett. 2005 Oct; 5(10):1905-9.
[Nano Lett. 2005]Nat Mater. 2003 Sep; 2(9):611-5.
[Nat Mater. 2003]Adv Protein Chem. 1985; 37():161-245.
[Adv Protein Chem. 1985]Biochemistry. 1966 Feb; 5(2):684-9.
[Biochemistry. 1966]Adv Protein Chem. 1985; 37():161-245.
[Adv Protein Chem. 1985]Biophys J. 2004 Oct; 87(4):2635-46.
[Biophys J. 2004]J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001 Jun; 12(6):677-82.
[J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2001]