Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-r6qrq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T03:22:15.523Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Scheme for Blocking Non-Specific Antibody Binding on Single Wall Carbon Nanotubes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Kasif Teker
Kasif Teker*
Affiliation:
kteker@frostburg.edu, Frostburg State University, Physics and Engineering, 101 Braddock Rd., 123A Compton Science Center, Frostburg, MD, 21532, United States, (301) 687-4339
Get access

Abstract

Carbon nanotubes have many unique properties such as high surface area, hollow cavities, and excellent mechanical and electrical properties. Interfacing carbon nanotubes with biological systems could lead to significant applications in various disease diagnoses. Significant progress in interfacing carbon nanotubes with biological materials has been made in key areas such as aqueous solubility, chemical and biological functionalization for biocompatibility and specificity, and electronic sensing of proteins. Bioconjugated nanotubes combined with the sensitive nanotube-based electronic devices would enable sensitive biosensors toward medical diagnostic. Furthermore, recent findings of improved cell membrane permeability for carbon nanotubes would also expand medical applications to therapeutics using carbon nanotubes as carriers in gene delivery systems. One of the main issues in nanobio systems is the specificity, which requires biofunctionalization of nanomaterials for recognition of only one type of target biomolecule. This study presents an effective functionalization scheme for preventing non-specific antibody binding on nanotubes. Non-specific antibody binding on nanotubes was successfully prevented by co-adsorption of a bio-compatible polymer PEG and a surfactant (NaDDBS) on nanotubes. Optical studies through confocal microscopy revealed very minimal non-specific antibody binding on the PEG/NaDDBS-coated nanotubes (WCC < 0.05) compared to high degree of non-specific antibody binding on nanotubes without PEG pretreatment (WCC > 0.80), as determined by weighted co-localization coefficients (WCC). In addition to the confocal microscopy studies, electronic detection studies revealed that PEG/NaDDBS pretreated devices exhibited very little conductance change due to antibody adsorption compared to the devices without any PEG/NaDDBS pretreatment. These findings indicate that the PEG/NaDDBS pretreatment is a very effective functionalization scheme in preventing non-specific antibody binding on nanotubes.

Keywords

biomedicalsensornanoscale
Type
Research Article
Information
MRS Online Proceedings Library (OPL) , Volume 1092: Symposium BB – Signal Transduction Across the Biology-Technology Interface , 2008 , 1092-BB02-07
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dai, H., Hafner, J. H., Rinzler, A. G., Colbert, D. T., Smalley, R. E., Nature 384, 147 (1996).Google Scholar
2. Heer, W. A. De, Chatelain, A., Ugarte, D., Science 270, 1179 (1995).Google Scholar
3. Kong, J., Franklin, N. R., Zhou, C., Chapline, M. G., Peng, S., Cho, K., Dai, H., Science 287, 622 (2000).Google Scholar
4. Martel, R., Schmidt, T., Shea, H. R., Hertel, T., and Avouris, P., Appl. Phys. Lett. 73, 2447 (1998).Google Scholar
5. Wong, S. S., Joselevich, E., Woolley, A., Cheung, C.L., Lieber, C.M., Nature 394, 52 (1998).Google Scholar
6. Panchapakesan, B., Cesarone, G., Teker, K., and Wickstrom, E., NanoBiotechnology 1, 353 (2005).Google Scholar
7. Li, C et al., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127, 12484 (2005).Google Scholar
8. Davis, J. J. et al, Inorg. Chem. Acta 272, 261 (1998).Google Scholar
9. Chen, R. J., Zhang, Y., Wang, D., and Dai, H., J. Am. Chem. Soc. 123, 3838 (2001).Google Scholar
10. Shim, M., Kam, N. W. S., Chen, R. J., Li, Y., Dai, H., Nano Lett. 2, 285 (2002).Google Scholar
11. Huang, W. et al., Nano Lett. 2, 311 (2002).Google Scholar
12. Manders, E. M. M., Verbeek, F. J., Aten, J. A., J. Microscopy 169, 375 (1993).Google Scholar
13. Teker, K., Wickstrom, E., and Panchapakesan, B., IEEE Sensors Journal 6, 1422 (2006).Google Scholar
14. Bradley, K., Briman, M., Star, A., and Gruner, G., Nano Lett. 4, 253 (2004).Google Scholar
15. Bradley, K., Gabriel, J. C. P., Briman, M., Star, A., and Gruner, G., Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 218301 (2003).Google Scholar
16. Chang, H., Lee, J. D., Lee, S. M., and Lee, Y.H., Appl. Phys. Lett. 79, 3863 (2001).Google Scholar
17. Kong, J. and Dai, H., J. Phys. Chem. B 105, 2890 (2001).Google Scholar